Arguments based on authority are those in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an authority said it is true. As such, it is an obvious logical fallacy because the truth of a proposition is unrelated to what people say about it. Every authority figure ever known has been wrong about things on occasion--some of them quite often. And, the more distant in history an authority is, the more we find that he was wrong about things as science moves forward and discovers actual evidence about the world.
People often believe authorities because we are unable to spend the time and effort to become authorities ourselves on each and every subject in our lives. We rely on authorities on the assumption that they have spent sufficient time and effort investigating the area of their expertise to know what is true or not in that area.
Authorities in theology, however, have nothing to study except the works of other authorities in the field. There simply is no objective evidence to study. That makes theology a classic example of the second reason why an argument based on authority is a logical fallacy. Not only is there no necessary connection between the truth and the opinion of the authority, sometimes people, including authority figures, think something is true because other authority figures said it was--thus causing a circular loop in reasoning.
(This argument is also closely tied to the argumentum ad popularum--the argument that a lot of people believe. They usually believe because an authority told them it was true. Thus the popularity of belief, itself a logical fallacy when offered as proof, is based on yet another logical fallacy.)
Guy P. Harrison's book, "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God", gives several examples of arguments based on authority:
A sacred book proves my god is real.
Some very smart people believe in god.
Ancient prophecies prove my god exists.
People have gone to heaven and returned.
My religion is so old, it must be true.
Someone I trust told me that my god is real.
When you hear one of these arguments, point out the fallacy and the circular reasoning.
If you hear a citation to holy books or to ancient prophecies:
"Your reasoning is circular. Your holy book and prophecies are meaningful only because you believe; they don't prove the belief to be true."
If the person says that smart people believe or that someone he trusts told him it was true:
"That proves nothing. A lot of very smart people are atheists or belong to other religions. No human knows the truth of such things."
If he claims people have gone to heaven and returned:
"We have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, had hallucinations or are delusional."
Previously, I mentioned that anyone who claims to know the secrets of the universe's origins is either a liar, a madman or a fool. Well, the one who says he knows because some else told him is clearly the fool because anyone who takes the word of another person for something that no human being can possibly know is obviously a fool.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Burden of Proof III
I have already pointed out the many reasons that theists bear the burden of proving that their god exists. In brief, they are:
1. Theists are the proponents of the hypothesis.
2. The negative of the hypothesis can never be proven.
3. The hypothesis is extraordinary and thus requires extraordinary proof, yet absolutely no proof exists.
4. In such cases, the absence of evidence for the hypothesis meets whatever burden the skeptic has regarding proof and gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the thing hypothesized does not exist.
In spite of all of this, theists will insist that non-believers prove that god doesn't exist and will argue that the non-believer's inability to explain the existence of the universe leads inevitably to the conclusion that god must exist.
Note that they are attempting to put the burden of proof entirely on the non-believer as to two impossible questions: proving the non-existence of god and explaining the universe's existence. Yet it is they who have asserted that they have answers to both of these questions.
Non-believers can respond by pointing out what they are doing and then saying:
"You are the one claiming to know things you can't possibly know. All I know is that you haven't proven your case and, in the past when similar assertions became testable (Atlas, the Zephyrs), it turned out that there was a natural explanation that didn't involve invisible magic men."
Or, a more brief version:
"No human being knows that, but what I know is that theories about invisible people with magic powers are obviously nonsense."
If the believer insists on his point, then turn his logic around on him and dare him to prove that Atlas or the Zephyrs don't exist. Claim that these ancient gods are using their magic powers to make us think gravity exists and that the wind is caused by the heat of the sun and the earth's shape and rotation.
The goal is to make the believer admit that absence of evidence for these ancient gods proves they don't exist. He or she knows perfectly well that this is true, but is being dishonest about the application of that rule of logic to his or her favorite god.
1. Theists are the proponents of the hypothesis.
2. The negative of the hypothesis can never be proven.
3. The hypothesis is extraordinary and thus requires extraordinary proof, yet absolutely no proof exists.
4. In such cases, the absence of evidence for the hypothesis meets whatever burden the skeptic has regarding proof and gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the thing hypothesized does not exist.
In spite of all of this, theists will insist that non-believers prove that god doesn't exist and will argue that the non-believer's inability to explain the existence of the universe leads inevitably to the conclusion that god must exist.
Note that they are attempting to put the burden of proof entirely on the non-believer as to two impossible questions: proving the non-existence of god and explaining the universe's existence. Yet it is they who have asserted that they have answers to both of these questions.
