Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Loudmouth]

Just because you personally consider something to be a valid reason for action doesn't mean that you've got a valid argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You're committing the Is/Ought Fallacy.

Says the person who states that Oughts come from the Is of the Bible.

 

[Tree of Life]

Says who?

You can challenge the authority of God, I suppose, in a theoretical sense. But if God exists then he is the highest authority and his judgment will be carried out and overturn all other judgments. If God decides that we will live forever in a new heavens and new earth then we will. If he decides that we will be tormented forever by being cast out of his presence then we will. At the end of the day his judgment will always prevail, so he has ultimate authority.

How exactly am I morally obliged to help creation "work best"?

Ok, I guess I am going to borrow from your previous argument ("Why does causing pain to others oblige me to stop causing pain to others? What if I like causing pain to others? What if this is my goal?"):
Why does destroying life oblige me to stop destryoing life? What if I like destroying life? What if this is my goal?"

I suppose that if you want to be miserable and die then you're not obliged to do anything God has said.

If I want to live and flourish in this world I need to look at how the world works - no matter whether and by whom it has been created.

You can't truly understand how the world works without reference to the creator.

Well, I´ll try:
For you (if I understand you correctly - but otherwise you whole line of reasoning doesn´t make any sense) the only way for there to be an "ought" is the command of a personal authority. (I do not agree with this authoritarean view on things anyway, but let´s just put this aside for a moment). And, of course, for such an authority-oriented person like you the most powerful entity is the greatest authority. If a God exists, God would be more powerful than anything in Its creation - so God would be the Highest Authority. However, in the absence of a God, you would have to go with the Highest Authority available in that reality: This authority would be the one to determine authoritative "oughts".

The highest authority would determine the oughts. If there is no divine overseer then our own preferences are the highest authority.

METAGOD, by definition, is the entity that created God. Thus, it´s defined as a Higher Authority than God. In the absence of a METAGOD God would only be a lesser authority.
So much for defining entities into existence in order to establish a "either it exists or there can be no 'ought' or morality at all. If you can do it, I can do it.
And then there will be next guy who postulates a SUPERMETAGOD.

This is all gobbledygook. Your first sentence is logically incoherent. "METAGOD is the entity which created the uncreated creator of all things." Don't make no sense.

 

[Tree of Life]

There are no problems to address.

Your own argument is "God is the law giver, therefore we ought to follow God's commands". It follows the same "ought from an is", and yet you think it is valid. How do you explain that?

Because God created the world and knows how life works, if we want to live then we ought to obey him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because God created the world and knows how life works, if we want to live then we ought to obey him.

There is the same Ought from an Is.

 

[quatona]

You can challenge the authority of God, I suppose, in a theoretical sense. But if God exists then he is the highest authority and his judgment will be carried out and overturn all other judgments. If God decides that we will live forever in a new heavens and new earth then we will. If he decides that we will be tormented forever by being cast out of his presence then we will. At the end of the day his judgment will always prevail, so he has ultimate authority.

All you are saying here is that God would be most powerful and get his will. You do fail to show, however, that this means a binding moral imperative to anyone - unless you make an appeal to "might makes right".
However, in the absence of a God, and if following your paradigm "might makes right", there will still be a most powerful being, which - according to your rationale - will be authoritative.

I suppose that if you want to be miserable and die then you're not obliged to do anything God has said.

Yes. Which, however, is true for the fact of reality even in the absence of a God: If you want to be miserable you are not obliged to accept them.

You can't truly understand how the world works without reference to the creator.

You aren´t getting circular on me here, are you?
The hypothetical was: "In the absence of a creator", and in the absence of a creator there would still be the way the world works, and we would do our best to understand how it works - just like we would with there being a creator.

The highest authority would determine the oughts. If there is no divine overseer then our own preferences are the highest authority.

No, according to your rationale the most powerful being would be the highest authority.

