Most people who use informal logic in debates make mistakes from time to time. That's perfectly normal and exactly what we would expect from human logicians; however no one misuses, misunderstands and/or misrepresents logic quite like a Christian apologist. Here's a list of some common 'misses' made by apologists and explanations for why they are fallacious or just plain wrong:
1) In the ontological argument for the existence of god there is an attempt to define god into existence. Most of us have heard that that simply doesn't work, but do we know why? There is a huge difference between an analytical claim or an axiomatic proposition and a synthetic claim. It is true that all bachelors are unmarried because we define bachelor to mean an unmarried man. And that's perfectly fine. If you define bachelor to mean a black cat, as long as we both agree on the definition, then you can say all black cats are bachelors. Norman is a black cat and therefore he is a bachelor. By definition. Put this is simply a peculiarity of language. And there are no synthetic propositions being made. In other words, nothing is being proposed about the external world. Is is simply axiomatic. If I said that all bachelors live in California that would be a synthetic proposition. In order to assign a truth value to a synthetic proposition we need to ask, what prediction can be made based on this proposition? If there is a bachelor living outside of California then the proposition would be said to be false. If there is nothing about the synthetic proposition that has any pragmatic predictability then it is incoherent and would be said to be false. If I define a boohblah to be a sentient pink crystal floating in intergalactic space that's fine, but if I then tack on: "that exists in reality" to the definition it has no bearing on whether or not it actually exists in reality. The first part of the definition is axiomatically true, any sentient pink crystal floating in intergalactic space would be, by definition, a boohblah. But the latter part would make it a synthetic proposition which needs to be demonstrated empirically otherwise it is, by default, false.
2) All incorrigible propositions are true.
I feel warm.
I hear music.
I see red.
I believe x.
They are simply internal thoughts, feelings and perceptions. They cannot be wrong. However this fact has been misused by countless apologists. To say that "I feel god in my heart" is essentially meaningless to the external reality.
To say that you have a feeling is an incorrigible proposition. You can even define heart to mean mind and god to mean love and then they would axiomatically be absolutely true. So what? Congratulations, you feel god in your heart. You cannot use that to prove your synthetic propositions. It's equivalent to saying: "I hear music" no-one can say you don't. But if you say I hear music because the neighbor is playing music on their stereo it becomes different. Now you can predict that if the neighbor is playing music on their stereo that if you go to their house you would see it on and hear it louder. If you do not than it's false. If you do, it's true. If you cannot... I think you know where I'm going with this.
3) Begging The Question. The Moral argument for the existence of god. To assume the truth of the conclusion in one of your premises in a syllogism is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.
"One: If god does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
"Two: objective moral values do exist.
"Three: therefore god exists. "--William Lane Craig
You see what he did there? He's assuming the existence of objective moral values... Tying the existence of objective moral values to the existence of god and then concluding god.
Further:
If not x then not y. Y therefore x. Let's plug in some other words to this and see what we get: If humans don't exist then language does not exist. Language exists therefore humans exist.
That does not follow. And simply asserting that something is contingent upon something does not make it so. Back to the argument; there is another assumption being made: that objective moral values exist. How does he know this?
Can we make a pragmatic prediction based on this synthetic claim? Yes: if objective moral values do exist then none will ever disagree on what is moral and what is not. So if people disagree we would call the proposition false. Oh but Craig says it transcends beyond human opinion. Well, in that case the claim is incoherent and by default has no way of being determined true or false by humans and the null hypothesis becomes the rational stance to take.
I was going to display more logical fallacies and misuse of logical syllogisms by apologists but I realized that this is already quite lengthy so I will break it up into sections.
I look forward to both atheist and theist feedback on this subject and I'd be more than happy to explain anything that I have not given adequate explanation of so far.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I really enjoyed this, thank you!
You see it a lot on here too, when an atheist on this site asks for proof of a god, the theists tend to quote scripture... an appeal to authority.
Or when we present hard evidence, say in the form of astronomy, physics, evolution etc... they simply dismiss it with incredulity.
AU, you are an educator.
awesome. thanks
@Aposteriori Unum: "If not x then not y. Y therefore x."
