Reasoning Errors

[variant]

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.

Being agnostic doesn't mean you aren't passionate.

 

[variant]

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.

Regardless of your worldview, when you start with the conclusion, and it is unmovable, you are not practicing science.

Creationists for instance will sign mission statements that they will only accept evidence that goes in one direction.

See here:
Statement of Faith

That is a "statement of faith" that no scientist that supposes to test any idea that goes counter to such a statement can make.

The dichotomy you are proffering here is simply false. Evolutionary theory for instance was evidenced by people who were religious. Noah's flood was shown to be incorrect by people looking for evidence that it was true.

Evidence is objective. Everyone can see it and those who are honest with themselves can interpret it correctly.

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.

No a considerable number of creation "scientists" have literally said they will not accept evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. This is not true of actual scientists.

Evolution doesn't show god to be false, god is free to exist and evolutionary theory is free to be true at the same time, so that would be a non sequitur. So your second false equivalence is also untrue.

You seem to be trying to give teachable examples for this "reasoning errors" thread.

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.

No, it isn't, when presented with evidence gathered by the appropriate methodology any scientist can tell whether or not it objectively supports the hypothesis.

Those who will not admit to such things are simply dishonest.

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?

I don't. If I pretended I had an explanation for everything I would be religious.

 

[variant]

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.

Noah's ark is a story in the bible that says things that are untrue, flatly. That was the first video I scrolled over.

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

Some things are objectively true and some objectively false, we can demonstrate these with objective evidence.

That some will still find the will to deny them is evidence that their world view can not be penetrated by good evidence.

That is on them, not science.

 

[zippy2006]

Being agnostic doesn't mean you aren't passionate.

True, but it does mean that one has a certain openness of mind. It implies a kind of uncertainty.

 

[variant]

True, but it does mean that one has a certain openness of mind. It implies a kind of uncertainty.

I am not religious because I am a natural skeptic. It doesn't mean I can't be convinced, but it does mean I'm not going to be convinced in the usual way people adopt religions. I'm sorry if that is frustrating to you, but I haven't ever found a way to change basic properties of my personality.

My uncertainty about the idea of God is overwhelming. I'm not even sure how to define the concept properly so that I would know it when I saw it and it was somehow subtle.

The religious people in my life have always had all the answers, but never anything I found particularly satisfying for my doubts.

 

[zippy2006]

I am not religious because I am a natural skeptic.

I was a natural skeptic until I came to the conclusion that natural skepticism is not tenable. So I retain some of that attitude, but I try to mitigate it.

It doesn't mean I can't be convinced, but it does mean I'm not going to be convinced in the usual way people adopt religions. I'm sorry if that is frustrating to you, but I haven't ever found a way to change basic properties of my personality.

Why do you label yourself an agnostic rather than an atheist? It seems to me that it has something to do with uncertainty.

My uncertainty about the idea of God is overwhelming. I'm not even sure how to define the concept properly so that I would know it when I saw it and it was somehow subtle.

St. Thomas would agree that we can't define God, we can't know his essence. We know that something exists but we don't know what it is.

The religious people in my life have always had all the answers, but never anything I found particularly satisfying for my doubts.

Most answers of religious people come from Scripture, so if you don't accept Scripture you will inevitably be unsatisfied.

 

[variant]

I was a natural skeptic until I came to the conclusion that natural skepticism is not tenable. So I retain some of that attitude, but I try to mitigate it.

It doesn't seem that problematic to me. I don't think the religious people I talk to understand that I put all the ideas I have through the wringer.

Why do you label yourself an agnostic rather than an atheist? It seems to me that it has something to do with uncertainty.

I don't. I am both. They are as the other poster said, not mutually exclusive. I am an atheist in that I lack a belief in God.

St. Thomas would agree that we can't define God, we can't know his essence. We know that something exists but we don't know what it is.

An indefinite idea becomes impossible to test. To know that something "exists" you need to find some quality of it that you can assess.

Religion solves this with the idea of faith, something I have never been particularly good with.

Most answers of religious people come from Scripture, so if you don't accept Scripture you will inevitably be unsatisfied.

Even when wandering beyond scripture into basic philosophy, the religious, give me very little to work with.

