- May 20, 2021
- 3,136
- 574
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.My point is that if everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.
Does that include any atheists who would claim they know the Bible better than any Christians around?
I do not reject science; it has improved the lives of countless human beings.This just goes back to my earlier point in the thread. You seem to be rejecting science as a means of epistemology in favor of theological beliefs.
I agree. Sometimes the following sequence occurs:
1. Poster A asserts proposition P and appeals to expert X to justify their belief in P.
2. Other posters discover that expert X actually has a very bad reputation and challenge Poster A by pointing out that X is not a credible source.
3. Poster A accuses these other posters of committing the genetic fallacy - that P is being attacked solely on the basis of "where it came from" and not on the basis of its merits.
But this is not correct. If poster A had provided an actual argument of their own - if they had offered evidence over and above simply appealing to the authority of X, then, and only then, would the genetic fallacy critique apply.
But if A's entire argument rests on the credibility of X as an expert, then we are more than justified in attacking the credentials of X.
if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.
I do not reject science; it has improved the lives of countless human beings.
How does creation specifically explain how human beings "came to life"?
The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God -
Nope, no modification. Your avatar still needs a corrective lens. Use the forum's quote facility to avoid your error in future.Yet you just stated that you consider all of science to be unreliable.
edited to add: I just noticed you modified that previous post. To which I respond that provisional is not the same as unreliable.
No I don't. I can know everything that one who is merely scientistic claims to know. Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do. Are you a disciple of scientism?Okay. So now you just need to demonstrate the existence of the soul and explain how such a thing gets created, and how that ties back to "life" in the context of the biological organism that is humankind.
Nope, no modification. Your avatar still needs a corrective lens. Use the forum's quote facility to avoid your error in future.
No I don't. I can know everything that one who is merely scientistic claims to know. Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do. Are you a disciple of scientism?
No I don't. I can know everything that one who is merely scientistic claims to know. Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do.
No. Are you?Are you suggesting that evolution/science is akin to a religious belief system? I think the mods were clear a few posts in that that wasn't acceptable.
Yes, this is the same principle as the 'Argument from Authority' fallacy, which is really the argument from false authority, where the authority's expertise is not relevant to the argument, or doesn't represent the consensus of experts in the field.I do not believe I am committing this fallacy.
Let's review: You initially claimed that evolution was not good science.
I simply observed that if your claim were true, it would require us to believe something rather implausible - that thousands and thousands of experts have been guilty of doing "bad" science for decades and decades and decades. And we have solid reasons for believing this is not true - the people who have advanced the theory of evolution are highly trained experts.
If I were to say "evolution is true because most regular people believe it is", then I would be guilty of that fallacy.
But I am not saying that - I am saying it is clearly hard to believe that you are right in asserting that evolution is "bad" science, given that so many trained experts disagree with you.
There is a difference, albeit perhaps a tad subtle - the matter of relevant expertise.
Taking your line of reasoning one could defend oneself in court by saying this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you believe those 100 ballistics experts who testified the deadly bullet came from my gun, you are committing the fallacy of consensus".
And that is clearly not right.
Ah, the fallacy fallacy...Some commit the fallacy of claiming fallacies that are not there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?