[Note: I'll return to logical fallacies of a more political flavor next week, but this week seemed to be a good one to address the logical fallacies I have observed in modern discourse about God and religion]
"(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false."
This one is commonly found wherever someone wishes to challenge or defend a view supported by tradition. Both sides of the argument step in it and believe the other has instead. It's like being on a teeter-totter in space where there is no agreed upon up or down. Context is everything.
An atheist insists that someone who believes in the existence of a god is making an assertion by doing so and thus must prove it. Meanwhile someone who defers to a time tested, and still currently popular line of tradition believes the assertion in the argument is that there is no god, and the burden of proof is thus on the atheist instead.
They both could be right depending on the context. If the theist's belief were new to the context then the atheist would be correct. In that case the assertion that must be proved is being made by the theist. This would be the context if the theist was trying to change the atheist's mind, for example. But, if the atheist's beliefs were new to the context then the theist would be correct. This would be the case if the atheist was trying to change many public policies regarding religious expression for example.
More specific examples would be the content of science curriculum and the use of public places for religious reasons. A Christian, for example, cannot simply insert religious teachings into a science curriculum unless they are prepared to prove the existence of God solely through the use of the scientific method. Otherwise they are forcing poor logic onto science.
In the same way an atheist who insists that a religion, that most members of a community through long years of tradition believe and practice, should not be publicly acknowledged is also going to be the one needing to prove things. Before one demands that governments not acknowledge tradition they must first prove that tradition is wrong. The very fact that something becomes a tradition means that many people over many years came to see value and efficacy in it to such a degree that they thought it should be passed on, and several generations arrived upon the same conclusion until it came to be deferred to almost without question. Traditions are not all that unlike scientific theories in that way, and both should only be changed when those asserting they are wrong present proof to their assertions.
Context is everything and yet it is almost always, it seems, what people in the atheist verses theist debates lose track of. They both often make the mistake of assuming the burden of proof is always on the other side. Not so.
One of the most common ways they get to this wrong conclusion is through yet another logical fallacy.
"Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other."
One might say this isn't exactly an example of the definist fallacy, but I think it is. The Christian who wants "God created the heavens and the earth" in science textbooks defines science's mission in terms of all knowledge and all things, when science is limited only to those things that can be both observed and quantified. That's a classic example of the definist fallacy.
Once you define science as dealing with all things, even those things unobserved and unquantified, it becomes like a train off its rails. It not only can't defend itself from those who wish to impose unscientific ideas onto it, but it becomes useless completely, no longer a tool for objective study.
Likewise when an atheist demands that the Christian god's existence be proven using only things that can be observed and quantified, this is also a prime example of the definist fallacy. Functional and rational people, by most people's understanding of such, make effective decisions every day using more inputs than just those that the scientific method could make use of. Things like tradition, personal but unreproducible experiences, and what we call intuition are just a few. Religions purpose, which addresses all things, requires this of it, since those things are part of that set.
To use my psychology and education backgrounds here, I can tell you that religion forms a mental construct, like a model in science, into which an individual organizes all aspects of their life. It doesn't step on science, preclude emotions, or insist that someone pretend they didn't see something they saw. Instead it gives each and every aspect of a person's life a place to fit into the larger whole. Studies have shown it to be a very effective life tool. To be this tool it must address all rationally valid inputs including those observable and quantifiable. Just as science cannot retain its objectivity if it must address all things at all times, religion cannot be as holistic as it needs to be if it is limited only to the observable and quantifiable.
Now I've talked to atheists enough to know that some of them would insist that science can eventually address all things, at least in theory if given infinite time, and all the things it can't currently address are best not addressed at all until it can be done in a purely objective way. I'll resist the temptation to pounce (at least for right now) on the rather religious sounding talk about science eventually addressing all things given infinite time, and instead present something that drives home my point about people having good reason to want something to address all things today and not just at some indefinite time in the future.
The unreproducible personal experience is one very good example. It is something that is useless within the scientific method. It cannot be used to advance any objective study, but it is still very important to the person who experienced it. There is a psychological need to rationally fit it together with the rest of their life. Failing to do so can cause psychological discomfort and possibly even interpersonal impairment. It's likely they will need something to put it all together with, something that is either called religion or at the very least plays the same role, which can't be science. Some atheists cope with some sort of substitute for religion while others prefer to deny the existence of such things and insist the experience must have been a miss-perception of some kind. Of course the miss-perception approach is to ask someone to exchange faith in what they actually believe themselves to have experienced with faith in that theory about science being given infinite time to eventually explain everything, and we're some how better off waiting for the explanation that may never come in their life time. And to think many of them don't believe in teaching kids about Santa Claus. I don't know about you, but I think the odds of me seeing Santa's workshop at the North Pole far exceed the odds of science ever managing to explain all things.
It's that whole matter of infinity. What do the latest and greatest scientific theories have to say about the dimensions of the universe in regards to infinity? Now compare that to the track record of human creativity and perhaps my point starts to become clear. Science may very likely not have infinite time to deal with but the potential of human creativity on the other hand does seem infinite based on all valid inputs available to us.
Now before any atheist gets too offended by what I'm saying here, remember I gave the Christians who want to muck with science as though it's religion their medicine for using the definist fallacy. Now I just gave you yours for trying to get religion to play by science's rules, and thus using the same fallacy. It just took a bit longer in your cases because some of you actually try to do the same thing some of my fellow Christians do, treat science as though it's a religion. That's a bad practice and I'm sure many of your well educated and well thought fellow atheists can drive home that point for me, so I wont belabor it further.
While I'm not sure anyone can quantify the exact degree of sin on both sides, I think it should be pretty clear that both sides are guilty of using heavy doses of shifting the burden of proof and the definist fallacy.