But yes, I simply doubt scripture, and there isn't really a good work around for that.

One simply can not adopt a religion or a religious viewpoint when you have undeniable doubts of it's foundations.

 

[Butch5]

Regardless of your worldview, when you start with the conclusion, and it is unmovable, you are not practicing science.

Creationists for instance will sign mission statements that they will only accept evidence that goes in one direction.

See here:
Statement of Faith

That is a "statement of faith" that no scientist that supposes to test any idea that goes counter to such a statement can make.

The dichotomy you are proffering here is simply false. Evolutionary theory for instance was evidenced by people who were religious. Noah's flood was shown to be incorrect by people looking for evidence that it was true.

Evidence is objective. Everyone can see it and those who are honest with themselves can interpret it correctly.

And what is correctly? The way your side views it? You still don't seem to get my point. Evidence is interpreted based on your world view. Did you do all of the testing to come to your beliefs or did you rely on someone else? I doubt you did it yourself. So, that means you relied on the world view of someone else to present the evidence to you and then relied on your worldview to determine whether their interpretation of the evidence is correct.

No a considerable number of creation "scientists" have literally said they will not accept evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. This is not true of actual scientists.

This is arbitrary. What are actual scientist? Are they the ones who don't sign the statements you're talking about? That would be the "No True Scottsman" fallacy.

Evolution doesn't show god to be false, god is free to exist and evolutionary theory is free to be true at the same time, so that would be a non sequitur. So your second false equivalence is also untrue.

You seem to be trying to give teachable examples for this "reasoning errors" thread.[/quote]

No, they can't both be true at the same time. The Bible says that God created everything in 6 days. According to the theory of evolution it took billions of years. Bot can't be true.

No, it isn't, when presented with evidence gathered by the appropriate methodology any scientist can tell whether or not it objectively supports the hypothesis.

Those who will not admit to such things are simply dishonest.

That's true for observational science. However, evolution isn't observational science. No scientist today was around at the time of Noah's flood so it's not observational science. The evidence regarding the flood has to be interpreted by a mind. A mind with a worldview.

I don't. If I pretended I had an explanation for everything I would be religious.

Then why are you arguing for the scientific method? If you can't account for the uniformity of nature, which all science requires, why do you suppose you can trust the results of any scientific evidence?

 

[Butch5]

Noah's ark is a story in the bible that says things that are untrue, flatly. That was the first video I scrolled over.

What is flatly untrue?

Some things are objectively true and some objectively false, we can demonstrate these with objective evidence.

That some will still find the will to deny them is evidence that their world view can not be penetrated by good evidence.

That is on them, not science.

But again, you keep gong back to evidence which must be interpreted by a mind. If someone doesn't believe in God they're going find another way to interpret the evidence

 

[variant]

And what is correctly? The way your side views it? You still don't seem to get my point. Evidence is interpreted based on your world view. Did you do all of the testing to come to your beliefs or did you rely on someone else? I doubt you did it yourself. So, that means you relied on the world view of someone else to present the evidence to you and then relied on your worldview to determine whether their interpretation of the evidence is correct.

When you test an idea, the test either supports it or it doesn't.

It's not a matter of "worldview".

You aren't capable of being more of a skeptic than I am while supporting religious views, that isn't possible.

I don't accept your "selective skepticism".

This is arbitrary. What are actual scientist? Are they the ones who don't sign the statements you're talking about? That would be the "No True Scottsman" fallacy.

Real scientists are those who follow the methodology of science. Science is a specific utilization of methodological reasoning/testing and those who do not follow it are not doing it by definition.

A no true Scotsman fallacy can not exist on a clear definition.

This is the scientific method:

The question is: can you do this procedure with respect to an idea that you have already sighed a statement of faith on and you are unwilling to accept results that differ? I don't see that box.

No, they can't both be true at the same time. The Bible says that God created everything in 6 days. According to the theory of evolution it took billions of years. Bot can't be true.

Incorrect. The Bible is free to be false while God exists.

You have made the assumption that if God exists, than the Bible is word for word true.

Your assumption is simply unessisary, and free to be completely wrong.

