Reasoning Errors

[variant]

That's fine, as the second sentence of the quote you picked demonstrates.

The point is that I see no reason for forum-going atheists to pretend they are agnostic about God.

Pretense isn't necessary.

Not believing something because you don't know it to be true (and it is reasonable to doubt or be skeptical) is a perfectly reasonable stance.

I generally also don't think that religions would be likely describe any actual God that exists on top of that, so it's not exactly a binary.

The "lacking a belief in God" is simply the most expansive definition of an atheist.

 

[zippy2006]

Pretense isn't necessary.

Not believing something because you don't know it to be true (and it is reasonable to doubt or be skeptical) is a perfectly reasonable stance.

No one said agnosticism is not a coherent stance. I said many atheists who spend their days warring against religion on the internet are being dishonest when they claim agnosticism about God's existence. Pretense isn't necessary, but it's common.

 

[Monna]

Is it a fallacy to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Not necessarily, especially when absence of evidence is taken to be conspicuous.

This reminds me of when I lived in Nigeria. An acquaintance had come to my home looking for me at a time when I was away. When we did meet, he said "I came to your house and met your absence!" This was a common colloquialism there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The first thing I'd like to know is from where you've taken your own definition of 'faith'? Did you take it from one authoritative source, or did you synthesize your own definition through research by bringing together various sources on the issue? Or, did you just ponder it all on your lonesome and come up with the notion that 'faith' is a form of 'confirmation bias'?

Can't speak for @Khalliqa, but I'ld say that what I understand by the word "faith" in the religious sense, is entirely based on how the religious use and express it.

And from that, I concluded that faith is the excuse people give to accept something as true, when they have no rational evidence to support it.

If they did, they'ld say "i accept it as true for such and such reason" instead of saying "i accept it on faith".

So that type of "faith" seems little more then gullibility. The defense of which, often (if not always) comes down to one or more of the reasoning errors already expressed in the OP and the subsequent post by JD16.

You can't defend the undefensible with reasonable argumentation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also it doesn't help that my computer keeps kicking me out mid-post!

Off topic, but just FYI: I seem to experience the same problem ever since the new UI went live. I think it is a browser issue. When the "reply to" page is open for too long, the page seems to automatically refresh itself, loosing everything you typed already.

So for longer posts, I resorted to typing them up in notepad and copy-pasting.

I don't really want to do an "aha! gotcha you're stupid and here's why post.." more of a "come on guys let's be mature about this and really try to understand another using the best methods available to sort through our positions" kind of thing

Which is entirely fair and rational.
The problem is that apologetics seems to be exactly the art of using these types of fallacies while cammouflaging them as best as possible.

I have yet to encounter a single apologetics argument that does NOT engage in one of these fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Kinda like one who does the same with evolution...actually, exactly the same thing.

Evolution is not assumed, it is concluded.

As in..."Because scientists say it's true",

First, nobody says that in "defense" of mainstream biology.
Second, if anybody did say that, it would be a fallacy of "argument from authority", not circular reasoning.

Nor can sceince prove where we came from

DNA testing, disagrees.
Comparative genomics tells us exactly where we come from (in terms of genetic lineage).

, and from there a little logic/common sense goes a long way.

Even if I would assume your false premise that science can't tell... then the only logical, common sense conclusion is that we don't know.

Any other conclusion would be an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A portion of the link attached by Kalliqa:

Critical thinking makes use of the tools of logic and science because it values skepticism over gullibility or dogmatism, reason over faith, the science of pseudoscience, and rationality over wishful thinking.


This is what you are trying to teach and encourage as the proper way to unity?

All it is is a hope and an attempt to appeal to man's emotions that if they remove GOD, there will be unity.

This supports unbelievers
And all on a Christian Apologetics Forum

It's kind of funny how you actually just said that in order to be able to hang on to your faith in "GOD", you have to value gullibility, dogmatism, faith, pseudoscience or wishfull thinking over skepticism, reason, science or rationality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can't speak for @Khalliqa, but I'ld say that what I understand by the word "faith" in the religious sense, is entirely based on how the religious use and express it.

Yeah...........and sometimes, the religious are....wrong. It has happened before. In fact, there evidence that it happened during Biblical times as well. Imagine that! People screwing up their interpretations about God's intents for the world.

And from that, I concluded that faith is the excuse people give to accept something as true, when they have no rational evidence to support it.

As you might have noticed, I think there are a lot of semantic nuances that have to be cleared up with the term 'evidence,' depending on the contexts from which one thinks she is working.

If they did, they'ld say "i accept it as true for such and such reason" instead of saying "i accept it on faith".

As far as I can tell, biblical epistemology incorporates BOTH, and that's what makes this problematic for everyone. And add to that the complexity of human epistemic positions apart from theological considerations, and it gets really complicated.

So that type of "faith" seems little more then gullibility. The defense of which, often (if not always) comes down to one or more of the reasoning errors already expressed in the OP and the subsequent post by JD16.

Sure. I'd actually agree. If a Christian tries to posit that 'faith' is purely rational belief based upon a logical analysis of Scripture, then they are adopting a more Modernist approach to belief that never really fit with the Biblical epistemological indices in the first place. But, that shouldn't be surprising....

You can't defend the undefensible with reasonable argumentation.

Yes, and I don't think the bible was written specifically to be the Fort. Knox of religious faith, no matter what Fundamentalist Christians might say. But, neither was it meant to be a purely Existential enterprise, either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Huh? What do you even think faith is, and what argument do you have to claim that it is "confirmation bias"?

Faith is a kind of trust, it is believing something on the authority of another.

So.... faith isn't confirmation bias but rather.... an argument from authority?

A recent thread highlights the ways in which all people, believers and unbelievers, exercise faith. Why do those of us who have no direct evidence of Australia believe in its existence? Because of faith.

I don't require faith to know Australia exists.
What a ridiculous statement...

Because we take mapmakers, so-called Australians, history books, and reputed pictures and videos at their word. We trust that other people are telling us the truth when they directly or indirectly inform us of Australia's existence.

No. It's because we understand how technology and the world works. It's because I understand that I can buy a plane ticket to the country at any time and actually fly there.

It's because I understand the concept of falsification and how it would require a "conspiracy" on the scale the world has never seen before among millions upon millions of people who are all in on it, and this for many centuries.

It's just not sensible.

In fact, it's the other way round.
The only thing that would require "faith" with respect to australia, would be the idea that it does NOT exist.

[quote[
Without faith the common man would not believe in Australia,[/quote]

I can fly there at any time.

Jupiter

I can look through telescope

, Evolution

I can repeat any and all experiments and analyse the evidence myself.

, black holes

I can repeat those detections as well.

, or ancient China

I can visit the archeological sites.

Literally NONE of your examples requires me to "just believe" without the option of double checking for myself.

Some double checks might be difficult, sure - like the black hole one.
But given the right equipment / money, I COULD do it.

Not so much with supernatural stuff. There, your only option is to "just believe" (or not).

Without faith there is no progress in science, no interdisciplinary study, no elementary education

You mean "evidence". Not "faith".
In fact, if you invoke "faith" in your scientific report, they'll just send it back to you with the words "try again when you have reasonable data to share".

Without faith our collective knowledge plummets to almost nothing.

Demonstrably false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The witnesses of Australia will tell you otherwise

Yes you can choose not to believe their testimony


Will it harm you for not believing their testimony?

No

Not if we're talking about Australia

What if you're not sure if you should believe there "testimony"?
What if you wish to verify if these people are lying or just mistaken?

Could you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That is not at all how I determined that the bible is not believable.

I looked at what the bible actually said and contrasted it to what I know about reality as well as other religions.

From that exercise, I concluded that much of the bible is demonstrably false and that the other stuff, the supernatural things in particular, are not believable.

I did not assume the answers before I asked the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have evidence that proves the Bible isn't true?

See the "philosophical burden of proof" fallacy on page one of this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah...........and sometimes, the religious are....wrong.

I don't think I've said that I was talking about just "some" religious people.
It's generally rather consistent among theists, how they use and express faith.
It varries in degrees and stuff sure...

For example a YEC will invoke "faith" a lot more often then a more reasonable theist like Francis Collins, for example.

But to the point that both invoke "faith", they invoke it in the exact same way.

As you might have noticed, I think there are a lot of semantic nuances that have to be cleared up with the term 'evidence,' depending on the contexts from which one thinks she is working.

Disagree. I think the prefix of "rational" in "rational evidence", is all the nuancing required in this context.

As far as I can tell, biblical epistemology incorporates BOTH, and that's what makes this problematic for everyone.

Anything supernatural from the bible is taken on faith. For the simple reason that there is no extra-biblical support for it in any way whatsoever.
Then there are also various non-supernatural claims in the bible that could have extra-biblical evidence, but not all of it does. Many actually are flat out contradicted.

Accepting such claims without extra-biblical evidence, especially those claims that are even contradicted by extra-biblical evidence, are believed on faith as well.

And add to that the complexity of human epistemic positions apart from theological considerations, and it gets really complicated.

It's actually only complicated because you insist on complicating it.
In reality, it is rather simple. Either a thing is supported by real-world empirical data or it isn't.

Sure. I'd actually agree. If a Christian tries to posit that 'faith' is purely rational belief based upon a logical analysis of Scripture, then they are adopting a more Modernist approach to belief that never really fit with the Biblical epistemological indices in the first place. But, that shouldn't be surprising....

What "Biblical epistemological indices"?
The bible is a collection of claims. These claims are either supported by real-world data or they aren't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think I've said that I was talking about just "some" religious people.
It's generally rather consistent among theists, how they use and express faith.
It varries in degrees and stuff sure...

For example a YEC will invoke "faith" a lot more often then a more reasonable theist like Francis Collins, for example.

But to the point that both invoke "faith", they invoke it in the exact same way.

It's possible that Francis Collins might invoke it that way, I'd have to check. But, then there are Christians like Mary Healy, or Dru Johnson, among others, who take a little different tact...

Disagree. I think the prefix of "rational" in "rational evidence", is all the nuancing required in this context.

How 'Loftus' of you to think that.

Anything supernatural from the bible is taken on faith. For the simple reason that there is no extra-biblical support for it in any way whatsoever.

...that again depends on what faith ACTUALLY amounts to for each and every separate individual. People aren't cognitive clones.

Then there are also various non-supernatural claims in the bible that could have extra-biblical evidence, but not all of it does. Many actually are flat out contradicted.

And again, I'm not the kind of Christian who says that the bible has to be taken ipso facto with every jot and tittle. I'm going to go on a hunch and suppose that philosophy of most kinds (other than the use of logic) holds very little import for you, does it?

Accepting such claims without extra-biblical evidence, especially those claims that are even contradicted by extra-biblical evidence, are believed on faith as well.

Yeah...about the proving capacity of 'extra-biblical' evidence--how would such evidence work by the way?

It's actually only complicated because you insist on complicating it.
In reality, it is rather simple. Either a thing is supported by real-world empirical data or it isn't.

Or, it could actually be psychologically complex and even complicated, and you just happen to see as an atheist that the 'win' over religion comes most easily by denying all of this and instead continuously affirming DIRECT REALISM, combined with Evidentialism and Foundationalism as your favored working modes of assessment. And Whaa-Laa! Instant 'faith' take-down! boom!

To make it simple for me, I just call it what I think it is on your side.. a form of epistemological 'denial.'

What "Biblical epistemological indices"?
The bible is a collection of claims. These claims are either supported by real-world data or they aren't.

LOL! If you open your eyes, you'll probably learn to see it. Or you might not, depending on what you want to see.

And you've......proven my point. I suppose since it's so simple, you wouldn't bother taking up reading any journal articles or books I might suggest, would you? (Why should I, 2PhiloVoid? The Outsider Test for Faith is for Christians Only!)

And then you'd give me a simple answer, which would be, 'no', because not only do you 'not have the time,' but for you to do so would prove (to you) to be superfluous to the overall considerations we 'only' need to make as to the nature of evidence and epistemology, etc., etc., etc., etc.

So, basically...you don't believe because you're sold on the idea of .... "simplicity." Does that about cover it?

 

[Butch5]

This is a category error, creation "scientists" are not scientists as they do not come to their conclusions via the scientific method. They start out with a belief and try to use scientific means to support it. Science is also officially neutral on subjects that it can't address with objective evidence.

God is not evidenced via scientific means. It is not an issue of "worldview" it is a matter of methodology.

If you look at the Noah flood story and dismiss the physical evidence because you believe in a creator god that can do literally anything (a completely unfalcifiable assertion), then you aren't a scientist any longer as evidence can't touch your conclusions.

If the evidence does not guide your conclusions you are not a scientist, that is what science is, a methodological means of gathering and testing evidence.



It's not even a challenge. For sound arguments you need true premises which can only be done via evidence gathering.

Stop and think about what you wrote. All evidence is evaluated by a mind. It doesn't talk, it doesn't write thesis', it doesn't do anything. Every "scientist" has a a worldview, those things and experiences he/she believes to be true. It is this worldview that guides his/her interpretation of the evidence.

You said, "This is a category error, creation "scientists" are not scientists as they do not come to their conclusions via the scientific method. They start out with a belief and try to use scientific means to support it." This is an arbitrary statement. The very can be said of evolutionists. It can be said that they're not scientist because they don't come to conclusions via the scientific method because they start out with the belief that there is no God and try to use scientific mean to prove it. You see, your statement is merely an assumption without evidence.

You say it's not an issue of world view but of methodology. Do you see the problem with this statement? How are the results of the methodology interpreted? They are interpreted with a mind, a mind with a worldview. So, yes it is an issue of worldviews.

Since no one wants to answer the question, I'll ask you. How do you account for the uniformity of nature? How do you account for logic?

 

[Butch5]

It's not just a bias, they have decided what is true and then went out and tried to show it.

When you do this, it is called confirmation bias rather than science.



It's not a circle. You start out not knowing whether or not the bible is true and you look at the evidence to see whether the idea "the bible is true" is supported and you come up lacking.

As an aside I would never categorically reject the Bible as being "not true" but I merely say that one of it's main thesis "god exists" is unsupported.

Yes, it was a circle. The post I was referring to stated plainly that atheist could prove the Bible was wrong. I asked for evidence and got a few fallacy laced videos, but not poof. Without proof that the Bible is untrue one has to assume in their mind that it's not true. Thus the premise is that it's not true and the conclusions is that it's not true that is circular reasoning.

Again, going back to your methodology statement, all evidence is interpreted by a mind with a worldview.

 

[Butch5]

That is not at all how I determined that the bible is not believable.

I looked at what the bible actually said and contrasted it to what I know about reality as well as other religions.

From that exercise, I concluded that much of the bible is demonstrably false and that the other stuff, the supernatural things in particular, are not believable.

I did not assume the answers before I asked the question.

That may well be that case, however, you interpreted those answers based on your worldview. Example, I don't believe supernatural things can happen. The Bible has supernatural events, thus it can't be true. I don't believe in the immortal soul idea so when people tell me they've seen a ghost of their loved ones I don't believe them. You see, My belief of their statement is based on my worldview.

 

[Butch5]

See the "philosophical burden of proof" fallacy on page one of this thread.

You're cherry picking my statements. That statement was in response to my argument on circular reasoning. I wasn't asking for him to prove the Bible is wrong. What I was asking him for was to prove his argument wasn't circular reasoning by. Here is the original post and my response.

JD16--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.

Butch5--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--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--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 you can see my statement was made in response to JD16's statement that the Bible has to be believed on faith. I wasn't making an argument so I wasn't shifting the burden of proof. I was merely asking him to validate his statement.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is not assumed, it is concluded.

Concluded via assumption.

First, nobody says that in "defense" of mainstream biology.
Second, if anybody did say that, it would be a fallacy of "argument from authority", not circular reasoning.

Of course they do. I mean that's as good an answer as your essential "No they don't".

DNA testing, disagrees.
Comparative genomics tells us exactly where we come from (in terms of genetic lineage).

Then where?

Even if I would assume your false premise that science can't tell... then the only logical, common sense conclusion is that we don't know.



Any other conclusion would be an argument from ignorance.

If had to choose one of the two based purely on logic, I would hands down conclude creation, because I've seen things created with my own eyes, and they are created for a reason, while I've never seen anything come from nothing, for no reason.
And if for some very odd reason, that's not enough, to think something far more advanced than anything humans can do, just came to be, when we struggle just to figure some of it out, is mind boggling how anyone could think there was no advanced creator.

Yet some manage to miss this huge forest for a few little trees they hide it from themselves with.

 

[zippy2006]

So.... faith isn't confirmation bias but rather.... an argument from authority?

Yes.

I don't require faith to know Australia exists.
What a ridiculous statement...

Let's look at your arguments:

No. It's because we understand how technology and the world works. It's because I understand that I can buy a plane ticket to the country at any time and actually fly there.

Without the mapmakers etc. that I noted you would have no belief in the country. The fact that you think you can buy a plane ticket and fly there just means that you believe the country exists, it doesn't mean you have demonstrative knowledge that it does.

It's because I understand the concept of falsification and how it would require a "conspiracy" on the scale the world has never seen before among millions upon millions of people who are all in on it, and this for many centuries.

It's just not sensible.

A world without faith is not sensible. This does not undermine my point.

In fact, it's the other way round.
The only thing that would require "faith" with respect to australia, would be the idea that it does NOT exist.

Perhaps according to your strawman definition.

I can fly there at any time.

Again, your belief that you can fly there is based on the faith-based evidence already noted.

I can look through telescope

Pluto, then.

I can repeat any and all experiments and analyse the evidence myself.

But you haven't done that, and you still believe. You believe on the basis of authorities that you hold to be credible. You believe on faith.

I can repeat those detections as well.

But you haven't done that, and you still believe.

I can visit the archeological sites.

But you haven't done that, and you still believe.

Literally NONE of your examples requires me to "just believe" without the option of double checking for myself.

Such is not a requirement of faith. It is belief on the basis of the testimony of another, and that is precisely what you have in the above mentioned examples.

Demonstrably false.

It seems that all of your arguments for the conclusion that you do not depend on faith have failed.