Appeal to a conspiracy theory is in fact an informal fallacy.
No its not. When you suggested it was the other day I was intrigued by the concept and reread the various works in my library on logical fallacies, and I could find no evidence of it existing, but don’t take my word for it, for that might constitute an appeal to unqualified authority, which is fallacious; rather, look it up yourself in the major texts on logical fallacy.
However, what I think you will find is what I found, that there is no such fallacy, and for good reason: it would be a logical fallacy to say that if someone holds a belief that happens to also be held by adherents of a conspiracy theory, that they are appealing to that conspiracy theory and are therefore wrong, based on the stigma associated with conspiracy theories.
Rather, there are three categories of informal fallacy: the fallacies of ambiguity, the fallacies of presumption (which ad hominem fallacies fall into) and the fallacies of relevance.
I am well versed in all three categories. And I have also read the same books on logic that you are citing, and I would note that merely citing these works are not enough; perhaps you have missed something.
Now, if I were engaged in a bona fide conspiracy theory, or rather, to be more precise, if I were doing what you falsely allege, which I am not, I could be accused of engaging in the formal fallacy of appeal to authority, and the informal fallacies of the furtive fallacy, and the appeal to unqualified authority, the ad hominem (since the more widespread conspiracy theories such as the more advanced Flat Earth arguments generally contain an ad hominem argument as a component in their overall presentation to provide a defense against attempts to rebut them; indeed in the case of the Flat Earth model this is manifested in the form of a separate comorbid conspiracy theory that Flat Earthers will also adhere to, that being of the faked moon landing/faked spaceflight, since astronauts are in the strongest possible position to debunk the Flat Earth model and therefore it is useful if the propagation of the conspiracy theory also debunks astronauts, and other groups, such as airline pilots and the aerospace sector more broadly).
The furtive fallacy is one that is particularly common to conspiracy theories, and is an informal fallacy, and comes the closest to being an “appeal to conspiracy theory.”
Conspiracy theorists tend to overlook the high degree of improbability with large scale conspiracies.
This is true, and is a component to the furtive fallacy, which unlike “appeal to conspiracy theory” is generally recognized.
However, your entire post can be casually described as a red herring, or more formally characterized as a series of non-sequiturs and inadvertant ad hominem attacks, because it is predicated upon a misreading of my remarks.
I have tried to make it as abundantly clear as I can that I do not believe that Holy Fire is a conspiracy, that Holy Fire is “fake”, and other things. I was not aware of the existence of a conspiracy theory concerning Holy Fire which I could have fallaciously appealed to, but even if I were, I would not have done so, because that would constitute the formal fallacy of appeal to authority, and what is more, it would also be inapplicable to my opinion, since I very specifically reject as offensive any suggestion that Holy Fire is some kind of conspiracy theory.
Rather, my position, which I articulated before, is that it is liturgical and iconographic in character, and if the fire initiated and/or distributed by non-supernatural, pyrotechnic means, this would not change the inherent holiness of the liturgy, which is based on the liturgy being an icon of the resurrection of our Lord, something which is conveyed by the Patriarch.
If the Holy Fire is a deceptive pious fraud, then it is not even remotely sacred,
I agree, but I very specifically excluded from my argument the idea that it is a pious fraud.
Rather, my position is that the exact means by which the Holy Fire is initiated and distributed are irrelevant, since the event is best understood according to its iconographic signifigance as a sacramental analogous to Holy Water, and as a component of the liturgy of Holy Saturday.
What is more, I have also readily admitted the possibility that the Holy Fire is supernatural. I have also explained that I regard the other unusual recurrent events of the Holy Land as being entirely miraculous, because unlike Holy Fire, there does not exist an alternate explanation for their cause, nor do the liturgical prayers at, for instance, the Great Blessing of Water on Theophany, lend themselves to an alternative explanation.
What you are attempting to do is to claim that I am advocating for, and believe in, views of the Holy Fire that I reject absolutely, and regard as offensive.
You also have yet to explain the numerous independent witnesses, inside and outside the church, who testify to the spontaneous ignition of candles. No pyrotechnics in the world can do that. Also, the Holy Fire existed before pyrotechnics were invented.
On the contrary, I explained previously how pyrotechnics would enable spontaneous ignition of candles, for example, the use of a small amount of white phosphorus or certain chemical derivatives of white phosphorus that would be safer. Basically, any number of pyrophoric substances could be used. The wicks are by themselves somewhat inflammable, since they are the means by which the natural fuel in the beeswax is oxygenated and consumed, and so if one applies to them one of the many substances that reacts with air, one will obtain a spontaneous ignition. Providing an ablative substance as a shield so that the candles ignite at roughly the same time following exposure to air would logically follow. Additionally, your claim that pyrotechnics did not exist at the time is inaccurate, considering not only the Greek origin of the word but also the sophisticated pyrotechnic capabilities of the Eastern Roman empire, which included incendiary arrows and pots, incendiary grenades, and also the use of chemicals to produce colored flames, among other capabilities, and of course Greek Fire itself, which was first used militarily in 872, which is noteworthy because our first detailed account of Holy Fire involving the spontaneous ignition dates from 870 AD. It is for this reason that I have historically regarded, in the absence of more specific information, the Holy Fire to be a phenomena that consists of fire blessed by the Patriarch and distributed using technologies that were developed contemporaneously with Greek Fire, which represents the most advanced weapons system deployed in the first millenium, and which was itself something that ought to be regarded a providential, divine blessing, since without it the Byzantine Empire would have been overrun by Saracens, Muslim fanatics of the most severe and iconoclastic form, of the Fatimid Caliphate, which included such unpleasant men as the mad caliph Hakim, whose persecution of the Copts in Egypt extended to such baroque forms of cruelty as forcing them to wear heavy chains. The survival of Orthodoxy had become a sure thing by the 15th century, when the surviving citizens of what remained of the Roman Empire made the courageous decision to the decline Western military assistance that was promised if they acceded to the Council of Florence and surrendered their faith, embracing a form of Eastern Rite Catholicism instead.
But the choice of Turkocratia was made at a time in which the continued survival of Orthodoxy elsewhere, for example, in the increasingly powerful grand duchy of Muscovy, and in Georgia and other lands was assured, and at in which missionaries had spread the faith throughout Eastern Europe and into Asia (and later on, Russian Orthodox missionaries led by St. Herman would spread the faith to the Aleutian people of Alaska). The risk posed to the Orthodox religion by assimilation at the hands of Roman Catholicism was greater than the risk posed by accepting Turkocratia, which very likely would have happened anyway; indeed Turkocratia would be an ironic footnote in history rather than the heroic sacrifice we remember it as if the Orthodox people of the Roman Empire had instead surrendered their faith through the uncritical acceptance of the spectacular capitulation that the Council of Florence represented, and it seems likely, based on the experience of other Eastern Catholics, that the former Orthodox of the Byzantine Empire would have found their faith swiftly corrupted with layers upon layers of pointless Latinizations, and with the introduction of Scholastic theology, and it seems likely that the Protestant Reformation would have spread to, or even partially originated in, the former Orthodox lands (considering that the Moravians were the result of an early reformation that happened largely due to the forced conversion of the people of the Czech Lands and Slovakia to Roman Catholicism following the military subjugation of that country by the Austrian Empire).
However, this all being said, it is extremely important to stress that I do not believe that Holy Fire is certainly purely technological in origin, rather, I consider it likely, but am not entirely convinced, because as has been pointed out, there are some aspects of Holy Fire which are unusual and at the very least suggest that if it is pyrotechnics, it is unusually advanced.
Indeed there is also the possiblity that both Holy Fire and the weapons system known as Greek Fire are of partially supernatural origin, or that the means of doing this was, as one Byzantine Emperor wrote, a “gift from God”, which makes sense considering how advanced Greek Fire was compared to any other known pyrophoric weapons system from antiquity; when one reads about it, it comes subjectively across as being a bit like if the British Empire developed an atom bomb in the 19th century.
However, as I said earlier, I really do not want to see an objective analysis of Greek Fire, because if it is of pyrotechnic origin, that could cause confusion among the pious Orthodox who are convinced that it is not, and it could become a means by which the enemies of the faith, such as liberal Protestantism, and the liberal component in Roman Catholicism, and more importantly, the militant atheists and militant Muslims who are almost like two sides of the same coin in terms of their intense hatred towards the Orthodox (whereas the liberal Protestants have a view towards us that is somewhat ambivalent or even in the case of Anglicans, generally favorable, and the Roman Catholics, whether liberal, traditional or moderate, usually come across as being a bit patronizing towards the Orthodox, even in the ecclesiological publications of the Roman church and in their policies towards intercommunion, their offer to provide us with the Eucharist and their official blessing of Catholics receiving the Eucharist from any Orthodox who is willing to give it to them, which relatively few are, but it all comes across as being a bit patronizing.*
*Specifically, the Roman Catholic position towards us and their view of our sacraments as being legitimate, and the various provisions for Catholics giving us the Eucharist and receiving the Eucharist from us, give the impression that they regard “Separated brethren” such as us as being extremely backwards Eastern Christians with valid sacraments who are too stupid and too preoccupied with mystical theology to realize that we are in a state of schism with them, and are thus harmless. One Roman Catholic seminary professor even described us as “looking backwards” whereas the Roman Catholics “looked ahead.” All very patronizing, to a degree where I doubt Roman Catholics are aware of how offensive it actually is, since everything is couched in such charitable language.
Fortunately, the situation has been set up in such a way that given the present state of emergency among traditional Catholics caused by the double whammy of
Traditiones Custodes and more recently the abominable Fiducia Supplicans, we are the most likely and plausible alternative church to the Roman Catholic Church, and in going out of their way to characterize us as being ecclesiastically legitimate and merely separated rather than schismatic, the Romans, by toning down their rhetoric towards us from the intentionally hostile and polemical to the merely patronizing, have created a scenario where we can, in complete honesty, present ourselves to Roman Catholics as a church that is neither schismatic nor heretical according to their own leaders, and therefore, a legitimate option for Catholics who cannot in good conscience remain in communion with a Pope who has effectively decided that homosexuality is something to be blessed rather than as an intrinsically disordered sexual perversion. And thus, making full use of the Western Rite Orthodox communities that exist in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and in the Byzantine Rite Orthodox mainstream, which many Catholics also find highly appealing, we should seek to get as many conservative Catholics to join us as possible, since if the Roman Church does not repent of its recent endorsement of homosexuality, along with other errors, there is no other way for reunification to occur. The ball on this issue is firmly in the Pope’s court, since his predecessors excommunicate us, in 1054 (and earlier in the case of our Oriental Orthodox brethren) and then allowed us to be made collateral damage in the crusades, and then targeted directly by Venice in the Fourth Crusade, and so the onus is now on them to restore communion, which they will not do by denying the inherent sinfulness of sodomy.
