It's that time once again. What for Eddie Fontaigne to discuss logical fallacies? Well yes and no. What I was referring to more precisely is Christmas season and those who feel obliged to make as many people as possible feel their personal discomfort with religion, most specifically Christianity at this time of year.
Besides the pluralist extremists who don't want to hear "merry Christmas" there is a particularly peculiar group of folks who actually wish to attack Christianity. Not with bombs or guns thankfully but with words and images.
A certain atheist organization posted adds on billboards reading things like, "who needs Jesus during Christmas, nobody", and "OMG there is no god". And when asked about their intent a representative said they were encouraging people who may feel pressured to act as though they believe in God to resist that pressure.
Well as a Christian myself I certainly wouldn't want anybody to believe in God out of peer pressure. I especially wouldn't want that as I'm also an individualist of sorts. And to be fair to atheists in general I want to be careful to note that I'm referring to certain organizations that claim to represent atheist interests, and they are not all atheists. I'm sure there are many who will see my point below and some who already have.
Anyone who believes in something as important as the existence or non-existence of God out of peer pressure has a rational gap that has nothing to do with theology. This is someone who either hasn't learned to think for themselves or refuses to. The former is to be taught and latter to be pitied.
My problem with the reasoning of this atheist organization is the poor reasoning it implies. Apparently they believe that if people could just be freed of peer pressure in the area of theology there would be more self-professed atheists. That's quite a claim. Apparently they believe that human beings left to their own devices would naturally not believe in anything greater than themselves that may be beyond their comprehension. That such an uninhibited human being would naturally believe themselves capable of understanding anything and everything and that anything they cannot grasp must not exist.
Interesting conclusion, but I can't see how they get to it. And it's not that I'm ignorant or trying to use the fallacious argument that what I personally can't see must not be valid. But it is in fact that they seem to be using it.
I often ponder what it is exactly that drives certain atheists to certain faulty arguments, and with such enthusiasm at that, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that certain Christians are also guilty of this, complete with the enthusiasm.
At the core of the debate over the existence of a god (note that I used "a god" and not "God"), is a logical fallacy that both sides trip over a lot, the onus probandi fallacy.
Wikipedia defines it as follows,
"Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion."
Atheists are fond of accusing theists of this fallacy whenever a theist appeals to the logical truism that it is impossible to prove a negative. The theist will argue that since the atheist cannot prove that a god does not exist, which is logically sound, the atheist loses the debate from the very start. The atheist will then say the theist is unjustly shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist, thus being guilty of the onus probandi fallacy.
In other words the atheist insists that the only claim in the debate is that a god actually exists and thus it is with the theist that the burden of proof rests. And I might add that atheists in my experience feel extremely comfortable with this argument.
The problem that both sides encounter here is in how they determine who owns the burden of proof. Contrary to what many on both sides think, that burden shifts itself according to context and can be on either depending.
The key here is to ask who is making the assertion? That's dependent on context entirely. If I wish to convert an atheist through my own wit the burden is on me. If the atheist wishes to convert me the burden is on her. Whichever one of us wishes to change the other's mind is the one making the assertion. If gods exist they do so with or without us proving the fact to someone else. The only thing up to logical debate is our ideas about them and no person has an over-arching burden to prove their own ideas to anyone but themselves, and if they hold these ideas that's already done.
That then translates into public discourse that if most people in a given group agree on something, no matter if it's true, false, plausible, or implausible, the burden of proof is always on the minority belief. Majorities aren't always right. That's an "of course", but what they believe stands in the public's minds without proof. To argue that something the majority believes is so subjective that they must prove it is arrogance. To convince you, yes they must prove it, but to live their lives publicly as though it's true, no they don't.
I'm one of those few people that knows the current millennium started 1/1/2001 and not 1/1/2000 and it frustrated me a bit that I had to celebrate that day without most of my fellow humans who had jumped the shark one year earlier. I was one of those people that failed to convince the rest of humanity of the truth. That unless we intended to stop following the same calendar we have used for a couple millenia prior, a millenia like a century always starts in its year one, not its year zero.
You probably see the analogy I'm making here. As right as I was, the burden of proof was on me and other right-headed individuals. And I believe we failed to accept it. Instead we just annoyed our friends and colleagues with our arrogance. "we are right so we don't need to prove what is clearly correct to anyone who will investigate it". And we lost.