Non-believers can respond by pointing out what they are doing and then saying:
"You are the one claiming to know things you can't possibly know. All I know is that you haven't proven your case and, in the past when similar assertions became testable (Atlas, the Zephyrs), it turned out that there was a natural explanation that didn't involve invisible magic men."
Or, a more brief version:
"No human being knows that, but what I know is that theories about invisible people with magic powers are obviously nonsense."
If the believer insists on his point, then turn his logic around on him and dare him to prove that Atlas or the Zephyrs don't exist. Claim that these ancient gods are using their magic powers to make us think gravity exists and that the wind is caused by the heat of the sun and the earth's shape and rotation.
The goal is to make the believer admit that absence of evidence for these ancient gods proves they don't exist. He or she knows perfectly well that this is true, but is being dishonest about the application of that rule of logic to his or her favorite god.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Insanity of Religion
Most of our notions of mental illness are historically quite new. Only in the last century have we humans tried to understand ourselves. In past centuries only the most obviously mentally ill were identified as such. During much of human history even those who were blatantly mentally ill were not recognized as such. No effort was made to segregate them from the rest of society much less treat them. Thus, much of what should have been seen as insanity was instead simply accepted. Even now, human understanding of the limitations of the human mind is in its infancy, and most mental health professionals are doing little more than guessing as to what is an illness and what is healthy.
For the most part, this guesswork is premised on the assumption that whatever helps the individual get along with others and get through life is healthy. As a result diagnostic criteria contain exceptions for things that are believed or accepted by the majority of people. The definitions are not premised on notions of objective reality.
If a modern mental health practitioner treats a patient who thinks he is immortal, thinks he has an invisible friend with magic powers, thinks that his invisible friend also happens to be the most powerful being in the universe, describes his invisible friend as being brutal, controlling, egotistical and demanding, and says his invisible friend will "forgive" the patient for any transgression he commits without punishment or compensation to the victims, the practitioner would undoubtedly diagnose the patient as being dangerously insane. If the patient simply comes in to the mental health practitioner and says he is a devout religious person, the practitioner will think nothing of it, even though he has essentially said the same thing as the patient who was dangerously insane.
You can shorten this point a bit and use it whenever the believers ask something like "Do you think believers are just delusional?"
You can reply with some version of this:
"You think you are immortal and that you have an invisible friend with magic powers."
If necessary, you can point out that this invisible friend also seems to be crazy ("Worship me or I will torture you forever.") and that in the case of most people who have invisible friends, the invisible friend is simply a reflection of the person's inner self.
This point can also be used when arguing against those who say that religion is a good thing. Part of the reason it is not a good thing is that it undermines the believer's ability to think rationally about both morality and reality.
For the most part, this guesswork is premised on the assumption that whatever helps the individual get along with others and get through life is healthy. As a result diagnostic criteria contain exceptions for things that are believed or accepted by the majority of people. The definitions are not premised on notions of objective reality.
If a modern mental health practitioner treats a patient who thinks he is immortal, thinks he has an invisible friend with magic powers, thinks that his invisible friend also happens to be the most powerful being in the universe, describes his invisible friend as being brutal, controlling, egotistical and demanding, and says his invisible friend will "forgive" the patient for any transgression he commits without punishment or compensation to the victims, the practitioner would undoubtedly diagnose the patient as being dangerously insane. If the patient simply comes in to the mental health practitioner and says he is a devout religious person, the practitioner will think nothing of it, even though he has essentially said the same thing as the patient who was dangerously insane.
You can shorten this point a bit and use it whenever the believers ask something like "Do you think believers are just delusional?"
You can reply with some version of this:
"You think you are immortal and that you have an invisible friend with magic powers."
If necessary, you can point out that this invisible friend also seems to be crazy ("Worship me or I will torture you forever.") and that in the case of most people who have invisible friends, the invisible friend is simply a reflection of the person's inner self.
This point can also be used when arguing against those who say that religion is a good thing. Part of the reason it is not a good thing is that it undermines the believer's ability to think rationally about both morality and reality.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Moral Insanity of Religion
This particular post may seem to focus on Christianity, but because the god of Abraham is also the god of the Hebrews and the Muslims it will have some general application.
“I am now convinced that children should not be subjected to
the frightfulness of the Christian religion . . . If the concept of a
father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to
children as beautiful and as worthy of society's admiration, what
types of human behavior can be presented to them as
reprehensible?”
— Ruth Hurmence Green, Preface of Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible
The god of Abraham shows every sign of being deeply disturbed. His requirement is that we love and worship him or he will torture us forever. And, if he does torture us forever, it is our own fault for turning down his "love". This is precisely the sort of reasoning one might expect to hear from a man who is stalking his ex-girlfriend. It is not the way an emotionally healthy and sane individual thinks. (As I have mentioned in other posts, this reasoning has actually been presented to me by believers as if it were perfectly sane and rational.)
One of the most important stories in the old testament is that of Abraham and Isaac, where god is said to have ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac--i.e., murder him for god. As the story is told, Abraham went through all the preparations and was about to sacrifice his son but then god "spoke" to him at the last minute and stopped him. We are supposed to marvel at god's magnanimity and generosity. In truth, however, what everyone should marvel at is the fact that the moral depravity of this insane incident doesn't immediately shock all who hear it into abandoning any religion associated with it.
Today, such a parent would be declared unfit, have his parental rights revoked and perhaps even be institutionalized. He might be able to avoid this by claiming it was a part of his religion, but there is little doubt that most members of his community, even those who sing god's praises in church on Sunday for sparing Isaac, would call child protective services and be appalled if nothing were done to remove the child from the home. One can only guess at the psychological damage done to Isaac by this little incident.
Modern believers make much of the need for the moral guidance of their god. But, what kind of guide is he, really? The racist, mass-murdering god of Abraham, doesn't seem to have valued life very much:
- - - - -
1 Sam.15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ...
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have, and spare them not; but
slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass."
Num.21:6 "And the LORD sent fiery serpents among
the people, and they bit the people; and much
people of Israel died."
Num.11:1 "And when the people complained, it
displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it and
his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD
burnt among them, and consumed them that were in
the uttermost parts of the camp."
Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for
she hath rebelled against her God: they shall
fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed
in pieces, and their women with child shall be
ripped up."
Gen.7:21-23 (God drowns everything that breathes
air in the Great Flood.)
Gen.19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD
out of heaven; (killing innocent children, among
others).
Exod.12:12 For I will pass through the land of
Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn
in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and
against all the gods of Egypt I will execute
judgment: I am the LORD.
Exod.23:27 I will send my fear before thee, and
will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt
come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their
backs unto thee. (the prior residents of the
promised land are all to be killed)
Num.16:20-35 (Because of a dispute between Korah
and Moses, God has the ground open up and swallow
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram "and their wives, and
their sons, and their little children." Then, just
for the hell of it, God has a fire burn to death
250 "men that offered incense.")
Num.21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of
Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they
utterly destroyed them and their cities (including
infants, no doubt)
Num.31 (God directs Moses to kill the Midiamites,
except the virgins)
Deut.2:34 And we took all his cities at that time,
and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and
the little ones, of every city, we left none to
remain: (in Heshborn)
Deut.20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered
it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword:
Deut.32:23-26 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I
will spend mine arrows upon them. / / They shall
be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning
heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send
the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of
serpents of the dust. / / The sword without, and
terror within, shall destroy both the young man and
the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray
hairs. / / I said, I would scatter them into
corners, I would make the remembrance of them to
cease from among men: (He kills all, including
infants)
Jud.11:21 And the LORD God of Israel delivered
Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel,
and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the
land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that
country.
Jud.20:35 And the LORD smote Benjamin before
Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of
the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand
and an hundred men: all these drew the sword.
I Sam.6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh,
because they had looked into the ark of the LORD,
even he smote of the people fifty thousand and
threescore and ten men: and the people lamented,
because the LORD had smitten many of the people
with a great slaughter.
I once asked a fundamentalist to explain to me how he could worship a god, and hold that god up as a source of virtue, who ordered bears to tear 42 children apart for the "horrible sin" of making fun of Elisha the prophet's bald head. ((2 Kings 2:23-25) He had no answer at first. He said he would talk to his pastor about it. After doing so, he came back to me and told me that his pastor said that "it just shows that you don't mess with god's messenger".
So there you have it: God is just a psychopathic bully--according to his own spokespeople.
The alleged version of god in the new testament doesn't seem to have improved very much either. The moral insanity of the christian religion is apparent even in its central myth. Apparently, god was so mad at mankind (for being exactly as he made us), that he just had to kill someone. Rather than kill all of us or almost all of us (as he is alleged to have done once before with a flood), he decided to have a child and kill it just to get his anger out of his system. (I guess that is a bit of an improvement, maybe.)
Why a god who created the universe couldn't just use his magic powers to fix things is never explained. Nor is it explained why a god capable of creating the entire universe is so emotional and irrational and interested in such an insignificant part of the cosmos as ourselves.
If you point these things out, you will get back some meaningless blather about the mystery of god's will, which is just a long-winded way of saying "I don't know". It's a mystery to me why the religious can't just admit that they don't know as soon as it becomes true, such as before resorting to the god hypothesis to "explain" the existence of the universe. It seems to me that only arrogance and vanity can explain such behavior.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, the religious have a very skewed view of morality. Most theists are trapped in an infantile state of moral development where what is "good" is obedience to authority combined with a determination to control one's private parts. (That is why they have no trouble watching movies with appalling violence but become outraged at any nudity.) In short, they are pathologically anal retentive.
I guess if your moral authority is a psychopath and his spokespeople are greedy liars and child molesters, then absolute acceptance of the proclamations of the authority figures is the only way one can maintain the fiction that one is a member of a good group and that one's cherished delusions are real. Those who peddle this insanity for a living have every reason to keep the sheep in this subjective, non-thinking state.
“I am now convinced that children should not be subjected to
the frightfulness of the Christian religion . . . If the concept of a
father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to
children as beautiful and as worthy of society's admiration, what
types of human behavior can be presented to them as
reprehensible?”
— Ruth Hurmence Green, Preface of Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible
The god of Abraham shows every sign of being deeply disturbed. His requirement is that we love and worship him or he will torture us forever. And, if he does torture us forever, it is our own fault for turning down his "love". This is precisely the sort of reasoning one might expect to hear from a man who is stalking his ex-girlfriend. It is not the way an emotionally healthy and sane individual thinks. (As I have mentioned in other posts, this reasoning has actually been presented to me by believers as if it were perfectly sane and rational.)
One of the most important stories in the old testament is that of Abraham and Isaac, where god is said to have ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac--i.e., murder him for god. As the story is told, Abraham went through all the preparations and was about to sacrifice his son but then god "spoke" to him at the last minute and stopped him. We are supposed to marvel at god's magnanimity and generosity. In truth, however, what everyone should marvel at is the fact that the moral depravity of this insane incident doesn't immediately shock all who hear it into abandoning any religion associated with it.
Today, such a parent would be declared unfit, have his parental rights revoked and perhaps even be institutionalized. He might be able to avoid this by claiming it was a part of his religion, but there is little doubt that most members of his community, even those who sing god's praises in church on Sunday for sparing Isaac, would call child protective services and be appalled if nothing were done to remove the child from the home. One can only guess at the psychological damage done to Isaac by this little incident.
Modern believers make much of the need for the moral guidance of their god. But, what kind of guide is he, really? The racist, mass-murdering god of Abraham, doesn't seem to have valued life very much:
- - - - -
1 Sam.15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ...
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have, and spare them not; but
slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass."
Num.21:6 "And the LORD sent fiery serpents among
the people, and they bit the people; and much
people of Israel died."
Num.11:1 "And when the people complained, it
displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it and
his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD
burnt among them, and consumed them that were in
the uttermost parts of the camp."
Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for
she hath rebelled against her God: they shall
fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed
in pieces, and their women with child shall be
ripped up."
Gen.7:21-23 (God drowns everything that breathes
air in the Great Flood.)
Gen.19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD
out of heaven; (killing innocent children, among
others).
Exod.12:12 For I will pass through the land of
Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn
in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and
against all the gods of Egypt I will execute
judgment: I am the LORD.
Exod.23:27 I will send my fear before thee, and
will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt
come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their
backs unto thee. (the prior residents of the
promised land are all to be killed)
Num.16:20-35 (Because of a dispute between Korah
and Moses, God has the ground open up and swallow
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram "and their wives, and
their sons, and their little children." Then, just
for the hell of it, God has a fire burn to death
250 "men that offered incense.")
Num.21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of
Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they
utterly destroyed them and their cities (including
infants, no doubt)
Num.31 (God directs Moses to kill the Midiamites,
except the virgins)
Deut.2:34 And we took all his cities at that time,
and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and
the little ones, of every city, we left none to
remain: (in Heshborn)
Deut.20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered
it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword:
Deut.32:23-26 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I
will spend mine arrows upon them. / / They shall
be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning
heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send
the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of
serpents of the dust. / / The sword without, and
terror within, shall destroy both the young man and
the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray
hairs. / / I said, I would scatter them into
corners, I would make the remembrance of them to
cease from among men: (He kills all, including
infants)
Jud.11:21 And the LORD God of Israel delivered
Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel,
and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the
land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that
country.
Jud.20:35 And the LORD smote Benjamin before
Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of
the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand
and an hundred men: all these drew the sword.
I Sam.6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh,
because they had looked into the ark of the LORD,
even he smote of the people fifty thousand and
threescore and ten men: and the people lamented,
because the LORD had smitten many of the people
with a great slaughter.
I once asked a fundamentalist to explain to me how he could worship a god, and hold that god up as a source of virtue, who ordered bears to tear 42 children apart for the "horrible sin" of making fun of Elisha the prophet's bald head. ((2 Kings 2:23-25) He had no answer at first. He said he would talk to his pastor about it. After doing so, he came back to me and told me that his pastor said that "it just shows that you don't mess with god's messenger".
So there you have it: God is just a psychopathic bully--according to his own spokespeople.
The alleged version of god in the new testament doesn't seem to have improved very much either. The moral insanity of the christian religion is apparent even in its central myth. Apparently, god was so mad at mankind (for being exactly as he made us), that he just had to kill someone. Rather than kill all of us or almost all of us (as he is alleged to have done once before with a flood), he decided to have a child and kill it just to get his anger out of his system. (I guess that is a bit of an improvement, maybe.)
Why a god who created the universe couldn't just use his magic powers to fix things is never explained. Nor is it explained why a god capable of creating the entire universe is so emotional and irrational and interested in such an insignificant part of the cosmos as ourselves.
If you point these things out, you will get back some meaningless blather about the mystery of god's will, which is just a long-winded way of saying "I don't know". It's a mystery to me why the religious can't just admit that they don't know as soon as it becomes true, such as before resorting to the god hypothesis to "explain" the existence of the universe. It seems to me that only arrogance and vanity can explain such behavior.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, the religious have a very skewed view of morality. Most theists are trapped in an infantile state of moral development where what is "good" is obedience to authority combined with a determination to control one's private parts. (That is why they have no trouble watching movies with appalling violence but become outraged at any nudity.) In short, they are pathologically anal retentive.
I guess if your moral authority is a psychopath and his spokespeople are greedy liars and child molesters, then absolute acceptance of the proclamations of the authority figures is the only way one can maintain the fiction that one is a member of a good group and that one's cherished delusions are real. Those who peddle this insanity for a living have every reason to keep the sheep in this subjective, non-thinking state.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Atheism vs. Agnosticism
Many people assume that agnosticism is more reasonable than atheism because one can't prove there is no god. This reasoning is based on two false assumptions. First, that you can't decide that something doesn't exist if you can't prove conclusively that it doesn't exist--which sneakily includes the false assumption that the atheist has to prove god doesn't exist. Second, that all propositions are equal.
The first proposition is demonstrably false. Just look at the way we all treat other propositions, such as unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, Zeus, and Thor, just to name a few. We have very little doubt that none of those things exist. Yet we can't prove they don't--at least not conclusively. So, how do we know they don't exist? Because there is no proof that they do. It isn't up to us to prove that god doesn't exist. The advocate of the proposition is the one who has to prove it. If there is no proof of a thing, the logical conclusion is that it doesn't exist, and you should simply say that.
"You know as well as I do that if there is no proof of a thing, the logical conclusion is that it doesn't exist. You apply this reasoning yourself all the time: to fairies, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, etc."
Also with regard to the first point, acknowledging that you could be wrong is not the same thing as being unable to make up your mind. This is something I would like to say to all agnostics. Atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief. Most atheists do not claim absolute certainty. In fact, I have met very few who refuse to admit that they could be wrong. But, if you let a seemingly remote possibility of error prevent you from making a decision, then you would never be able to make a decision about anything.
The possibility of being wrong should be sufficiently large to give one pause before one reserves judgment. If the possibility appears to be very small, then it should be nothing more than a reminder to be open minded to new evidence, should such ever appear.
Admitting the possibility that there could be a higher power doesn't necessarily make you agnostic. The question revolves around the likelihood that you assign to that probability, and the likelihood that a proposition is true varies with its nature.
Do you think the existence of god is about as likely to be true as the existence of fairies? If so, then you are probably an atheist. Do you think there is about a 50% chance (or some other significant probability)? Then you are probably agnostic.
You do not have to be 100% sure of god's nonexistence to be atheist. You need only lack a belief in god and be of the opinion that god's existence seems quite unlikely. There are different levels or types of atheism, those that claim to be a 100% sure are called "strong" or "positive" atheists. Some who consider themselves to be "strong" atheists will admit to an infinitesimal amount of uncertainty, but many positive or "strong" atheists, and all or almost all agnostics, think that one does have to be 100% certain.