"(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false."
This one is commonly found wherever someone wishes to challenge or defend a view supported by tradition. Both sides of the argument step in it and believe the other has instead. It's like being on a teeter-totter in space where there is no agreed upon up or down. Context is everything.
An atheist insists that someone who believes in the existence of a god is making an assertion by doing so and thus must prove it. Meanwhile someone who defers to a time tested, and still currently popular line of tradition believes the assertion in the argument is that there is no god, and the burden of proof is thus on the atheist instead.
They both could be right depending on the context. If the theist's belief were new to the context then the atheist would be correct. In that case the assertion that must be proved is being made by the theist. This would be the context if the theist was trying to change the atheist's mind, for example. But, if the atheist's beliefs were new to the context then the theist would be correct. This would be the case if the atheist was trying to change many public policies regarding religious expression for example.
More specific examples would be the content of science curriculum and the use of public places for religious reasons. A Christian, for example, cannot simply insert religious teachings into a science curriculum unless they are prepared to prove the existence of God solely through the use of the scientific method. Otherwise they are forcing poor logic onto science.
In the same way an atheist who insists that a religion, that most members of a community through long years of tradition believe and practice, should not be publicly acknowledged is also going to be the one needing to prove things. Before one demands that governments not acknowledge tradition they must first prove that tradition is wrong. The very fact that something becomes a tradition means that many people over many years came to see value and efficacy in it to such a degree that they thought it should be passed on, and several generations arrived upon the same conclusion until it came to be deferred to almost without question. Traditions are not all that unlike scientific theories in that way, and both should only be changed when those asserting they are wrong present proof to their assertions.
Context is everything and yet it is almost always, it seems, what people in the atheist verses theist debates lose track of. They both often make the mistake of assuming the burden of proof is always on the other side. Not so.
One of the most common ways they get to this wrong conclusion is through yet another logical fallacy.
"Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other."
One might say this isn't exactly an example of the definist fallacy, but I think it is. The Christian who wants "God created the heavens and the earth" in science textbooks defines science's mission in terms of all knowledge and all things, when science is limited only to those things that can be both observed and quantified. That's a classic example of the definist fallacy.
Once you define science as dealing with all things, even those things unobserved and unquantified, it becomes like a train off its rails. It not only can't defend itself from those who wish to impose unscientific ideas onto it, but it becomes useless completely, no longer a tool for objective study.
Likewise when an atheist demands that the Christian god's existence be proven using only things that can be observed and quantified, this is also a prime example of the definist fallacy. Functional and rational people, by most people's understanding of such, make effective decisions every day using more inputs than just those that the scientific method could make use of. Things like tradition, personal but unreproducible experiences, and what we call intuition are just a few. Religions purpose, which addresses all things, requires this of it, since those things are part of that set.
To use my psychology and education backgrounds here, I can tell you that religion forms a mental construct, like a model in science, into which an individual organizes all aspects of their life. It doesn't step on science, preclude emotions, or insist that someone pretend they didn't see something they saw. Instead it gives each and every aspect of a person's life a place to fit into the larger whole. Studies have shown it to be a very effective life tool. To be this tool it must address all rationally valid inputs including those observable and quantifiable. Just as science cannot retain its objectivity if it must address all things at all times, religion cannot be as holistic as it needs to be if it is limited only to the observable and quantifiable.
Now I've talked to atheists enough to know that some of them would insist that science can eventually address all things, at least in theory if given infinite time, and all the things it can't currently address are best not addressed at all until it can be done in a purely objective way. I'll resist the temptation to pounce (at least for right now) on the rather religious sounding talk about science eventually addressing all things given infinite time, and instead present something that drives home my point about people having good reason to want something to address all things today and not just at some indefinite time in the future.
The unreproducible personal experience is one very good example. It is something that is useless within the scientific method. It cannot be used to advance any objective study, but it is still very important to the person who experienced it. There is a psychological need to rationally fit it together with the rest of their life. Failing to do so can cause psychological discomfort and possibly even interpersonal impairment. It's likely they will need something to put it all together with, something that is either called religion or at the very least plays the same role, which can't be science. Some atheists cope with some sort of substitute for religion while others prefer to deny the existence of such things and insist the experience must have been a miss-perception of some kind. Of course the miss-perception approach is to ask someone to exchange faith in what they actually believe themselves to have experienced with faith in that theory about science being given infinite time to eventually explain everything, and we're some how better off waiting for the explanation that may never come in their life time. And to think many of them don't believe in teaching kids about Santa Claus. I don't know about you, but I think the odds of me seeing Santa's workshop at the North Pole far exceed the odds of science ever managing to explain all things.
It's that whole matter of infinity. What do the latest and greatest scientific theories have to say about the dimensions of the universe in regards to infinity? Now compare that to the track record of human creativity and perhaps my point starts to become clear. Science may very likely not have infinite time to deal with but the potential of human creativity on the other hand does seem infinite based on all valid inputs available to us.
Now before any atheist gets too offended by what I'm saying here, remember I gave the Christians who want to muck with science as though it's religion their medicine for using the definist fallacy. Now I just gave you yours for trying to get religion to play by science's rules, and thus using the same fallacy. It just took a bit longer in your cases because some of you actually try to do the same thing some of my fellow Christians do, treat science as though it's a religion. That's a bad practice and I'm sure many of your well educated and well thought fellow atheists can drive home that point for me, so I wont belabor it further.
While I'm not sure anyone can quantify the exact degree of sin on both sides, I think it should be pretty clear that both sides are guilty of using heavy doses of shifting the burden of proof and the definist fallacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment