Showing posts with label fallacies of logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fallacies of logic. Show all posts

Duh!

Have you ever noticed that some people refuse to recognize that they are mistaken, or cannot even see where their faulty logic is flawed?

Part of the explanation for this prevalent phenomenon (described in the video) is that we need to understand some threshold amount in order to comprehend that our skills or knowledge are deficient.

Another interesting aspect of Dunning's and Kruger's research is that those individuals who are competent have a tendency to underestimate their comparative level of competence.



Justin Kruger & David Dunning.
Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Journal of personality and social psychology
1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc.
Posted by salientals at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Dumping Poison down the Well

The article dumps. I'm dumping back.

(Contrary to what the article contends about atheist bloggers, I'm busy with other things, so I shall have to dump in a series.)

You might need an antacid, but, for what it's worth, here's the link. It was written by Charlotte Allen who is author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus". She's in for a long search, in my opinion. Still, I bet that she thinks that she's found incontrovertible evidence.

(Heck, there is no corroborating evidence for the omnipotent, omnipresent "Creator" of the universe, so why would she require the writings of independent, contemporaneous witnesses and physical evidence for Jesus? I have not read her book, and shall not read her book, so I admit that I am guessing about the contents. If any of you read it, please let me know if she actually found the guy.)

On to the article, which constitutes half of what I have read of her predictable opinions. (Here's a synopsis of her "argument".) I should point out that I am not in the least insulted by any of her ad hominems. I am irritated by the rest of her fallacious argument against atheism, but that is because illogic irritates me. Her article will, however, convince the right wing types who read the LA Times.

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.


Funny thing. I could honestly say exactly the same thing in reverse. I can't stand religionists, but it's not because they believe in God. It's because they are worse than crashing bores.

By "religionist", I do not mean all believers. Rather, I mean those people who are aggressively obsessed about their delusions. This category includes fundamentalists of any religious persuasion and Boring Again Christians.

Worse than crashing bores? Religionists are illogical bores, which I find truly irritating. Worse than that, my experience has been many of them are quite unpleasant. Let's put it this way, "You are going to burn in HELL!" is not guaranteed to win friends and influence rational people.

Speaking of rationality, Charlotte is clearly offended by all the evidence that indicates that, as a group, atheists have more education and higher IQ scores than theists. Of course, as the numbers of atheists gradually swell, this discrepancy will ultimately diminish. Initially, of course, the decampers from religion usually abandon delusion because of rational examination of mythical claims. On the rationality-neutral side, some deconvert because of their emotional reaction to the predictable failure of religion to honour its promises in this lifetime. (It won't honour the after death promises either, but we cannot test this fact – beyond having falsified dualism.)

I'll get back to that later, but in the meantime, here's an article that Charlotte wrote decrying the "emotionality" of some women. Actually, the article is a thinly disguised attack on Democratic political candidates. Charlotte, if you really wished to examine the stupidity of some women, then you could have had a field day with Sarah Palin.

Here's a tidbit:

So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.


I think that by "the ones fewer of us possess" she was hinting at her own superior powers of insight and erudition. The final line should convince all women that they ought to be barefoot and pregnant while comparing fabric swatches in the kitchen.

Uh-huh!

She concludes by trying to dispell the impression that she is bragging about rising above giddy females:

Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.


Speak for yourself, honey! I could be kind of dim, but I don't shriek, or swoon, or gossip any more than the average gal or guy. (Social anthropologists have found that, in casual conversation, both males and females spend most of their time talking about other people. Let's face it, people are a more varied topic than the weather.)

Perhaps I do not need to write a series:

Sites Elsewhere: Charlotte Allen really is angry at us on Pharyngula (always worth reading, which is why it's so immensely popular) . even more scathing, The Unholy Wars and Flagrant Bigotry at the LA Times . some irony (not intended to criticise Jews) Jews: No Jesus, No Reason, Just Whining; They’re Motivated by Anger and Boohoo Victimhood . Sandwalk Charlotte Allen whines that Atheists exist . Charlotte Allen whines that Atheists exist . God botherer bothered . Sam Harris [Harris’ Note: This is, without a doubt, one of the most embarrassingly stupid attacks on the “new atheists” to be published in a major newspaper.] . Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining .
Posted by salientals at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Stirrring up Antediluvian Soup

A Templeton Prize winning (not a good recommendation) astrobiologist (not necessarily a good recommendation) named Paul Davies has created quite a bit of stir over a deistic op-ed carried by the NYT.