This is all gobbledygook. Your first sentence is logically incoherent.

Indeed - I just give you some of your own medicine.

"METAGOD is the entity which created the uncreated creator of all things." Don't make no sense.

You misquoted me. Bad style.

 

[Davian]

You can challenge the authority of God, I suppose, in a theoretical sense. But if God exists<snip>

I see your problem. Why do you not work on the existence of this "God" before your try to use him to prop up these moral arguments of yours?

 

[Wololo]

Hi everyone.

We as Christians have a tendency to get involved with circular logic. We assume that the creator is real and then make statements that presuppose that. I've already seen it happening just by reading through this thread. We can't assume that God is creator and then make statements on top of that. I don't like the approach.

It's also a logical fallacy to argue from authority anyway, and I'm a Christian that abides by logic. We can't say that because God is an authority that we have to believe his form of morality.

What I like to do is point to historical examples of pre-Christian morality. That being morality of cultures and people before they were exposed to Christianity. Let's take a look at perhaps the Romans or the Vikings. Those are people that have a very clear before and after that we can evaluate.

The reason I agree with the posts about needing reference to God for stuff like morality is because I agree with the presupposition that he exists and is creator. It's still a presupposition though. If you want to argue that God is required for morality, then you have to build a case that there is a 'code' of morality that exists for the universe, and that the code was derived from the God who is creator. If you can do that logically and philosophically, you have created a plausible argument.

Don't just go "but God is the creator" and assume that someone is going to take that for a valid argument.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
The reason I agree with the posts about needing reference to God for stuff like morality is because I agree with the presupposition that he exists and is creator. It's still a presupposition though. If you want to argue that God is required for morality, then you have to build a case that there is a 'code' of morality that exists for the universe, and that the code was derived from the God who is creator. If you can do that logically and philosophically, you have created a plausible argument.
...

That's pretty well impossible for Christians. God supports slavery, and also torturing someone eternally for a belief.

There is no way you can argue that God is moral, without arguing slavery is moral, and eternal torture for a belief is moral, which obviously isn't logical.

 

[Wololo]

Have you heard of the historical-critical method? It involves taking the history of the Bible in a cultural and historical context in order to better understand the writing of that era. I can elaborate on that if you'd like.

 

[Tree of Life]

There is the same Ought from an Is.

In accusing me of committing this fallacy are you conceding that you've committed it?

Even so, I don't think that this fallacy is committed in the case of a hypothetical imperative. My argument would go something like this:

1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God

This is perfectly valid.

 

[Davian]

In accusing me of committing this fallacy are you conceding that you've committed it?

Even so, I don't think that this fallacy is committed in the case of a hypothetical imperative. My argument would go something like this:

1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God

This is perfectly valid.

Who gets to say what God says?

 

[Wololo]

In accusing me of committing this fallacy are you conceding that you've committed it?

Even so, I don't think that this fallacy is committed in the case of a hypothetical imperative. My argument would go something like this:

1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God

This is perfectly valid.

You're still assuming God exists which is a presupposition nonbelievers won't agree with. This is why the entire line of argument is moot if approached that way. You have to use what we have here to point to God, not start with God and work down.

 

[Tree of Life]

You're still assuming God exists which is a presupposition nonbelievers won't agree with. This is why the entire line of argument is moot if approached that way. You have to use what we have here to point to God, not start with God and work down.

The claim of this thread is that everyone believes in God's existence. This is seen in other believes that we act on that depend upon God's existence.

edit: Sorry, I'm thinking of another thread I'm involved in. This thread has not yet made this claim. Let this post be the first to make it.

 

[quatona]

My argument would go something like this:

1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God

This is perfectly valid.

Yeah, but you were the guy who asked "But if what someone doesn´t want to lead such a life?" in order to demonstrate how this isn´t a sufficient rationale for constituting an "ought".
In the absence of a God e.g.
"1. Acting upon your empathy [or whatever it is that someone wants to establish as the basis for an "ought"] leads to life and flourishing
2. People....
3. Therefore..."
would be just as valid.
Come to think of it, it would even be the stronger argument since it explains how and why something "ought" to be done - as opposed to just being an appeal to authority.

 

[Wololo]

The claim of this thread is that everyone believes in God's existence. This is seen in other believes that we act on that depend upon God's existence.

edit: Sorry, I'm thinking of another thread I'm involved in. This thread has not yet made this claim. Let this post be the first to make it.

I'm not sure you'd want to get sidetracked in this thread with 'does God exist' proofs.

My approach to morality is to demonstrate the positive effects that Christian morality has had on our society, using historical examples. Where we derive our beliefs from is something different, but we can definitely look at the effects of properly practiced Christianity.

To answer the title of the thread...NO. An appeal to authority is an invalid argument. It's fallacious.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm not sure you'd want to get sidetracked in this thread with 'does God exist' proofs.

My approach to morality is to demonstrate the positive effects that Christian morality has had on our society, using historical examples. Where we derive our beliefs from is something different, but we can definitely look at the effects of properly practiced Christianity.

To answer the title of the thread...NO. An appeal to authority is an invalid argument. It's fallacious.

An appeal to authority is not an argument. It's a justification for knowledge. If you make this claim, then you'd have to claim agnosticism on a great many things. Almost all of your scientific knowledge you "know" because you've read in books. Also any historical knowledge that you think you have. All of this knowledge is justified by an appeal to an authority.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yeah, but you were the guy who asked "But if what someone doesn´t want to lead such a life?" in order to demonstrate how this isn´t a sufficient rationale for constituting an "ought".
In the absence of a God e.g.
"1. Acting upon your empathy [or whatever it is that someone wants to establish as the basis for an "ought"] leads to life and flourishing
2. People....
3. Therefore..."
would be just as valid.
Come to think of it, it would even be the stronger argument since it explains how and why something "ought" to be done - as opposed to just being an appeal to authority.

I suppose I am retreating to a hypothetical imperative. Obey God and live. If you want to live you ought to obey God. If someone does not want to enjoy a long and flourishing life then I suppose I can't think of a good reason for why they should obey God.

So I guess the question is: "which hypothetical imperative is right?" Mine is that friendship with God is the only way to live an eternal, flourishing life. So if you want this then you should be reconciled to God.

What's your hypothetical imperative? Or would you even use a hypothetical imperative?

 

[Wololo]

An appeal to authority is not an argument. It's a justification for knowledge. If you make this claim, then you'd have to claim agnosticism on a great many things. Almost all of your scientific knowledge you "know" because you've read in books. Also any historical knowledge that you think you have. All of this knowledge is justified by an appeal to an authority.

It's a poor justification for knowledge.

Actually, I'm more inclined to believe something than not. The reason for that is because I need reason to doubt something. If you tell me that you had dinner with the president, I would have doubt only because there are reasons not to believe it. The burden of proof is still on you if I ask for proof, but I'm likely to believe people unless there is reason not to.

I trust people to tell the truth most of the time, that's how I differ from a skeptic.

I also want to differentiate between proof and something that is plausible. There is no way to prove that Jesus was God or was resurrected, or even that God exists. You'd need extraordinary proof. Instead, I'm comfortable having informed faith...that being faith with some evidence, but not enough to be conclusive.

 

[Tree of Life]

It's a poor justification for knowledge.

Do you know when the allies stormed Normandy during WWII - otherwise known as D-Day? When was that?

 

[Wololo]

Do you know when the allies stormed Normandy during WWII - otherwise known as D-Day? When was that?

Yes, I know when the day was. Fortunately, we have a massive amount of written and testimonial evidence to attest to it. There is virtually no faith required for something that has that much evidence. It's also not an extraordinary claim so it doesn't require there to be such a massive amount of evidence.