Reasoning Errors

[Butch5]

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.

That does't tell you what happened in the past.

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

That's actually the fallacy of reification. Evolution doesn't make predictions, people do.

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

That's true. However, if part of the Bible isn't true then we don't know that any of it is.

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

Ways which require assumptions and intepretation.

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:

Yet, no one has ever seen one life evolve into a different life form.

The Big Bang
The uniformity of nature or logic

Those are differn't subjects.

But intrinsically connected.

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.

The reason I'm asking is to see if you have a reason for your beliefs or if you just believe on faith.

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.

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

That's not the point. Science requires uniformity of nature. You couldn't really have science if today, when we applied heat to water it turned to steam, yet when we did the same test tomorrow the water turned to rock. In order to get repeatable results nature must be uniform. From an evolutionary standpoint we shouldn't expect uniformity of nature. My point is that you're relying on uniformity of nature yet your worldview cannot account for it. That to me is faith.

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

I don't know about religion, but the Bible can.

 

[variant]

That does't tell you what happened in the past.

To the extent that we know what happened in the past it will be through evidence.

That's actually the fallacy of reification. Evolution doesn't make predictions, people do.

The theory of evolution is a set of predictions and the reasons for them.

That's true. However, if part of the Bible isn't true then we don't know that any of it is.

Not really my problem, I'm agnostic.

Ways which require assumptions and intepretation.

You seem to think that thinking requires a huge amount of doubt.

You do understand that the assumptions and interpretation of that kind of evidence pales in comparison to your religious schema right?

Yet, no one has ever seen one life evolve into a different life form.

Yes they have:
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

And the evidence persists that they do.

Evolution actually requires that new things be modifications of old ones, so "differn't" is interesting.

But intrinsically connected.

Only to the extent that all ideas are connected.

The reason I'm asking is to see if you have a reason for your beliefs or if you just believe on faith.

Which belief are you asking about?

 

[Butch5]

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

I can't address what isn't presented.

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

I'm not sure how something that happened thousands of year ago is testable today.

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.

I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking how you account for it. From an evolutionary point of veiw why would there be uniformity of nature or logic? Using your scientific methodology why would they exist?

 

[variant]

That's not the point. Science requires uniformity of nature. You couldn't really have science if today, when we applied heat to water it turned to steam, yet when we did the same test tomorrow the water turned to rock. In order to get repeatable results nature must be uniform. From an evolutionary standpoint we shouldn't expect uniformity of nature. My point is that you're relying on uniformity of nature yet your worldview cannot account for it. That to me is faith.

We couldn't think without the uniformity of nature and logic, but you would have to have an actual explanation for it to use that as an argument against any given idea.

I don't know about religion, but the Bible can.

So tell me how to make a universe with uniformity and logic present, and why we might think it is possible to do so without.

 

[zippy2006]

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 it's going to see.

That's fine if you become more careful, but becoming more careful shouldn't mean requiring more evidence (for the same level of assent). If we are truly careful we should not think that just because something is important to us it requires more evidence than other things. Of course if we see something as foundational to our worldview we would want it to be firmly grounded, but I don't think the general move about importance and extra evidence holds.

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

You ignored it.

Well I asked how you think religion solves the problem with faith, but you didn't answer me. If you think I've missed it then explain what exactly the problem is and how religion solves it with faith.

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

They should be answered, not ignored.

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

Certainly, but one can focus so thoroughly on the errors that they give up the attempt to construct a bigger picture which takes those errors into account.

When I stopped being religious I never ceased to notice the similarities between all of the great world religions. I kept in mind the similarities while looking at the differences. I think skeptics have to remind themselves that religion includes truth and falsity--these traditions don't flourish because they are pure irrationality.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Actually, it does explain the uniformity of nature, but logic is subjective. What you may call logical another may consider to be nonsense. For example, if I have a friend named David whom I've known for decades and you claim that David does not exist because you never met him, it may sound logical to you but not to me. For one thing, logic does not deny the sum total of all existence and claim that existence is limited to the physical world. True logic is based on universal truth. Christians know that there is more to this existence than things you can easily see, hear, touch, taste or smell. We know, for example, that you have a soul which will endure after your body ceases to support life. We know that spirits exist and share this earth; some benign and some malevolent. We know that the things you think permanent are temporary and those you choose not to believe in are perpetual. For us this makes perfect sense because we know that the God you reject is there among us when we gather in His name.