That's true for observational science. However, evolution isn't observational science. No scientist today was around at the time of Noah's flood so it's not observational science. The evidence regarding the flood has to be interpreted by a mind. A mind with a worldview.

We can observe objective evidence for things that happened in the past.

Then why are you arguing for the scientific method? If you can't account for the uniformity of nature, which all science requires, why do you suppose you can trust the results of any scientific evidence?

I have evidence that nature is uniform, I don't have to have a comprehensive explanation.

I trust the results of methodological objective testing because they can be relied upon, observed, and used to make predictions that come true.

Were that to not be true I would not.

 

[variant]

What is flatly untrue?

A worldwide flood simply never happened.

But again, you keep gong back to evidence which must be interpreted by a mind. If someone doesn't believe in God they're going find another way to interpret the evidence

I can't exactly say all minds are unreliable, that would make things a bit difficult to argue.

It's not just that people might not believe in God, it's more that science can't even begin to address the subject of God, and attributing things to an omnipotent force that we don't understand doesn't really explain anything.

Religious explanations that rely on God not only aren't scientific, they aren't even explanations.

The sort of "interpretation" you are talking about is basically meaningless.

 

[zippy2006]

It doesn't seem that problematic to me. I don't think the religious people I talk to understand that I put all the ideas I have through the wringer.

But I doubt you put all your beliefs through the wringer. A skeptic is someone who is more apt to doubt than to believe, and I don't find that stance tenable. For that reason I find the ubiquity of faith natural.

A litmus test. Suppose you are approached by a stranger you have never met before. He seems perfectly average: you have no special reason to be suspicious of him and no special reason to be trusting towards him. He tells you something. The thing he tells you has no effect on your life whatsoever, and believing or disbelieving it are both perfectly consistent with all of your held beliefs. Do you believe him? If you don't, you are a skeptic; if you do, you are not.

I think a basic foundation of life and civilization is this basic stance of trust. When someone tells us something, we believe them, ceteris paribus.

I don't. I am both. They are as the other poster said, not mutually exclusive. I am an atheist in that I lack a belief in God.

But on CF you have labeled yourself an agnostic, as only one label is allowed. Did you flip a coin?

An indefinite idea becomes impossible to test. To know that something "exists" you need to find some quality of it that you can assess.

You need to find some effect that can be traced back to the thing, that signifies the existence of the thing.

Religion solves this with the idea of faith, something I have never been particularly good with.

How do you think religion solves the problem with faith? Faith requires a sufficient reason just as much as anything else. Nothing pulls itself up by its own bootstraps, faith included.

Even when wandering beyond scripture into basic philosophy, the religious, give me very little to work with.

But yes, I simply doubt scripture, and there isn't really a good work around for that.

One simply can not adopt a religion or a religious viewpoint when you have undeniable doubts of it's foundations.

True, but one does not overcome doubts in a day. At least not usually.

 

[variant]

But I doubt you put all your beliefs through the wringer. A skeptic is someone who is more apt to doubt than to believe, and I don't find that stance tenable. For that reason I find the ubiquity of faith natural.

A litmus test. Suppose you are approached by a stranger you have never met before. He seems perfectly average: you have no special reason to be suspicious of him and no special reason to be trusting towards him. He tells you something. The thing he tells you has no effect on your life whatsoever, and believing or disbelieving it are both perfectly consistent with all of your held beliefs. Do you believe him? If you don't, you are a skeptic; if you do, you are not.

I think that you are a skeptic when you tend to doubt things that matter to you not that you are prone to doubt when it doesn't.

I think a basic foundation of life and civilization is this basic stance of trust. When someone tells us something, we believe them, ceteris paribus.

With me, I give people an a chance (allow them to hurt me in a minor way) and let them earn my trust beyond that.

But on CF you have labeled yourself an agnostic, as only one label is allowed. Did you flip a coin?

I had forgotten that those labels still existed. But, I am an atheist because I am agnostic, so it seems more basic.

You need to find some effect that can be traced back to the thing, that signifies the existence of the thing.

It must be traceable to the thing and only that.

How do you think religion solves the problem with faith? Faith requires a sufficient reason just as much as anything else. Nothing pulls itself up by its own bootstraps, faith included.

If it were merely a matter of rationality I doubt I would doubt.

True, but one does not overcome doubts in a day. At least not usually.

My doubts with respect to religious ideas don't seem to get overcome, they tend to multiply.

 

[Butch5]

When you test an idea, the test either supports it or you don't.

It's not a matter of "worldview".

You aren't capable of being more of a skeptic than I am while supporting religious views, that isn't possible.

Notice what you said, when you test and idea. How do you test something that happened thousands of years ago?

Real scientists are those who follow the methodology of science. Science is a specific utilization of methodological reasoning/testing and those who do not follow it are not doing it by definition.

A no true Scotsman fallacy can not exist on a clear definition.

This is the scientific method:

The question is: can you do this procedure with respect to an idea that you have already sighed a statement of faith on and you are unwilling to accept results that differ? I don't see that box.

Ok, and if creation scientists do this they are scientists regardless of what statement of faith they have or have not signed. However, again, this is observational science. Evolution is not observational science.

Incorrect. The Bible is free to be false while God exists.

You have made the assumption that if God exists, than the Bible is word for word true.

Your assumption is simply unessisary, and free to be completely wrong.

No, the Bible opens with, "In the beginning God." If it is false then the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Or we have absolutely no concept of Him, which would be contrary to this thread.

We can observe objective evidence for things that happened in the past.

Yes, however, that evidence has to be interpreted. We don't look at a rock and find that rock speaks out and says I'm 100 million years old.

I have evidence that nature is uniform, I don't have to have a comprehensive explanation.

I trust the results of methodological objective testing because they can be relied upon, observed, and used to make predictions that come true.
Were that to not be true I would not.

I'm not asking for evidence that it's true, I'm asking how you account for it. You see according to Evolutionary scientists things just came into being. The Big Bang theory has been popular for quite a while. According to that theory we live in a random chance universe. That's why Evolution can't account for the uniformity of nature or logic. Would anyone expect uniformity in a random chance universe? You see, you said you trust methodological objective testing. However, that testing relies on the Uniformity of Nature. If nature wasn't uniform then the testing results wouldn't be the same each time the test was performed. Evolution can't account for this. From an Evolutionists point of view we shouldn't expect the results to be the same next time.

 

[Butch5]

A worldwide flood simply never happened.

That's rather arbitrary isn't it?

I can't exactly say all minds are unreliable, that would make things a bit difficult to argue.

It's not just that people might not believe in God, it's more that science can't even begin to address the subject of God, and attributing things to an omnipotent force that we don't understand doesn't really explain anything.

Religious explanations that rely on God not only aren't scientific, they aren't even explanations.

The sort of "interpretation" you are talking about is basically meaningless.

How so? I'm talking about any evidence for anything. Science doesn't address God, however, those opposed to the Scriptures try to use Science to disprove the Bible. The point is that science is only possible in a Christian worldview. Sure, non Christians claim science, however, as I pointed out they cannot account for uniformity of nature nor logic. Science depends on logic. From an Evolutionists point of view why should we be logic?

 

[variant]

Notice what you said, when you test and idea. How do you test something that happened thousands of years ago?

You put forward a hypothesis of what sort of things would be true if that event would have happened given what you already know and you look for evidence and see whether that evidence is consistent with your hypothesis.

Ok, and if creation scientists do this they are scientists regardless of what statement of faith they have or have not signed. However, again, this is observational science. Evolution is not observational science.

Evolution is indeed observational. The theory of evolution makes hundreds of predictions about future evidence that have been repeatedly supported as evidence arises.

No, the Bible opens with, "In the beginning God." If it is false then the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Or we have absolutely no concept of Him, which would be contrary to this thread.

And every word of the Bible doesn't need to be false for there to be false claims in the Bible.

Yes, however, that evidence has to be interpreted. We don't look at a rock and find that rock speaks out and says I'm 100 million years old.

There are plenty of ways to test such a claim though.

I'm not asking for evidence that it's true, I'm asking how you account for it. You see according to Evolutionary scientists things just came into being. The Big Bang theory has been popular for quite a while. According to that theory we live in a random chance universe. That's why Evolution can't account for the uniformity of nature or logic.