Davies' argument hinges on a number of tried-and-failed fallacious assumptions and arguments:
▪ supposed separation of science and religion into "non-overlapping magisteria"
▪ fallacious doublespeak claim that "science relies on faith"
▪ anthropic 'principle' versus multiverses


"The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system."
The first problem is that scientists and philosophers of science no longer accept this polite separation. The real problem facing theism lies in the fact that theistic claims about the deity's interference in the natural world can be tested by science. So far, no traces of this omnipotent deity have been found. Odd, that.

Faith? Surely he doesn't mean leaps of faith such as religions require of believers (believe despite lack of evidence!).


"All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way."

Wrong. Much science proceeds on the recognition that nature is incredibly messy. However, Davies is a physicist, so he is more interested in the supposed intersection between cosmology and deism than in biology, for example.

So, when Davies talks of scientific "faith", he is really referring to metaphysical confidence that scientific laws will not suddenly mutate and turn incomprehensible while they are examined. All the data accumulated-to-date empirically supports this confidence. This is utterly different than the case for religious Faith.


"Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to "nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational."

The crux of this regress argument is Davies' deistic desire to impose deeper purpose, meaning, and design onto the fundamental laws of the cosmos. Having reached the fundament, Davies wants to go one step farther so as to add his deistic designer.


"Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."


Yes, Sir Isaac Newton was an influential giant of the early days of science's revolution – he died almost 300 years ago (1727), so his religious musings have no relevance to modern cosmology.

Davies does not name the 'anthropic principle' directly. This is the notion that if the fundamental physical laws of our universe were not as they are, then life as we know it could not have evolved. Even if this is the case, it is a retrospective position – if life as we know it had not evolved because the fundamental physical laws were different, then we simply would not be pondering the question. Just as for the case of the universe we inhabit, even if there were no humans or physicists to ponder this question, this does not mean that there must be a God Who Made It Either Way. Theoretically, there could be. I just don't believe it, partly because deistic and theistic arguments are so needy and flimsy.

Instead of direct anthropism, Davies criticizes multiverse theory, by implication leaving only the supposedly designed, purposeful, God-given "bylaws" of the universe.


"In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

Paul Davies is a scientist – he should know better than this ridiculous statement implies. Paul Davies is clearly a deist, which explains why he doesn't.

One wonders why the New York Times deigned to print this article.

Of course, some religionist blogs are simply pasting the "good" bits without comment.

Article : Taking Science on Faith, by Paul Davies: New York Times, November 24, 2007

Home
cosmology, deism, physics, religion, science, Paul Davies, New York Times,
Posted by salientals at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Keeping Bad Company

A number of recent arguments have hinged upon association fallacies – the contention or implication that bad company (or a bad hypothesis) reflects upon the validity of a position.

History is replete with examples of blood spilled, freedom destroyed, hatred aroused, or fear evoked specifically to promote religious ends. As Christopher Hitchens points out, religiously motivated crimes continue to this day. It's understandable that moderate theists who have not participated in such activities wish to distance themselves and their worldview from any blame. Nevertheless, the delusional beliefs that they support, however moderate their personal beliefs, do provide the soil in which illogic and hatred grows.

The flip side of accusations of religious poison and theistic delusions take two forms: claims of converts to theism and claims of atheism-inspired atrocities.

It is a fallacy to argue that deism, theism, or atheism has philosophical truth value according to its popularity or the qualifications of its adherents. The truth of any proposition can only be based upon the evidence or logic that supports it. Although skeptics are typically not fooled by tu quoque accusations, these do appeal to the emotions of believers.

Let's take a look at the 'action' issues. If any worldview is consistently directly associated with negative actions, then, regardless of any philosophical validity, that worldview is potentially dangerous. There are two components to this issue: belief system and directness of association with actions.

"Worldview" is a 'loan translation' from the German philosophical term Weltanschauung, and refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs according to which an individual interprets and interacts with the world. Thus, the term worldview incorporates both ideology (belief system) and action. If a particularly mentally-disturbed individual commits crimes against humanity, the belief system of that individual is irrelevant unless he or she is motivated only by worldview-prescriptions.

“Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." ¬ Steven Weinberg.
Religions involve not merely prescribed beliefs about the existence of supernatural entities (deism or theism) they also prescribe and proscribe specific behaviors directly associated with the religious worldview. Adherents of religion are expected to participate in particular activities that are laid out within religious dogma – ranging from attendance at prayer right up to jihad.

If a religiously-affiliated individual commits a crime that is not specifically associated with religious prescriptions, then religion per se cannot be held responsible. However, even if an individual acts out of personally disturbed psychology while consciously allowing religious prescriptions to direct his actions, then religion is complicit in the crime.

On the other hand, atheism is nonbelief in the supernatural entities postulated within religions and is not a worldview because lack of belief is not specifically associated with prescribed behaviors. Obviously, atheists are unlikely to attend church services, but such attendance is not prohibited within the atheistic belief set. Atheism is often, though not invariably, associated with worldviews such as secular humanism.

Let's return to the accusations against bad company. The antisocial actions of psychologically disturbed individuals, whether theists or atheists, have no bearing on the truth value of their belief system. Those dictators who have ordered atrocities out of personal megalomania or power-mongering are acting in accord with their personal worldview or political aims, and not directly out of belief or nonbelief in the supernatural.

It is irrelevant whether Catholic Adolf Hitler or seminary boy Joseph Stalin had shifted to atheism at the time of their crimes, or whether dictators such as Pol Pot were raised outside Christianity – because they acted out of megalomania, paranoia, or political ambition and not specifically according to any dictates of nonbelief. (Even if they had acted out of atheistic motivations, this would say nothing about the truth value of atheistic beliefs.) Dictators have historically demonstrated a predilection for claiming divinity for themselves or for setting their regime up as the state religion against any competing religion. Such actions have nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with self-aggrandizement and power consolidaton.

Similarly, so-called Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin or biological evolution beyond the fact that Darwin was inspired to decipher the mechanism of natural selection by Thomas Malthus' study of competition for limited resources. The sociological philosophy could just as appropriately have been termed Social Competitionism or Social Malthusianism as Social Darwinism. However, like so much else that frightens religionists, the label has afforded a convenient target for fallacious arguments.



Home

atheism, deism, theism, religion, Anthony Flew, Christopher Hitchens, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin,
Posted by salientals at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Immaterial to the Case

Fallacious arguments based on the sheer numbers of the deluded, threats of hellfire for infidels, pseudoscience, denial of science, denial that the supposed designer is God, emotional apologetic arguments, hypocritical anti-homosexual speeches by televangelists who pay for male prostitutes, cover-up of pedophilic molestation by priests, out of context quotations and misquotes, deceitful editing of videos, supposed deathbed conversions (Pascal's wager purportedly triumphs again), false claims by theists of having converted from atheism, scientists signing disclaimers against Darwinian explanations, false attributions of theistic beliefs to prominent scientists and now seduction of a confused old philosopher. The list could go on and on.

What do such things prove? Certainly nothing about the philosophical truth value of deism, theism, or atheism. Many of these acts do demonstrate something about the moral fiber (or lack thereof) exhibited by intelligent design creationists and theists.



YT link .

The latest scandal concerns the apparent usurpation of eighty-four year old Anthony Flew's failing faculties and moderately prominent name by a group of alleged scoundrels who have apparently put theistic words into this published atheist's mouth. Even if these men, through their friendship with Flew, have succeeded in changing Flew's opinion on the possibility of a deity, this proves nothing about whether or not a deity exists.

In a strategy reminiscent of gathering vultures, Flew has been contacted by a flock of religious apologists and Christian institutions.

Mark Oppenheimer makes it appear likely in his New York times article, that Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese (below left), assisted perhaps by Christian philosopher John Haldane (below center), and by Orthodox Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder (below right) have taken advantage of the foundering of Flew's once considerable intellect. (Haldane and Schroeder debated Flew in a DVD entitled, “Has Science Discovered God?” The DVD ends with an infomercial for Varghese's book, “The Wonder of the World.”)

Gary Habermas has also hovered in the wings. He is a Christian apologist and professor at Liberty University (which was founded by right-wing conservative televangelist Jerry Falwell). The failing Flew was also courted by Biola University, a conservative Christian school outside Los Angeles, which awarded Flew the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. For anyone not familiar with Johnson, he is a lawyer turned proponent of ID creationism.

Publication of "Flew's" supposed turn-around book–with Roy Abraham Varghese cited as coauthor–excited considerable suspicion that Varghese had actually written the entire book. Richard Carrier concludes of Varghese's "Flew" book:



"All this makes this book a grand and shameless lie, a clear violation of God's commandment against bearing false witness."


Varghese admits that the book was his idea, and that Varghese wrote it with the assistance of ghostwriter, Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor and author from Ohio. Cynthia DiTiberio, book editor at publisher HarperOne considered a ghostwriter for the project essential. Varghese claims that "Tony" (who is reportedly unaware of much of the content) OKed the book. Says Varghese:



"The only reason why people ask questions about his mental faculties is because he dared to change his mind. But let’s not forget that his new view of the world is one embraced by many of today’s leading philosophers in the Anglo-American world as well as most of the pioneers of modern science. This is the dirty little secret that the “new atheists” and their drum-beaters never talk about. It’s so much easier to shoot the messenger!"


If that is the usual caliber of Varghese's writing, I cannot imagine that the book will attract any readers but theists.



A political theist complains of Oppenheimer's article, "All the strange birds of the materialist faith certainly will flap about madly now and land gratefully on it. "



Undoubtedly! However, regardless of Flew's actual or beguiled beliefs, this proves nothing either way about the possibility of existence or nonexistence of the supernatural entity that theists refuse to relinquish to reason and evidence.



Most atheists seem to be taking a position much like mine–that it is deplorable to take advantage of an ageing man, yet that Flew's apparent 'change of mind' signifies nothing about the philosophical principles underlying the God/NoGod debate. I doubt that the perpetrators of this apparent mental embezzlement are concerned to change atheists' minds on the God question. Instead they probably expected to provide succor to offended theists who are upset at vocal questioning of their belief systems.



Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog links to an "exclusive" interview with Anthony Flew that appears on ToTheSource. I used quotes because I admit to a distrust of the honest of political theists such as the ID crowd.



The Anti-Discovery Institute came up with a misapplied title "The Cuckoo Ones Over Flew’s Nest", which attempts to distance DI from complicity by asserting, "Flew seems to have read a couple of DI-affiliated philosophers. But reading the Nickerson article, you don’t see any direct references by Flew to Discovery scientists." The author of this brief piece complains that the New York Times' editorial policy that "has not covered any news that might damage Darwinism, at least not since a writer on its Science page a few years back acknowledged that some of the standard textbook proofs employed to bolster Darwin’s theory are false. (That reporter is now in Iraq.)" Um, great news on the policy and reporters are moved around, but what does that have to do with the issue at hand? The great title is misapplied because it better describes the rather nefarious activities of the religious apologists in question.



Not surprisingly, RC apologist Denyse O'Leary informs us that anonymous friends consider the Varghese . . er, Flew . . book 'excellent'. Now, there's a deft way of reviewing a book that you haven't read!



Articles Elsewhere : Atlantic The Case of Antony Flew : Richard Carrier Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of : Was atheist's conversion a sign of dementia? : Roy Varghese's response in There is a God, Or Is There? : Los Angeles Times Stalin was an atheist – so am I :

Blogs Elsewhere: Blog Search : Richard Carrier Antony Flew's Bogus Book : Pharyngula Roy Varghese and the exploitation of Antony Flew, Another blithering ignoramus against science: Roy Varghese, Add Lee Strobel to your list of contemptible ghouls : Daylight Atheism The Exploitation of Antony Flew : Panda's Thumb Yet More on Antony Flew’s “Conversion” : Gene Expression Of feeling, God and Anthony Flew : Metaphysician "The Turning of an Atheist" : Gruntled Center Antony Flew, Deist : Stranger Fruit Flew's Eugenic Leanings : a book review suppressed by Amazon.com and Antony Flew's new book in which Hallq says "I have contacts with national freethought activists, who I will ask to encourage others to boycott Amazon.com" : Update on Antony Flew : Antony Flew: exit, accompanied by ghost : Anthony Flew : On Antony Flew and Authority : Picking Hypotheses, and an exposé of Gerald Schroeder in Unholy Alliance : Antony Flew's new book : Anthony Flew's Conversion : I have no words : Except ye be Converted and Become as Little Children : Antony Flew: Atheist Apostate to tell all in new book? : Desperate Attempts to Promote Religion : Desperate Measures :


Home
atheism, apologetics, atheism, deism, theism, religion, Anthony Flew,

Posted by salientals at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Theistic Fallacies

A variety of illogical attacks against atheism are misdirected toward Richard Dawkins and the New Atheist spokespeople.