That's deductively valid, isn't it? Y can only exist if x exists, so if Y exists it follows that X exists. If there is no fuel there is no fire. There is fire, therefore there must be fuel.
But: "If x then y. Y therefore x" is deductively invalid, since x may not be the only condition for Y. If there is fire, there is fuel. There is fuel. Therefore there is fire. That doesn't follow, since fire also requires oxygen and ignition.
I think all children should be taught formal logic, and how to use it to analyze arguments put forward by people like William Lane Craig. These apologists have a knack for polishing turds until they look like gold.
I can't tell if you agree or not, but it sounds to me like you do. Yes there could be other conditions and that's why y does not necessarily mean x in this case.
[I'm only going to respond to AU]
1. I don't know what the ontological argument is, and I wish you would have explained it. However, as far as definitions go I agree with what you said. Which is why I think it is important to look at Scripture. Because as a Christian I'm not getting my definitions of God from philosophy, or Hinduism, I'm getting them from Scripture.
2. In my Christian experience I've been taught the opposite. To distrust myself: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). What I see may be false, what I feel may be corrupted, what I hear may contain lies, and what I believe may not be true. That is where Christian faith becomes practical, because you place your trust on something besides yourself.
3. Don't know what the moral argument is either. However, this bit seems wrong: "If objective moral values do exist then none will ever disagree on what is moral and what is not. So if people disagree we would call the proposition false." You're doing the same thing you're against the other guy doing: assuming things that don't follow or have not been substantiated. If there is an objective truth on any subject, it stands independent of who agrees with it. For example, there must be an objective truth for what causes gravity. We've had different theories which disagree with one another on what gravity it, but why should their disagreement imply that the proposition is false? Therefore, the objective truth of gravity does seem to transcend human opinion, and the fact that it does, doesn't make it incoherent or impossible to determine. Someday it should be possible to determine.
I'm not doing the same thing at all. Craig odds saying that objective moral values exist without a pragmatic demonstration. I am not claiming that gravity exists... And if I was I would be able to demonstrate it. Unlike the claim that objective moral values exist.
"If objective moral values do exist then none will ever disagree on what is moral and what is not."
So you are able to demonstrate why this is so?
Yes. people of the19 th century thought that slavery was moral and now we do not. People in Saudi Arabia believe that women are inferior to men and we, in the united states of America, do not.
People of the 19th Century thought of gravity as a force acting on objects, whereas people of the 21st Century think of it as a curve in space-time. People is Saudi Arabia don't believe in evolution, whereas many in America do.
Clearly there is an objetive truth in both these fronts, which is unaffected by us knowing it, or us agreeing upon it. Right?
No. That's subjective. That's the very definition of subjectivity. You think x, I think y.
I don't know why you mentioned gravity, but the difference it's that gravity exists, and we can demonstrate that it exists, it is demonstrable. Objective moral values have not been demonstrated to exist and therefore the null hypothesis is the rational stance to take.
Objective truths exist despite us not knowing and even disagreeing on what they are. I don't know how else to say it. Would you say the Earth being round is an objective truth, despite some people thinking its flat?
In my opinion both you and Craig have made unsubstantiated claims. But I agree with him in that objective truths "transcends beyond human opinion."
But those same people look at the moon and see the round shadow the earth casts on it. Bad example being the earth is in fact round. Subjective truth is more about a persons personal tastes....I like this kind of music etc. Another good example would be a person's moral proclivities. Christians have as much right to push theirs on others as I do to tell you what kind of music you like.
That's not the same thing as objective moral values. The earth is round. That's true. Who cares? Nothing to do with morality.
Don't get tunnel vision now. If the Earth being round (something objective and true) doesn't become false because people have different opinions on it, then neither do objective moral values become a false proposition because people have different opinions on it.
I chose this example because it's something we can verify and confirm: something can be objective and true despite people having subjective opinions on it. We can't confirm if objective moral values exist, but we can be sure that if they did, then people having subjective opinions on it wouldn't change that.