I can tell you from my experience getting my biology degree that the theory of evolution deals with how living things change over time and how life evolved from simpler forms and not:

The Big Bang
The uniformity of nature or logic

Those are differn't subjects.

If you are asking me this as a student of philosophy I can say that my ignorance on any subject doesn't mean that people equally ignorant get to assert whatever religious views they would like.

Would anyone expect uniformity in a random chance universe? You see, you said you trust methodological objective testing. However, that testing relies on the Uniformity of Nature. If nature wasn't uniform then the testing results wouldn't be the same each time the test was performed.

Well to the bold I don't know. I'm not sure how to make a universe, or how one like this may happen to exist.

Evolution can't account for this. From an Evolutionists point of view we shouldn't expect the results to be the same next time.

Except as I just said evolutionary theory is a specific viewpoint.

Religion can't account for it either, as "god did it" isn't really an explanation, as you don't understand how that works.

 

[variant]

That's rather arbitrary isn't it?

Well I could go into the evidence that says it didn't but I'm not really in the mood.

How so? I'm talking about any evidence for anything. Science doesn't address God, however, those opposed to the Scriptures try to use Science to disprove the Bible.

Well those parts of the Bible that are testable and happen to be false.

The point is that science is only possible in a Christian worldview. Sure, non Christians claim science, however, as I pointed out they cannot account for uniformity of nature nor logic. Science depends on logic. From an Evolutionists point of view why should we be logic?

Christianity doesn't explain the uniformity of nature or logic, to have an explanation it has to, you know actually explain something.

"God did it", explains things only to the extent that you understand God and how it operates. So, you don't understand it.

It's kind of like saying "and then a miracle happens" so you have to be a bit more explicit to actually have an explanation.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that you are a skeptic when you tend to doubt things that matter to you not that you are prone to doubt when it doesn't.

I have a hard time understanding why someone would increase their skepticism when things become important to them. It doesn't make sense to me. Is there thought to be some correlation between things that one deems important and improbability? Such that it would be rational to be more skeptical with respect to things one deems important?

With me, I give people an a chance (allow them to hurt me in a minor way) and let them earn my trust beyond that.

I think that is the rational way.

I had forgotten that those labels still existed. But, I am an atheist because I am agnostic, so it seems more basic.

Okay.

It must be traceable to the thing and only that.

Yes.

If it were merely a matter of rationality I doubt I would doubt.

Faith requires believing that the possible object of faith is neither demonstrable nor irrational. But I don't think religious people use faith to "get around" the difficulty you mentioned. Faith requires perceiving the thing believed under some aspect, just not that of demonstrative truth. For someone who believes in God's existence and his identification with Jesus, faith follows naturally. It is just believing what God says is true.

My doubts with respect to religious ideas don't seem to get overcome, they tend to multiply.

Maybe you are being overly skeptical. Maybe it would be better to seek a unified theory of religion rather than emphasizing the errors found therein.

 

[variant]

I have a hard time understanding why someone would increase their skepticism when things become important to them. It doesn't make sense to me. Is there thought to be some correlation between things that one deems important and improbability? Such that it would be rational to be more skeptical with respect to things one deems important?

To the same extent that skeptical = careful. I become more likely to verify claims, require more evidence. Being more aware of potential conflicts of interest. And, simply, more engaged.

The more my mind is engaged the more it is going to think about the situation and the more angles I'm going to see.

Faith requires believing that the possible object of faith is neither demonstrable nor irrational. But I don't think religious people use faith to "get around" the difficulty you mentioned. Faith requires perceiving the thing believed under some aspect, just not that of demonstrative truth. For someone who believes in God's existence and his identification with Jesus, faith follows naturally. It is just believing what God says is true.

And now you're past the problem, and you don't know how you got there.

You ignored it.

I agree wholeheartedly that if I could ignore my doubts I would probably still be religious.

Maybe you are being overly skeptical. Maybe it would be better to seek a unified theory of religion rather than emphasizing the errors found therein.

Defining any theory is at least partially about how to recognize and deal with error.

 

[Butch5]

[/quote][/quote]