Dawkins, for example, is a highly visible scientist speaking out in print and in lecture tours for atheism, against religious excesses, and for scientific knowledge. In ignoring the taboo against speaking against religionism by declaring for atheism, Dawkins has willingly upset a large number of theists. Dawkins does not claim that he is founding an alternate religion, does not claim that he is constructing a rigorous philosophical system, and is eminently qualified to speak about science.

I've read some totally irrelevant fallacious arguments directed against the New Atheists:
● vitriol
● unfamiliarity with theistic apologetics
● unfamiliarity with scriptural dogma
● lack of qualifications to express any philosophical viewpoint
● lack of peer-reviewed publication of atheistic philosophy
● atheists have no morality, no sense of purpose, no joy in life, etc

All these accusations are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not atheism is a more rational position than accepting theistic claims for the invented supernatural category. Rejection of claims for a position does not require that the rejecter prove his own, negative position. This is a fallacious shift of the burden of proof. Theists make claims, and the burden of proof lies with the theist.

Theists are, of course, totally missing the main point about atheism – atheistic rejection of theistic claims for the supernatural is based on a number of facts:
● history and current affairs provide ample example of the danger presented by religious fundamentalisn
● theists can produce absolutely no empirical support for their position
● all religions, which are human inventions, resulted from a nearly universal manifestation of human psychology combined with ignorance
● theistic apologetics is riddled with artificial arguments and fallacies of logic
● science provides empirically verified explanations for the phenomena that theists have passed off as miracles
● academic philosophers have published scholarly refutations of theistic apologetics
● rejection of the supernatural automatically negates all religious claims to providing explication of the supernatural

Here's a typical, illogical theistic comment:"Richard Dawkins is often accused of being a fundamentalist atheist. He dismisses theism almost without argument. The arguments he gives are often straw men or miss the point in some other way. He shows little familiarity with the best philosophical representatives of theism, and since his work on atheism is actually philosophy he's really dropped the ball in backing up his views. It ends up looking like mere dogmatism without much allowance for dialogue with the other side, i.e. fundamentalism."

"Richard Dawkins is often accused of being a fundamentalist atheist. He dismisses theism almost without argument."
Wrong: Fundamentalism is more correctly applied to religious literalists and anti-modernists. Wrong: Dawkins has many valid observations and arguments about theism.

"The arguments he gives are often straw men or miss the point in some other way."
Wrong: One does not make a straw man argument, one attacks a weakened, straw man misrepresentation of the opponent's positon (just as the t..t whom I have quoted is doing).

"He shows little familiarity with the best philosophical representatives of theism, and since his work on atheism is actually philosophy he's really dropped the ball in backing up his views."
Wrong: There are no convincing philosophical arguments for theism in so far as the arguments would not convince a logical person who lacked an inculcated belief in the conclusions being argued for. Dawkins' stated purpose does not require that he "show familiarity with the best philosophical representatives of theism", merely that he be persuasive about science and about the impacts of religious fundamentalism. Dawkins' atheism is a rejection of an unsupported claim of the supernatural, so his atheism is not technically philosophy in the manner of a professional philosopher. As an expert on evolutionary biology, Dawkins has not dropped any ball in backing up his views.

"It ends up looking like mere dogmatism without much allowance for dialogue with the other side, i.e. fundamentalism."
Now, there's a revealing definition of the tactics of fundamentalists! Wrong: The "other side" has had more than 2,000 years in which to produce dialogue concerning its J-C-I side.

It does not surprise me in the least that theistic arguments against atheism are so often misguided, emotional, and illogical because belief in the unbelievable is itself misguided, emotional, and illogical.

Elsewhere : Bay at Fundies (accusations of 'fundamentalist')





Home

Posted by salientals at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)