I have a great respect for biology, but biologists make poor historians. The entire genetic history of all living things leads us not to a common progenitor but a common Creator. The same Creator who formed the stars in the universe knew you personally even as He formed you in your mother's womb. He is the one knocking at your heart, not us. You came here to expose Christians for the way they present arguments, but the greatest logical fallacy of all is to think that God doesn't exist and doesn't know how we were living our lives. Open your mind to infinite intelligence. We call Him our Father.

 

[variant]

I can't address what isn't presented.

That's fine I don't need you to.

I'm not sure how something that happened thousands of year ago is testable today.

If we are studying something that happened thousands of years ago:

Either it left behind evidence or it did not.

To the extent that it did the former we can test any given idea about the past with respect to that.

I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking how you account for it.

Well without an explanation I don't need to account for it. I say it is unexplained.

That which is unexplained is unexplained, so I don't have to explain it with theory that deals with something else.

From an evolutionary point of veiw why would there be uniformity of nature or logic? Using your scientific methodology why would they exist?

How's and why's are explanations. If you think your explanation for the uniformity of nature and logic discredits evolutionary theory (your thesis), it is up to you to explain the uniformity of nature and logic and show why that means evolutionary theory is untrue.

Good luck.

 

[variant]

Actually, it does explain the uniformity of nature, but logic is subjective. What you may call logical another may consider to be nonsense. For example, if I have a friend named David whom I've known for decades and you claim that David does not exist because you never met him, it may sound logical to you but not to me. For one thing, logic does not deny the sum total of all existence and claim that existence is limited to the physical world. True logic is based on universal truth. Christians know that there is more to this existence than things you can easily see, hear, touch, taste or smell.

Some assertions.

We know, for example, that you have a soul which will endure after your body ceases to support life. We know that spirits exist and share this earth; some benign and some malevolent. We know that the things you think permanent are temporary and those you choose not to believe in are perpetual. For us this makes perfect sense because we know that the God you reject is there among us when we gather in His name.

More assertions.

I have a great respect for biology, but biologists make poor historians. The entire genetic history of all living things leads us not to a common progenitor but a common Creator. The same Creator who formed the stars in the universe knew you personally even as He formed you in your mother's womb. He is the one knocking at your heart, not us. You came here to expose Christians for the way they present arguments, but the greatest logical fallacy of all is to think that God doesn't exist and doesn't know how we were living our lives. Open your mind to infinite intelligence. We call Him our Father.

Some more assertions.

Yeah you explained exactly nothing about the claim, and you did it with an authoritative sermon.

:shrug:

 

[variant]

That's fine if you become more careful, but becoming more careful shouldn't mean requiring more evidence (for the same level of assent). If we are truly careful we should not think that just because something is important to us it requires more evidence than other things. Of course if we see something as foundational to our worldview we would want it to be firmly grounded, but I don't think the general move about importance and extra evidence holds.

Importance means you intend to act more with respect to it. To have something like that, you should wish to stand on as firm a foundation as possible.

So, someone comes to your door and presents to you the tale of an earth shattering event that completely upends your world view, you aren't going to demand a high degree of evidence?

So, I think you might be missing the idea a bit.

I come from a position where I purposefully don't include a lot of stuff I'm not comfortable defending in my worldview so any claim gets considerable skepticism if it is important to me.

Well I asked how you think religion solves the problem with faith, but you didn't answer me. If you think I've missed it then explain what exactly the problem is and how religion solves it with faith.

Religion solves the problem of doubt by convincing people to ignore it and have faith instead.

They should be answered, not ignored.

Yeah well. Were I satisfied with the answers I get...