Values are opinions. You can't say that there is something objective about an opinion. The fact that the earth is round is not an opinion. What's morally valued as right or wrong is by definition subjective. Unless you can show that it is objectively true that killing somebody is morally wrong then it is subjective. That's the point I made... That Craig assumed that object moral values exist. That cannot be demonstrated. Or at least it has not been so far. The fact that people do have different opinions about what's morally right and wrong means that it is subjective. That's why the premise cannot lead to a doing conclusion.
Yup you have tunnel vision.
Don't be a boob! If I'm wrong show me where I'm wrong! If you want to defend the moral argument, defend it. Show me how the second premise is true and then we will work on the rest of it. It would still be begging the question. Do you even know anything about epistemology? It's fine if you don't because most atheists don't either. I'm simply pointing out the things that are wrong with apologetic arguments. If you know better, explain it to me. If not, then listen and you might learn something. If you have a different moral argument then fine, I'll address that, but if the moral argument in the op is what you stand by then it is flawed and wrong.
I've been taught epistemology with the limited goal of understanding the history and origins of psychology. I don't stand by the moral argument, which in my opinion should be opposite: If God exists, then objective moral values exist as well, since He would be the one that sets them.
That said, my point has simply been that differing perspectives do not affect the objectivity of something. So I cannot take people disagreeing on what is and isn't moral, as an indication that an objective morality can't or doesn't exist. If you were open to the existence of an objective morality, you wouldn't think subjective moralities interfere with it at all.
Objective morality does exist already.
For example: people with the letter R in their name are evil. That is an objective moral principle. It is objective because we can use the rule to reach the same conclusions (even if we don't agree with the rule).
Oh course the real problem is the morality that people use typically does not have this objective nature. So when someone here posts that morality isn't objective; I think what they really mean is: the morality people typically use isn't objective.
And when the others tell us there is an objective morality, it seems they mean an absolute and universal (objective) morality. But of course that is demonstrably false (but never fear, that won't stop the theists).
I agree that the morality people typically use isn't objective. But replace morality with law. We have a universal and absolute law that governs the entirety of the United States: its the Constitution. Most people haven't read it, and far less people have seen it. The objectivity of the Constitution, as a thing which can be observed and understood, doesn't depend on the subjectivity of those under it, much less their opinion of it and their ability to keep it. The internet if full of videos of armchair lawyers arguing with police about how their arrest is "unconstitutional" and how much they "know their rights." Half the time its all nonsense.
You don't prove objective laws don't exist by pointing at people's ignorance of them, and you don't prove objective morality doesn't exist, by pointing at people's subjective treatment of them.
The very nature of objectivity is looking at the subject by being emotionally removed from it. There is not a christian on earth that isn't emotionally invested in the bible.
Perhaps, but one doesn't negate the other. Every good scientist is emotionally invested in their work, they spend years looking for positive results, money on education, and yet none of that makes science any less objective.
the difference tho is that science is willing to change its mind under new evidence. Christianity is unbending in regards to it's goat herder superstitions.
I mean even if true how does that relate? Nature has its rules and presumably so does God. The scientist seeks to understand the rules of nature, and the Christian seeks to understand the rules of God. Scientists change their mind as they learn new things, and Christians change their mind as they learn new things. Its meaningless to say Christianity is unbending when it has a denomination for every possible mindset.
Nature is tangible and can be tested. God is intangible and cannot be tested. Sure you can test moral principles and their outcomes. But life principles that have negative or positive outcomes can come from outside of the bible as much as from within, if not more. And that's a big problem with christianity, you can't even agree which doctrine is the correct one. If god really does love unity, he certainly did not put into practice within his "body".
I don't agree that God is intangible and cannot be tested. Scripture definitely presents a tangible God which interacts with people, not to mention most believe Jesus is God made flesh. Morality doesn't have to come from within Scripture exclusively, Scripture itself demonstrates this. I never viewed disagreement in the church as a problem, but it does like you're fishing for problems. You can't both be against Christianity being unbending and being diverse in the same breath.
well lets see your test and its outcomes.
I didn't claim to have tests and outcomes, only that it is testable. Some people adopt a deterministic view of human behavior, attributing it to the most minutest of atomic changes. That claim is also testable, despite our current inability to test it.
That makes no sense at all. It's testable but we have no way to test it? Ok....whatever man.
Pages