The second point affects the amount of proof required. Not all propositions are equal. Like the question of assigning a probability, the amount of proof required should increase when the proposition is sufficiently extraordinary. Just as a great deal of proof would be required to prove the existence of unicorns or flying saucers, a great deal of proof would be required to prove the existence of the a supernatural being with unlimited (or nearly unlimited) magical powers. The odds of god's existence are not 50-50. The extraordinary nature of the proposition puts it in the same category of probability as unicorns, at best.
If you call yourself agnostic, but think that the possibility of god's existence is on a par with the probability that unicorns exist, then you are more properly classified as an atheist. You have misclassified yourself because you have mistakenly and implicitly bought into the false notion that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I discuss why this isn't true in other posts.
The first proposition is demonstrably false. Just look at the way we all treat other propositions, such as unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, Zeus, and Thor, just to name a few. We have very little doubt that none of those things exist. Yet we can't prove they don't--at least not conclusively. So, how do we know they don't exist? Because there is no proof that they do. It isn't up to us to prove that god doesn't exist. The advocate of the proposition is the one who has to prove it. If there is no proof of a thing, the logical conclusion is that it doesn't exist, and you should simply say that.
"You know as well as I do that if there is no proof of a thing, the logical conclusion is that it doesn't exist. You apply this reasoning yourself all the time: to fairies, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, etc."
Also with regard to the first point, acknowledging that you could be wrong is not the same thing as being unable to make up your mind. This is something I would like to say to all agnostics. Atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief. Most atheists do not claim absolute certainty. In fact, I have met very few who refuse to admit that they could be wrong. But, if you let a seemingly remote possibility of error prevent you from making a decision, then you would never be able to make a decision about anything.
The possibility of being wrong should be sufficiently large to give one pause before one reserves judgment. If the possibility appears to be very small, then it should be nothing more than a reminder to be open minded to new evidence, should such ever appear.
Admitting the possibility that there could be a higher power doesn't necessarily make you agnostic. The question revolves around the likelihood that you assign to that probability, and the likelihood that a proposition is true varies with its nature.
Do you think the existence of god is about as likely to be true as the existence of fairies? If so, then you are probably an atheist. Do you think there is about a 50% chance (or some other significant probability)? Then you are probably agnostic.
You do not have to be 100% sure of god's nonexistence to be atheist. You need only lack a belief in god and be of the opinion that god's existence seems quite unlikely. There are different levels or types of atheism, those that claim to be a 100% sure are called "strong" or "positive" atheists. Some who consider themselves to be "strong" atheists will admit to an infinitesimal amount of uncertainty, but many positive or "strong" atheists, and all or almost all agnostics, think that one does have to be 100% certain.
The second point affects the amount of proof required. Not all propositions are equal. Like the question of assigning a probability, the amount of proof required should increase when the proposition is sufficiently extraordinary. Just as a great deal of proof would be required to prove the existence of unicorns or flying saucers, a great deal of proof would be required to prove the existence of the a supernatural being with unlimited (or nearly unlimited) magical powers. The odds of god's existence are not 50-50. The extraordinary nature of the proposition puts it in the same category of probability as unicorns, at best.
If you call yourself agnostic, but think that the possibility of god's existence is on a par with the probability that unicorns exist, then you are more properly classified as an atheist. You have misclassified yourself because you have mistakenly and implicitly bought into the false notion that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I discuss why this isn't true in other posts.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
A Critique of Pure Reason
I have previously mentioned Dinesh D'Souza's repeated, cowardly assertions that Kant had proven that atheists were wrong and that if you didn't know what he was talking about then you were simply uneducated.
I pointed out that this was a subtle ad hominem argument. D'Souza would make these assertions repeatedly and never explain what exactly it was that Kant said that was so forceful and convincing. He would instead simply say that if you don't know because you haven't read Kant, then you are just "uneducated". I actually watched him do this on national television--repeatedly.
This is, of course, ridiculous. He was clearly hiding behind an authority figure and insulting anyone who disagreed--thus making the argument a combination of the logical fallacy of argument from authority and an ad hominem argument. When you get this offensive, dishonest nonsense, simply point out that the person is not actually making the argument that he claims is so compelling, which implies that he knows it is not compelling.
The truth is that virtually no one actually reads Kant at any length anymore except those studying for a degree in philosophy. The vast majority of people in modern society can be highly educated without ever reading Kant. He is just one of a number of philosophers in history who contributed a few ideas but whose actual works consist of thick tomes full of dense prose. Reading his works would be waste of time for anyone who is not studying for a degree in the subject. Most of us get enough exposure to his ideas just from reading more modern authors whose works include his ideas or by simply reading a textbook of basic philosophy. D'Souza knows this too. In fact, he is relying on it.