Certainly, but one can focus so thoroughly on the errors that they give up the attempt to construct a bigger picture which takes those errors into account.

Fundamental doubts and errors seem pretty difficult to bypass to construct a bigger picture.

When I stopped being religious I never ceased to notice the similarities between all of the great world religions. I kept in mind the similarities while looking at the differences. I think skeptics have to remind themselves that religion includes truth and falsity--these traditions don't flourish because they are pure irrationality.

No they seem to flourish to me because they can effectively appeal to what people want to believe and what their needs are.

 

[Butch5]

To the extent that we know what happened in the past it will be through evidence.

How so?

The theory of evolution is a set of predictions and the reasons for them.

That's true, however it is scientists with worldviews that make the predictions.

You seem to think that thinking requires a huge amount of doubt.

You do understand that the assumptions and interpretation of that kind of evidence pales in comparison to your religious schema right?

The fact remains that it requires assumptions and interpretation. Assumptions and interpretations are subject to error. So, if the assumption used in testing is wrong then the results are likewise wrong, correct?

Yes they have:
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

And the evidence persists that they do.

Evolution actually requires that new things be modifications of old ones, so "differn't" is interesting.

Speciation is different than molecules to man

Only to the extent that all ideas are connected.

Uniformity of science is required for biology.

Which belief are you asking about?

You're belief in scientific methodology

 

[variant]

How so?

That is how we come to know things about the past.

We use evidence, as, none of us were there.

That's true, however it is scientists with worldviews that make the predictions.

(the evidence only happens when the predictions are shown to be correct)

Someone explains some process X and says that it will make Y happen.

Y happens and happens for reasons apparently related to X.

The fact remains that it requires assumptions and interpretation. Assumptions and interpretations are subject to error. So, if the assumption used in testing is wrong then the results are likewise wrong, correct?

All things are subject to error.

The key point is how we deal with errors, recognize errors ect.

If you want to compare the process for catching and dealing with errors in science verses religions be my guest, as it doesn't make your side of the argument look good.

Speciation is different than molecules to man

And again, you've gone beyond the scope of the theory you critique.

Uniformity of science is required for biology.

Which you've failed to demonstrate is a problem.

You're belief in scientific methodology

Oh, it gives us results and attempts to address the problems of assumptions, worldviews and bias that you seem to be so hung up on.

In fact it tends to address those things more than most epistemological schema.

Reasonably, we should be expecting YOU to embrace it considering your skepticism of bias, but here you are defending a religious viewpoint...

 

[zippy2006]

Importance means you intend to act more with respect to it. To have something like that, you should wish to stand on as firm a foundation as possible.

Sure, that seems similar to what I said about it being foundational to your worldview.

So, someone comes to your door and presents to you the tale of an earth shattering event that completely upends your world view, you aren't going to demand a high degree of evidence?

I am, not because I am especially skeptical about things that are important to me, but because my worldview presents so many reasons to disbelieve their tale.

Religion solves the problem of doubt by convincing people to ignore it and have faith instead.

I've never heard a Catholic priest give that advice.

Fundamental doubts and errors seem pretty difficult to bypass to construct a bigger picture.

No they seem to flourish to me because they can effectively appeal to what people want to believe and what their needs are.

Okay.

 

[variant]

I am, not because I am especially skeptical about things that are important to me, but because my worldview presents so many reasons to disbelieve their tale.

Well that's just one way way things become important to you.

I've never heard a Catholic priest give that advice.

Not directly, no they say doubt is healthy, and they'll stick to that until you go full on question mode, and then it all boils down to faith that I don't really have, and now I'm an atheist.

 

[zippy2006]

Not directly, no they say doubt is healthy, and they'll stick to that until you go full on question mode, and then it all boils down to faith that I don't really have, and now I'm an atheist.

In my experience they answer your questions or point you to places where answers can be found.

 

[variant]

In my experience they answer your questions or point you to places where answers can be found.

Yeah well, that second part involved a decade long study that I found depressing and ultimately completely unsatisfactory.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yeah you explained exactly nothing about the claim, and you did it with an authoritative sermon.