The onus probandi fallacy, remember that the burden of proof has nothing to do with whether your claim is right or wrong. It has to do with context and perhaps most importantly, if you actually want to change anyone's mind or just annoy them.
Besides the pluralist extremists who don't want to hear "merry Christmas" there is a particularly peculiar group of folks who actually wish to attack Christianity. Not with bombs or guns thankfully but with words and images.
A certain atheist organization posted adds on billboards reading things like, "who needs Jesus during Christmas, nobody", and "OMG there is no god". And when asked about their intent a representative said they were encouraging people who may feel pressured to act as though they believe in God to resist that pressure.
Well as a Christian myself I certainly wouldn't want anybody to believe in God out of peer pressure. I especially wouldn't want that as I'm also an individualist of sorts. And to be fair to atheists in general I want to be careful to note that I'm referring to certain organizations that claim to represent atheist interests, and they are not all atheists. I'm sure there are many who will see my point below and some who already have.
Anyone who believes in something as important as the existence or non-existence of God out of peer pressure has a rational gap that has nothing to do with theology. This is someone who either hasn't learned to think for themselves or refuses to. The former is to be taught and latter to be pitied.
My problem with the reasoning of this atheist organization is the poor reasoning it implies. Apparently they believe that if people could just be freed of peer pressure in the area of theology there would be more self-professed atheists. That's quite a claim. Apparently they believe that human beings left to their own devices would naturally not believe in anything greater than themselves that may be beyond their comprehension. That such an uninhibited human being would naturally believe themselves capable of understanding anything and everything and that anything they cannot grasp must not exist.
Interesting conclusion, but I can't see how they get to it. And it's not that I'm ignorant or trying to use the fallacious argument that what I personally can't see must not be valid. But it is in fact that they seem to be using it.
I often ponder what it is exactly that drives certain atheists to certain faulty arguments, and with such enthusiasm at that, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that certain Christians are also guilty of this, complete with the enthusiasm.
At the core of the debate over the existence of a god (note that I used "a god" and not "God"), is a logical fallacy that both sides trip over a lot, the onus probandi fallacy.
Wikipedia defines it as follows,
"Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion."
Atheists are fond of accusing theists of this fallacy whenever a theist appeals to the logical truism that it is impossible to prove a negative. The theist will argue that since the atheist cannot prove that a god does not exist, which is logically sound, the atheist loses the debate from the very start. The atheist will then say the theist is unjustly shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist, thus being guilty of the onus probandi fallacy.
In other words the atheist insists that the only claim in the debate is that a god actually exists and thus it is with the theist that the burden of proof rests. And I might add that atheists in my experience feel extremely comfortable with this argument.
The problem that both sides encounter here is in how they determine who owns the burden of proof. Contrary to what many on both sides think, that burden shifts itself according to context and can be on either depending.
The key here is to ask who is making the assertion? That's dependent on context entirely. If I wish to convert an atheist through my own wit the burden is on me. If the atheist wishes to convert me the burden is on her. Whichever one of us wishes to change the other's mind is the one making the assertion. If gods exist they do so with or without us proving the fact to someone else. The only thing up to logical debate is our ideas about them and no person has an over-arching burden to prove their own ideas to anyone but themselves, and if they hold these ideas that's already done.
That then translates into public discourse that if most people in a given group agree on something, no matter if it's true, false, plausible, or implausible, the burden of proof is always on the minority belief. Majorities aren't always right. That's an "of course", but what they believe stands in the public's minds without proof. To argue that something the majority believes is so subjective that they must prove it is arrogance. To convince you, yes they must prove it, but to live their lives publicly as though it's true, no they don't.
I'm one of those few people that knows the current millennium started 1/1/2001 and not 1/1/2000 and it frustrated me a bit that I had to celebrate that day without most of my fellow humans who had jumped the shark one year earlier. I was one of those people that failed to convince the rest of humanity of the truth. That unless we intended to stop following the same calendar we have used for a couple millenia prior, a millenia like a century always starts in its year one, not its year zero.
You probably see the analogy I'm making here. As right as I was, the burden of proof was on me and other right-headed individuals. And I believe we failed to accept it. Instead we just annoyed our friends and colleagues with our arrogance. "we are right so we don't need to prove what is clearly correct to anyone who will investigate it". And we lost.
The onus probandi fallacy, remember that the burden of proof has nothing to do with whether your claim is right or wrong. It has to do with context and perhaps most importantly, if you actually want to change anyone's mind or just annoy them.
No comments:
Post a Comment