Reasoning Errors

[Khalliqa]

Though I am no theist, I have to side with the theist responses on this one. Faith is belief in something, and confirmation bias is sometimes how people support that faith. They aren't the same thing. It would be like saying a theory is evidence.

I disagree.. a little more explanation of why you think this would be helpful..

 

[Butch5]

Why are reasoning errors important to understand and accept? Because Sometimes people base their whole lives around faulty thinking and exclude themselves from the reality of the world around them and about themselves... Sometimes people cause unnecessary and often negative division between themselves and others and/or try to create it with between external parties. So they don't grow and they prevent others from the opportunity of growth.. Having good intentions is a start but if filtered through reasoning errors can cause undue harm to self and others..

1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)

2. Faith
- Is actually confirmation bias - you want info/data to be in alignment with one's beliefs and so you interpret it as being in alignment with your beliefs (common example "If you pray for x it will occur")

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)

5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"

5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe

These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..

I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..

Agreed! All too often people use fallacies to defend their beliefs. You can see it in just about every thread. I think some of it goes to Christians being intimidated by those in charge. When Christians have questions too often they're told things like, it's a mystery or we can't understand God. That's really just a cover for doctrines that don't make sense or are illogical. Instead of these Christians challenging church leaders they simply accept the nonsensical answer. I've seen it too many times. What many seem to miss is that the Scriptures were given to communicate to man, therefore they should be understood. Anyone who says it's a mystery or we can't understand God, either can't answer the question or is protecting doctrine.

A lot of erroneous teachings have been brought into the Faith over the centuries. Christians are taught these errors and often given fallacious arguments to support them. Those who don't see the fallacies often just repeat them when they espouse the same errors. Others may see the fallacies but don't challenge those in charge.

The bottom line is that those who use fallacies to defend their faith aren't very likely to come to the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't read the book yet. I've just ordered it. I am open to more suggestions as well.

The definition of faith in the Bible seems to necessitate confirmation bias. Similarly, what I've heard, read and observed from Christians seems consistently to reflect this definition.

I don't think the definition of faith in the Bible necessitates confirmation bias, although I can definitely understand how it may appear that it does. And if you've gained some supposed info from Christians whom you think have told you what Christians 'faith' is, then I'm pretty sure that you've read and relied on some different Christian sources (or even non-christian sources) than I have.

And, as you'll find, Peter Boghossian is wrong too... but by all means, read his book. I did; and I found that it was a good exercise in stretching my present understanding of how others form notions about the issue of Christian faith.

 

[Butch5]

Nope, if its illogical, no matter how much you scream that its THE TRUTH or GOD's WORD,...its still illogical. The bible is true because the bible says its true is circular reasoning no matter how much you protest and scream about it.

This is true, however, the atheist too, has to use circular reasoning to support his ultimate standard. The atheist has determined in his mind that the Bible is not true to conclude that the Bible is not true. This is circular reasoning.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The predetermined idea without verifiable facts or observations that there must be an entity which is the author of "X" is an example of confirmation bias

I love my boyfriend.. I've studied and have come up with a workable theory that he doesn't like runny food mixed with solid food. That's my theory for which I have data in iphone video, pics, his own statements agreeing to this in round about ways, loose calculation by memory - of which he agrees- the number of times he separates the two over a period of weeks.etc.. among other observations to back my theory.. Doesn't make it a fact just a strong theory.. this could be colloquially mentioned as a "belief" to bolster my argument when I present it to him.. but my belief stems from a (granted in this case, very loose) scientific exercise to reach the conclusion..

If I then say I have faith that Thor made him do that.. that would be confirmation bias..

You do realize that much of this has to do with epistemology as a field of study, along with some metaphysics, and not just the use of logic (whichever logic you think you're actually using).

And if, let's say, in the field of science, we think the use of Methodological Naturalism is more fitting as a working theory, as opposed to Ontological Naturalism, how might that affect our EXPECTATIONS as to what we will-- or even can-- find out about God...?

 

[Moral Orel]

I disagree.. a little more explanation of why you think this would be helpful..

As I said, faith is just belief. Your faith or belief in something can be supported by varying amounts of evidence. That's why there is a separate term for "blind faith" when your belief isn't supported by evidence at all.

 

[Khalliqa]

Agreed! All too often people use fallacies to defend their beliefs. You can see it in just about every thread. I think some of it goes to Christians being intimidated by those in charge. When Christians have questions too often they're told things like, it's a mystery or we can't understand God. That's really just a cover for doctrines that don't make sense or are illogical. Instead of these Christians challenging church leaders they simply accept the nonsensical answer. I've seen it too many times. What many seem to miss is that the Scriptures were given to communicate to man, therefore they should be understood. Anyone who says it's a mystery or we can't understand God, either can't answer the question or is protecting doctrine.

A lot of erroneous teachings have been brought into the Faith over the centuries. Christians are taught these errors and often given fallacious arguments to support them. Those who don't see the fallacies often just repeat them when they espouse the same errors. Others may see the fallacies but don't challenge those in charge.

The bottom line is that those who use fallacies to defend their faith aren't very likely to come to the truth of the Scriptures.

I respect this.

One of My best friends is a professor and Muslim- He does not try to defend his belief utilizing logic, reason, evidence etc.. Because his belief was not accepted through those channels. I respect that even if I disagree with the decision and the reasons used emotional mystical or otherwise. But, it's more authentic imo because it is a subjective experience..

 

[Khalliqa]

I don't think the definition of faith in the Bible necessitates confirmation bias, although I can definitely understand how it may appear that it does. And if you've gained some supposed info from Christians whom you think have told you what Christians 'faith' is, then I'm pretty sure that you've read and relied on some different Christian sources (or even non-christian sources) than I have.

And, as you'll find, Peter Boghossian is wrong too... but by all means, read his book. I did; and I found that it was a good exercise in stretching my present understanding of how others form notions about the issue of Christian faith.

Okay. We think differently. I've given you the reasons why I do.

 

[Khalliqa]

You do realize that much of this has to do with epistemology as a field of study, along with some metaphysics, and not just the use of logic (whichever logic you think you're actually using).

And if, let's say, in the field of science, we think the use of Methodological Naturalism is more fitting as a working theory, as opposed to Ontological Naturalism, how might that affect our EXPECTATIONS as to what we will-- or even can-- find out about God...?

depends on what evidence is given to make that a reasonable thing to pursue.. "Knowledge" beforehand based off belief is simply not a good reason to assume or expect

 

[Khalliqa]

As I said, faith is just belief. Your faith or belief in something can be supported by varying amounts of evidence. That's why there is a separate term for "blind faith" when your belief isn't supported by evidence at all.

Okay

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay

Still don't see it? Think about it from the other angle. People use confirmation bias for all sorts of other things as well, like politics. Someone believes that all people on welfare are lazy, then they see one person on Rikki Lake that abuses the SNAP program, and now they reinforce their belief that all welfare recipients are lazy. You wouldn't say they have "faith" welfare recipients are lazy, and their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it, but confirmation bias is how they support their worldview.

 

[Butch5]

I respect this.

One of My best friends is a professor and Muslim- He does not try to defend his belief utilizing logic, reason, evidence etc.. Because his belief was not accepted through those channels. I respect that even if I disagree with the decision and the reasons used emotional mystical or otherwise. But, it's more authentic imo because it is a subjective experience..

The problem with using evidence is that it is world view dependent. All evidence is evaluated based on one's worldview. The real question that should be addressed is which worldview can logically be sustained? From my logical conclusion only the Christian world view is possible. As an atheist what is your basis for logic?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay. We think differently. I've given you the reasons why I do.

You did? Which posts above were those, specifically? Because, I seem to see unanswered questions that I posed to you...

 

[JD16]

This is true, however, the atheist too, has to use circular reasoning to support his ultimate standard. The atheist has determined in his mind that the Bible is not true to conclude that the Bible is not true. This is circular reasoning.

Regarding the bible, Atheists have many reasons to determine that the bible is not true, mainly that is has to be believed on faith. I've yet to come across an Atheist that does what you mention, if so, then yes that would be circular reasoning.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The predetermined idea without verifiable facts or observations that there must be an entity which is the author of "X" is an example of confirmation bias

Those "Verifiable facts" are something we would probably need to get to the bottom of.

If you say, saw a house and were told it just appeared there, would "just" the fact that no house you know of ever just appeared, be enough verification for you to argue the house was built and didn't just appear? I'd guess it would be for almost everyone, if that were all that was presented, in that.. this thread, nor anything spiritual would be in the mix...just the observation/question. Considering all that, how would you answer? A. Enough? B. Not enough?

 

[Butch5]

Regarding the bible, Atheists have many reasons to determine that the bible is not true, mainly that is has to be believed on faith. I've yet to come across an Atheist that does what you mention, if so, then yes that would be circular reasoning.

It has to be believed on faith? How so? The future promises are believed on faith, but why the Bible?

Do you have evidence that proves the Bible isn't true? If not then it seems the claim is based on your own determination that it's not true. That is circular reasoning

 

[JD16]

It has to be believed on faith? How so? The future promises are believed on faith, but why the Bible?

Do you have evidence that proves the Bible isn't true? If not then it seems the claim is based one your own determination that it's not true. That is circular reasoning

Nope, not circular reasoning at all. As the late Christopher Hitchens said 'what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'. I don't need evidence that proves the bible isn't true, the proponents of the bible has yet to prove that its true....you are trying to shift the burden of proof here.

 

[Butch5]

Nope, not circular reasoning at all. As the late Christopher Hitchens said 'what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'. I don't need evidence that proves the bible isn't true, the proponents of the bible has yet to prove that its true....you are trying to shift the burden of proof here.

Not at all. You said, 'atheists have many ways to determine the Bible isn't true.' I simply asked you for the evidence for your statement. If you have none then the determination is made in your mind thus your conclusion is just a restatement of your premise which is circular reasoning.

 

[JD16]

Not at all. You said, 'atheists have many ways to determine the Bible isn't true.' I simply asked you for the evidence for your statement. If you have none then the determination is made in your mind thus your conclusion is just a restatement of your premise which is circular reasoning.

As I've mention, what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence...

 

[Butch5]

As I've mention, what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence...

That's correct. However, since we're on a forum for discussion I'm not simply rejecting your statement, without evidence, as I could. For the sake of argument I'm accepting your statement and asking you for evidence. However, if you have no evidemce then your statement is circular reasoning.