Apparently enough people pointed out D'Souza's cowardly tactics for him to finally come out of hiding and try to make the argument he said was so compelling. D'Souza's point was that Kant had explained why pure reason wasn't perfect. Why isn't it perfect? According to D'Souza:
"Kant showed that human knowledge is constrained not
merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by
a limited sensory apparatus of perception."
This, of course, hardly proves that atheists are wrong. In fact, this "argument" is really nothing more than a fancier and subtler version of "you can't prove god doesn't exist".
Besides, D'Souza is wrong for a more basic reason: Arguing that pure reason isn't perfect is not an argument for rejecting reason altogether, and when a person embraces religion, that person is rejecting reason. The quote from Diderot I used in an earlier post captures the absurdity of D'Souza's argument perfectly and shows that it's absurdity has long been recognized (which undoubtedly explains why D'Souza was so reluctant to actually state it out loud in public):
Later in his article D'Souza reveals why he thinks Kant has refuted atheism:
"It is essential to recognize that Kant isn't diminishing
the importance of experience. It is entirely rational for
us to use science and reason to discover the operating
principles of the world of experience. This world,
however, is not the only one there is." [Emphasis
added.]
And, there you have it: circular reasoning yet again. Like with so many other theist arguments, this specious argument carries no water at all unless one assumes there is another reality that cannot be delved by human senses or science--unless one has already assumed one's conclusion that a supernatural realm exists. (This is also a more subtle form of the "non-overlapping magisteria" argument popular in recent years.)
Like all such cautionary messages, Kant's reasoning justifies only the notion that we should strive to keep an open mind should new evidence ever actually appear--not that it is intellectually respectable to believe before such evidence appears. It is even more clear that Kant's work does not justify believing one claim about the supernatural and simultaneously rejecting all others based on skepticism, which is exactly what D'Souza does.
I pointed out that this was a subtle ad hominem argument. D'Souza would make these assertions repeatedly and never explain what exactly it was that Kant said that was so forceful and convincing. He would instead simply say that if you don't know because you haven't read Kant, then you are just "uneducated". I actually watched him do this on national television--repeatedly.
This is, of course, ridiculous. He was clearly hiding behind an authority figure and insulting anyone who disagreed--thus making the argument a combination of the logical fallacy of argument from authority and an ad hominem argument. When you get this offensive, dishonest nonsense, simply point out that the person is not actually making the argument that he claims is so compelling, which implies that he knows it is not compelling.
The truth is that virtually no one actually reads Kant at any length anymore except those studying for a degree in philosophy. The vast majority of people in modern society can be highly educated without ever reading Kant. He is just one of a number of philosophers in history who contributed a few ideas but whose actual works consist of thick tomes full of dense prose. Reading his works would be waste of time for anyone who is not studying for a degree in the subject. Most of us get enough exposure to his ideas just from reading more modern authors whose works include his ideas or by simply reading a textbook of basic philosophy. D'Souza knows this too. In fact, he is relying on it.
Apparently enough people pointed out D'Souza's cowardly tactics for him to finally come out of hiding and try to make the argument he said was so compelling. D'Souza's point was that Kant had explained why pure reason wasn't perfect. Why isn't it perfect? According to D'Souza:
"Kant showed that human knowledge is constrained not
merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by
a limited sensory apparatus of perception."
This, of course, hardly proves that atheists are wrong. In fact, this "argument" is really nothing more than a fancier and subtler version of "you can't prove god doesn't exist".
Besides, D'Souza is wrong for a more basic reason: Arguing that pure reason isn't perfect is not an argument for rejecting reason altogether, and when a person embraces religion, that person is rejecting reason. The quote from Diderot I used in an earlier post captures the absurdity of D'Souza's argument perfectly and shows that it's absurdity has long been recognized (which undoubtedly explains why D'Souza was so reluctant to actually state it out loud in public):
“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.”
— Denis Diderot, Addition to Philosophical Thoughts (c. 1762)
Later in his article D'Souza reveals why he thinks Kant has refuted atheism:
"It is essential to recognize that Kant isn't diminishing
the importance of experience. It is entirely rational for
us to use science and reason to discover the operating
principles of the world of experience. This world,
however, is not the only one there is." [Emphasis
added.]
