The two main fallacies used in justifying belief in God

[Mycroft]

This post is not concerned with the question of whether or not God exists. Rather, I wanted to point out the two main fallacies in the reasons given for belief in God that I've seen cited almost word-for-word everywhere from Jehovah's Witness tracts to Internet sites. Here's a good example, that pretty much covers all of the bases:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Fallacy number one:

a.) "Most of the things I've encountered in my life which appear to have been designed by a thinking designer were, in fact, designed by a purposeful designer. Therefore, all things which appear to have been designed must have been designed by a purposeful designer."

b.) "The chain of causation cannot, logically, go back forever. Therefore there must be a first cause, and this first cause must be God."

There is, no doubt, a fancy-sounding Latin term for this particular fallacy, but in common parlance it's what's known as "jumping to conclusions". It's true that many things we encounter which appear to have been designed were, in fact, designed. However, to jump to the conclusion that all things which appear to have been designed must have been designed is the same as saying: all swans I've encountered have been white. Therefore, all swans are white.

The fact of the matter is that while many things which appear to have been designed were designed, all evidence supports theories that indicate that many things we encounter, although appearing to have been designed, were not, in fact, designed. They are the product of complex but un-purposeful interactions, and merely have the appearance of having been designed.

Similarly, it's true that the chain of causation cannot extend backward unto infinity. If that were the case, we would never have arrived at this moment, since it would necessarily be preceded by an infinite amount of time. However, to tout this as "evidence" of God's existence is to jump to conclusions. There are many philosophies which deal with the subject, as well as popular religions like Buddhism and Taoism which offer atheistic explanations.

Fallacy number two:

"DNA / cells (Jehovah's Witnesses love this one) / the earth and its environment / the cosmos / etc. are so complex! Look at how complex they are: [various data about DNA / cells / the earth and its environment / etc.] I can't believe something so complex could have simply arisen. Therefore, they must have been created by God."

This is known as the Argument from Incredulity, which could be summarized as: I find theory B difficult to conceive of, personally, therefore theory A is correct.

It's true that all of the things cited above are very complex, and that the idea that they arose from un-directed, un-purposeful and complex interactions is counterintuitive and difficult to imagine, but that is what all evidence thus far indicates. Of course, people will again point to specific parts of specific scientific theories they find difficult to fathom, citing this as "evidence" that God exists, but you could just as easily say: evolution strikes me as a crock. Again proving that, as I have been saying all along, the universe is turtles upon turtles all the way down.

The point is that even if all of science turned out to be mistaken (which is difficult to imagine but not impossible), the "God theory" would not suddenly prevail. It would just mean we would be back in a position of having no plausible theories supported by evidence.

 

[Munchies]

assumption, that's the only fallacy. Agnostic/Buddhism ftw

 

[Society]

i don't think it works like that - in my life time, i do not believe i have ever met an adult monotheist who declared "o creationism is just my opinion about the universe, show me that god is not the most plausible explanation and i'll just change my mind".

it probably used to be like that for quite awhile, when it also happened to be the widespread local monopoly of natural philosophy and institutions of scholars, a time where religion was considered common sense. but as older philosophers made it into printed press and gave rise to new philosophers, traders brought philosophies form the east and a new kind of measurement-obsessive natural philosophers settled the seeds of science, faith took it's place.

now reason and various argument might be there to justify the faith, but as far as i can tell, faith isn't dependent on either, and honestly, its the religious people who have the awareness and inner strength to simply state it and face it in its most naked raw form inside of them, the one who can hold onto it even when they understand how M theory can dismiss the need for a creator on mathematical levels which are beyond me, the ones who study the extreme questions of consciousness through neurology and somehow believe in souls, the ones who house faith in their inner workings and need no relay on dogma's or excuses... those are the ones i can't help but respect their faith without the slightest bit of forced PC etiquette or sarcasm.

i mean, how can you find that human capacity to be anything but beautifully brilliant?

 

[UniqueMixture]

I think people who think that way have trouble with the concept of alogicality. Ie. That patterns within phenomena may not have any significance. Ie. randomness

Perhaps it is possible that nothing ties ANYTHING together!

I believe that it stems from our recognition of facial patterns to discern emotions in others. Ie is this person a threat/rival or is this person a friend/mate. The anthropomorphization of inanimate matter spilled over into other regions and became god. It's bad enough that we do this with the overlapping fock spaces we call "persons", but with nature as well? However, it may end up saving us. As we gain more technological mastery over the inanimate world, we begin to need to utilize those same faculties to recognize patterns in "inanimate" phenomena as well.

 

[WALMART]

a) anyone insufficiently versed in biological evolution will have this problem. it is on the observer to relish the facts human intelligence has gathered, if one cannot complete this task ignorance remains.

b) i prefer to go with occam's razor on this one. if one can conceive an infinitely existing god, one should be able to more simply perceive an infinitely existing universe.

 

[ygolo]

I believe I have stated this before. The people who believe in Intelligent Design, actually misunderstand the design process.

The similarities between designed objects and evolved objects exist because design follows a more generalized evolutionary algorithm. We ought to be explaining design by describing the evolution of those designs, not explaining evolution by describing the "design" of its results.

 

[ygolo]

I believe I have stated this before. The people who believe in Intelligent Design, actually misunderstand the design process.

The similarities between designed objects and evolved objects exist because design follows a more generalized evolutionary algorithm. We ought to be explaining design by describing the evolution of those designs, not explaining evolution by describing the "design" of its results.

