Here are some other logical fallacies that see heavy use in the atheist verses theist debates.
"Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same."
Many horrible episodes in history are popularly blamed on religion or the lack there of when often times the only thing the given religion has to do with the event is that it was there and its leaders cooperated with the event happening. Similar association fallacies are used against atheism as well (see the human rights legacy of Marxism as an example).
Religion has demonstrated an unusual ability to unify a large population behind a cause, and thus it should be little wonder that political leaders have sought to enlist the popular religion of their realm into their causes. It also follows that once a cause becomes unpopular and the used religion becomes so too or at the very least less so, that politicians and the historians that defend them should attempt to blame the religion for the whole event.
Thus we are expected to believe that all of Western Europe launched several crusades into the Middle East just because they thought it was a good way to spread their religion. The fact that the Papacy had become a center of immense political and financial power and felt threatened by the rise of monarchies must have been a small influence by comparison. Keeping these rising monarchs distracted far away from the Papal realm, the prospects of securing a major trade hub, or looting a wealthy region of the world? Certainly that all paled in significance to the Pope's desire to spread the faith by the sword, right? After all, it says right there in the Bible that Christians are to spread their faith by threat and might of arms, right? That's why when Matthew, a first hand witness of Jesus's teachings, spread Christianity into India he became known as a great military strategist? Well, no. He used the same persuasion his teacher used, that carried by words. That's because there is absolutely no place in Jesus's teachings or anywhere else in the Bible that says Christianity should be or even can be spread by force. Popular history's attempt to blame Christianity for the crusades is an association fallacy.
The fact that the same guy who headed up the church also headed up Europe politically doesn't mean his politically inspired decisions were religious ones, even if he dressed them up as such. The Church was his tool, not him the church's tool. If you don't quite see this, I can understand why. It seems so obvious to think a religious leader's decisions must be an effect of that religion rather then his effect on that religion's followers. If a religion is based on the teachings and edicts of its current leaders you could make that argument, but Christianity isn't and no major world religion is. You can't blame Jesus Christ for the decisions of popes or any other Christian leader unless you can show a direct link between their teachings and those decisions. In the case of the crusades and the inquisition for that matter, no such direct link can be found.
Likewise, I should add that blaming the human rights atrocities of Marxism on atheism is also an association fallacy. The Marxists that committed these atrocities were atheists because most popular religions would frown upon their dehumanizing ways. For them atheism was a convenient place to park that part of their mind and heart that might have otherwise questioned the authority of Marxist teachings. And, to be fair to atheists, they don't have any self-appointed leaders to denounce atheism's misuse.
"Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held."
[I'm going to re-use both of these before the year is up because they're extremely relevant to another set of commonly held beliefs. That will be getting back to politics.]
I've read critiques of ancient documents in general, not just the Bible, that deliver the chronological fallacy in spades. The argument goes something along the lines of, 'how can we take seriously the writings of people who thought the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe?'. Another is to suggest the Bible says pi equals three. There are more, but after this they're logical faultiness should also be obvious without having to list them all.
Before I get to the logic there are factual problems in these too I feel compelled to address. Europeans didn't discover the Earth is round because most of western civilization knew it already, at least several centuries BC and it's highly probable it has been pretty much obvious to any human being that has ever seen a large body of water. Secondly, pi does equal three if you're rounding and ancient scribes were frequently prone to doing just that. Such rounding would be pretty treacherous for an artisan, but scribes weren't artisans and nor was most of their audience. What we would consider excessive rounding was very common in those days. Thirty three thousand one hundred and twenty eight would be lucky to be reported as precisely as five thousand. They tended not to be numbers people, much like modern day journalists reporting the size of protest crowds. In a very real sense, that's what ancient scribes were, the journalists of their days. The numbers were there more to be descriptive then to be precise. Ten thousand meant there was a lot of people there, and a circumference three times the diameter meant it was the perimeter of a circular shape and not a square one, which would be four times the distance across.
Much more to the point though, even if the writers of the Bible believed the Earth was flat, nowhere did they codify that, and the writings of the Bible never attempted to have anything to do with geography. The Bible is a religious document with historical and ideological significance, and there is absolutely no evidence that its authors intended it to be anything else. Now whatever may have been believed about astronomy, geography, or biology at the time it was written in no way effects its merit in the areas of religion, history, and ideology. Thus those who attempt to discredit with claims about its accuracy on other subjects or the supposed beliefs of its authors on those subjects is an example of the chronological snobbery fallacy.
It's a very appropriately named fallacy as well, I might add. Knowing more about the nature of the universe's dimensions and where it all is in relation to where we stand doesn't make us superior in anyway except in a certain area of trivia. There are people who actually demand other people demonstrate knowledge with no contextual reelvence to advice sought in order for them to consider them a worthy source, but these people are generally thought of as snobs, and not as good judges of people's merits.
"Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same."
Many horrible episodes in history are popularly blamed on religion or the lack there of when often times the only thing the given religion has to do with the event is that it was there and its leaders cooperated with the event happening. Similar association fallacies are used against atheism as well (see the human rights legacy of Marxism as an example).
Religion has demonstrated an unusual ability to unify a large population behind a cause, and thus it should be little wonder that political leaders have sought to enlist the popular religion of their realm into their causes. It also follows that once a cause becomes unpopular and the used religion becomes so too or at the very least less so, that politicians and the historians that defend them should attempt to blame the religion for the whole event.
Thus we are expected to believe that all of Western Europe launched several crusades into the Middle East just because they thought it was a good way to spread their religion. The fact that the Papacy had become a center of immense political and financial power and felt threatened by the rise of monarchies must have been a small influence by comparison. Keeping these rising monarchs distracted far away from the Papal realm, the prospects of securing a major trade hub, or looting a wealthy region of the world? Certainly that all paled in significance to the Pope's desire to spread the faith by the sword, right? After all, it says right there in the Bible that Christians are to spread their faith by threat and might of arms, right? That's why when Matthew, a first hand witness of Jesus's teachings, spread Christianity into India he became known as a great military strategist? Well, no. He used the same persuasion his teacher used, that carried by words. That's because there is absolutely no place in Jesus's teachings or anywhere else in the Bible that says Christianity should be or even can be spread by force. Popular history's attempt to blame Christianity for the crusades is an association fallacy.
The fact that the same guy who headed up the church also headed up Europe politically doesn't mean his politically inspired decisions were religious ones, even if he dressed them up as such. The Church was his tool, not him the church's tool. If you don't quite see this, I can understand why. It seems so obvious to think a religious leader's decisions must be an effect of that religion rather then his effect on that religion's followers. If a religion is based on the teachings and edicts of its current leaders you could make that argument, but Christianity isn't and no major world religion is. You can't blame Jesus Christ for the decisions of popes or any other Christian leader unless you can show a direct link between their teachings and those decisions. In the case of the crusades and the inquisition for that matter, no such direct link can be found.
Likewise, I should add that blaming the human rights atrocities of Marxism on atheism is also an association fallacy. The Marxists that committed these atrocities were atheists because most popular religions would frown upon their dehumanizing ways. For them atheism was a convenient place to park that part of their mind and heart that might have otherwise questioned the authority of Marxist teachings. And, to be fair to atheists, they don't have any self-appointed leaders to denounce atheism's misuse.
"Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held."
[I'm going to re-use both of these before the year is up because they're extremely relevant to another set of commonly held beliefs. That will be getting back to politics.]
I've read critiques of ancient documents in general, not just the Bible, that deliver the chronological fallacy in spades. The argument goes something along the lines of, 'how can we take seriously the writings of people who thought the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe?'. Another is to suggest the Bible says pi equals three. There are more, but after this they're logical faultiness should also be obvious without having to list them all.
Before I get to the logic there are factual problems in these too I feel compelled to address. Europeans didn't discover the Earth is round because most of western civilization knew it already, at least several centuries BC and it's highly probable it has been pretty much obvious to any human being that has ever seen a large body of water. Secondly, pi does equal three if you're rounding and ancient scribes were frequently prone to doing just that. Such rounding would be pretty treacherous for an artisan, but scribes weren't artisans and nor was most of their audience. What we would consider excessive rounding was very common in those days. Thirty three thousand one hundred and twenty eight would be lucky to be reported as precisely as five thousand. They tended not to be numbers people, much like modern day journalists reporting the size of protest crowds. In a very real sense, that's what ancient scribes were, the journalists of their days. The numbers were there more to be descriptive then to be precise. Ten thousand meant there was a lot of people there, and a circumference three times the diameter meant it was the perimeter of a circular shape and not a square one, which would be four times the distance across.
Much more to the point though, even if the writers of the Bible believed the Earth was flat, nowhere did they codify that, and the writings of the Bible never attempted to have anything to do with geography. The Bible is a religious document with historical and ideological significance, and there is absolutely no evidence that its authors intended it to be anything else. Now whatever may have been believed about astronomy, geography, or biology at the time it was written in no way effects its merit in the areas of religion, history, and ideology. Thus those who attempt to discredit with claims about its accuracy on other subjects or the supposed beliefs of its authors on those subjects is an example of the chronological snobbery fallacy.
It's a very appropriately named fallacy as well, I might add. Knowing more about the nature of the universe's dimensions and where it all is in relation to where we stand doesn't make us superior in anyway except in a certain area of trivia. There are people who actually demand other people demonstrate knowledge with no contextual reelvence to advice sought in order for them to consider them a worthy source, but these people are generally thought of as snobs, and not as good judges of people's merits.
No comments:
Post a Comment