And, there you have it: circular reasoning yet again. Like with so many other theist arguments, this specious argument carries no water at all unless one assumes there is another reality that cannot be delved by human senses or science--unless one has already assumed one's conclusion that a supernatural realm exists. (This is also a more subtle form of the "non-overlapping magisteria" argument popular in recent years.)
Like all such cautionary messages, Kant's reasoning justifies only the notion that we should strive to keep an open mind should new evidence ever actually appear--not that it is intellectually respectable to believe before such evidence appears. It is even more clear that Kant's work does not justify believing one claim about the supernatural and simultaneously rejecting all others based on skepticism, which is exactly what D'Souza does.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Circular Arguments
The single most common logical mistake one encounters in arguments offered by believers is the use of circular logic. They usually don't realize that they are using circular logic because it has been ingrained in them since infancy. They take as a basic, given assumption that god exists. They assume this on the same deep level that they assume their own parents exist, that gravity works, etc. They are not even aware that they are implicitly making the assumption because to them, it's not an assumption. They think it is a basic "fact".
I have previously mentioned Guy P. Harrison's wonderful book, "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God." A quick perusal of the table of contents will reveal almost every argument a non-believer has ever heard, and many of them suffer from the logical fallacy of circularity in one way or another. The arguments that are primarily circular are:
"My god is obvious",
"Our world is too beautiful to be an accident",
"My god created the universe",
"Better safe than sorry",
"A sacred book proves my god is real",
"Divine justice proves my god is real",
"My god answers prayers",
"I would rather worship my god than the devil",
"My god heals sick people",
"My god made the human body",
"My god sacrificed his only son for me",
"I don't want to go to hell",
"My god changes lives",
"Intelligent design proves my god is real",
"The end is near".
When you hear any of these, you can simply point out that the person has assumed that god exists in order to prove that god exists and thus the argument is circular.
Of course, you will hear variations of these as well, such as "you know, if it weren't for god, we wouldn't have anything". Such variations can sometimes be even easier targets, such as this one, to which one might reply, "So, children who are naked and starving to death in third world countries must prove that god doesn't exist". But, if you use that tack, I can guarantee that it won't sink in unless you explain that you are simply using the same reasoning that they were using. They already have programmed answers to such questions, answers that they will spout without even thinking about what you said. (Theologians even have a name for their efforts to "understand" and "explain" the existence of evil and injustice in the world. They call it "Theodicy". Not to be confused with "the idiocy", which is my opinion of it.)
As I have pointed out previously the "My god created the universe" argument also suffers from secondary circularity, in that the believer has to borrow from the conclusion during the course of laying out his argument in order to avoid contradictions:
First, the believer is assuming that god is the only possible explanation.
Second, he assumes that god exists in order to assume that god has special characteristics in order to avoid the problem of explaining where god came from (because god's unexplained existence contradicts his assumption that nothing can exist without being created).
I have previously mentioned Guy P. Harrison's wonderful book, "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God." A quick perusal of the table of contents will reveal almost every argument a non-believer has ever heard, and many of them suffer from the logical fallacy of circularity in one way or another. The arguments that are primarily circular are:
"My god is obvious",
"Our world is too beautiful to be an accident",
"My god created the universe",
"Better safe than sorry",
"A sacred book proves my god is real",
"Divine justice proves my god is real",
"My god answers prayers",
"I would rather worship my god than the devil",
"My god heals sick people",
"My god made the human body",
"My god sacrificed his only son for me",
"I don't want to go to hell",
"My god changes lives",
"Intelligent design proves my god is real",
"The end is near".
When you hear any of these, you can simply point out that the person has assumed that god exists in order to prove that god exists and thus the argument is circular.
Of course, you will hear variations of these as well, such as "you know, if it weren't for god, we wouldn't have anything". Such variations can sometimes be even easier targets, such as this one, to which one might reply, "So, children who are naked and starving to death in third world countries must prove that god doesn't exist". But, if you use that tack, I can guarantee that it won't sink in unless you explain that you are simply using the same reasoning that they were using. They already have programmed answers to such questions, answers that they will spout without even thinking about what you said. (Theologians even have a name for their efforts to "understand" and "explain" the existence of evil and injustice in the world. They call it "Theodicy". Not to be confused with "the idiocy", which is my opinion of it.)
As I have pointed out previously the "My god created the universe" argument also suffers from secondary circularity, in that the believer has to borrow from the conclusion during the course of laying out his argument in order to avoid contradictions:
First, the believer is assuming that god is the only possible explanation.
Second, he assumes that god exists in order to assume that god has special characteristics in order to avoid the problem of explaining where god came from (because god's unexplained existence contradicts his assumption that nothing can exist without being created).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)