It's not my fault if you don't understand. You're the one living in the make believe world, oblivious to the evidence around you and in complete denial of a 6,000 year history of man's interaction with his Creator. To a person with an open mind, no proof is needed. For a closed mind, no proof is enough. You scoff at things you don't understand and pretend to be wise while drowning in your own foolishness. You remind me of a person in water to their waist loudly proclaiming that the ship is not sinking. You hold to a world view that is untenable in reality. It's funny. Atheists seem to believe that they are more enlightened than people of faith. However those of us who have seen things with our own eyes and experienced things in our lives that no science could ever explain no a truth that the deniers will never understand. All the wisdom of atheists remains grand foolishness to those who have known and experienced the presence of God. I'm not sure why so many of you descend upon us and try to convince us of things which we know to be false. We have a greater truth. Surely you believe in the things you say. Sadly, they have no relationship with the greater reality of our existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Concluded via assumption.

Data and observable processes are not assumed. They are observed.

Of course they do

Who's "they"?

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

Sure. What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence, after all.
In any case, I don't know about anybody who isn't anti-science (= a YEC or similar) to argue that x is true "because science says so".

There are no authorities in science. And science itself is a method/process.

Then where?

Common ancestry.

If had to choose one of the two based purely on logic

Fortunatly, you don't have to. Or at least, you shouldn't. Because false dichotomies are fallacious.

, 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.

See? False dichotomy. Combined with a strawman. Combo points!

And if for some very odd reason, that's not enough,

No... False dichotomies, strawmen and arguments from ignorance / incredulity, are not enough. And it's not "odd" - it's rational.

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.

Textbook argument from ignorance/incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes.

So instead of fallacy A, it's fallacy B.

Without the mapmakers etc. that I noted you would have no belief in the country.

Yes, without all the knowledge that I have about the world and that country, I would have no knowledge about the world and that country.

Point?

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.

Here's a nice photograph

I'm also looking at a gadget on my desk here that says "made in australia".

Also: kangaroo's and koala bears.

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

Faith-based evidence, is a contradiction in terms.
You can have faith-based beliefs or evidence-based beliefs.

My acceptance that Australia is a real country and actual exists, is based on extremely solid evidence. Eventhough I've never been there, I'm as certain that it exists as I am that the country I live in exists.

It's not faith. It's knowledge.

Pluto, then.

Here's another nice photograph

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

But I could. That's the point.

You believe on the basis of authorities that you hold to be credible. You believe on faith.

No. I accept it based on available evidence.

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

So, basically... for you, no evidence exists and everything anyone accepts is faith-based. Got it.

It is belief on the basis of the testimony of another, and that is precisely what you have in the above mentioned examples.

Nope.
Not a single scientist is merely believe on his word.

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

No. It rather seems that you have to engage in mental gymnastics to pretend to having a point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and it is not an "alternative" position to (a)theism, which pertains to belief.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

First, there is far too little information here to answer that question.
Wheter I believe the dude or not will be entirely dependend on what exactly he said and how that ties into whatever other information I have at my disposal.

Secondly, since you were carefull enough to state that whatever the answer, it is irrelevant to your life... what you believe or not there would in fact be irrelevant.

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.

Again, it depends on what is being said and what the consequences are or might be of (dis)believing it.

Having said that... trust is something that is gained through a trackrecord. It is not something that is given by default.

Trust isn't blind.

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

Which you can only do reliably, if you can predict in advance what effects you should be able to find based on an explanatory model of the thing you are testing.

Which in turn means that you need to be able to define God, in this case, before you can even start thinking about what effects should be present and which would unambigously support the existance of said God.

Faith requires a sufficient reason just as much as anything else.

This is just confusing to me.

Perhaps an illustration will help.

Could you give an every-day example of "faith" and its "sufficient reason"?
And then contrast that with an every-day example that does not employ/require "faith".

Let's stay clear of religions in these examples, just for clarity and to avoid further confusion.

Thanks