 

[Mycroft]

Ygolo, would you mind expanding on that? I don't entirely follow.

 

[WALMART]

Ygolo, would you mind expanding on that? I don't entirely follow.

google evolutionary scaffolding

 

[xisnotx]

the first one i refer to as the "backwards slippery slope".

 

[ygolo]

Ygolo, would you mind expanding on that? I don't entirely follow.

google evolutionary scaffolding

Although, scaffolding and loss of scaffolding have been used as a response to the ridiculous notion of irreducible complexity (show me one real example of irreducible complexity), that is not what I was getting at.

Human design is an iterative process. It borrows ideas from other existing designs and combines them in to a new one. The ones that work survive and get reused in further designs. If you think about it, human made designs themselves come about through a process of variation and selection (just like biological evolution).

You can read more about this in Henry Petroski's books like:
The Evolution of Useful Things: http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Useful-Things-Artifacts-From/dp/0679740392/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
and
Small Things Considered:http://www.amazon.com/Small-Things-Considered-Perfect-Design/dp/1400032938

 

[WALMART]

I am not in a position to care enough to see how scaffolding and what you describe are different. Oh well.


Actually, i see what you mean, but like i said in another thread: either you wanna know or you dont. Studying scaffolding is important to know how 'design' comes about... I guess i just wanted to teach.

 

[Mycroft]

Ygolo, thank you for the clarification, I think I see your point now. Would it be correct to say you believe that design is a process and in this case human beings are the agents?

 

[Ojian]

No, it doesnt work like that. No honest Christians I know state their case this way, and I doubt the actual citations you claim state it as was presented. These 'Fallacies' are at best strawmen arguments

Fallacy one is presented as pretty much a statement begging the question.

There is, no doubt, a fancy-sounding Latin term for this particular fallacy, but in common parlance it's what's known as "jumping to conclusions". It's true that many things we encounter which appear to have been designed were, in fact, designed. However, to jump to the conclusion that all things which appear to have been designed must have been designed is the same as saying: all swans I've encountered have been white. Therefore, all swans are white.

If in one's experience most, if not all things that appear designed are in fact designed by an intelligent agent, then it is not "jumping to conclusions" to infer that something else that appears designed is in fact designed by an intelligent agen, even if you dont have the detailed knowledge of how it was designed. It goes along with normal, everyday experience. According to the example (though its a badly formed statement), it would be more like: "All swans I've encountered have been birds. Therefore, all swans are birds."

Fallacy number two:

"DNA / cells (Jehovah's Witnesses love this one) / the earth and its environment / the cosmos / etc. are so complex! Look at how complex they are: [various data about DNA / cells / the earth and its environment / etc.] I can't believe something so complex could have simply arisen. Therefore, they must have been created by God."

'Complexity' is part of the argument they make, but hardly all of it. Complexity combined with function or specificity is more accurate. Again, it comes down to everyday experience that a person has that leads to an inference that such items (ex: DNA) show a designing intelligence behind them. It's not an Argument from Incredulity, but its an Argument to the inference of the best explanation, which would be that an intelligence is behind it.

Now of course any statistical or science data cannot help identify who "God" is, but neither do most Christians claim that it does. God's identity/manifestation is outside science's inquiry and requires a theological approach.

 

[Lark]

The prime mover or unmoved mover is one which I've not considered much but which appears sounder and less of a fallacy to be honest.

The whole design idea is something I've never needed as a proof of God, I think its a bad hangover from creationism which itself is a consequence of biblical literalism and solo scripture both of which I consider terrible things begun in error and just heaped upon ever since.

As the "two main" proofs, well, they arent my two main proofs. As to proofs per se, they come and go, some people have a strong need for them, others have a strong need to deprive others of supporting proof, they should look to why they experience either of those compelling motivations.

 

[redacted]

If in one's experience most, if not all things that appear designed are in fact designed by an intelligent agent, then it is not "jumping to conclusions" to infer that something else that appears designed is in fact designed by an intelligent agen, even if you dont have the detailed knowledge of how it was designed. It goes along with normal, everyday experience. According to the example (though its a badly formed statement), it would be more like: "All swans I've encountered have been birds. Therefore, all swans are birds."

It seems like the swan analogy above only holds if one has never encountered something that looked designed but in fact was not. But now that I think about it more, it may be the case that those that use the design argument use the term design more generously...

'Complexity' is part of the argument they make, but hardly all of it. Complexity combined with function or specificity is more accurate. Again, it comes down to everyday experience that a person has that leads to an inference that such items (ex: DNA) show a designing intelligence behind them. It's not an Argument from Incredulity, but its an Argument to the inference of the best explanation, which would be that an intelligence is behind it.

What's interesting is how people define the best explanation.

Before any evidence is presented, there are infinite theories about how things work that have yet to be contradicted. All evidence can do is chop sections out of that theory-space -- you're always left with a still infinite set of explanations for how things work consistent with the evidence. This is where people generally lean on occam's razor, but what does "the most simple theory" mean? Simplicity is narrative-dependent. So what is it that makes so many people agree on so few theories? I find it kinda fascinating how small a set of worldviews actually exist in the mainstream.

On the other hand, it completely baffles me that people believe in God. Oh well... can't escape my own subjectivity.

 

[Helix]

I agree with the OP. items 1 & 2 are specious arguments as presented. However, according to the Christian faith God's gift is free will. Thus to the rational individual no proof can exist for God since that proof would compel acceptance. The basis for faith is subjective belief that is not objective truth. However, the rational mind may be predisposed towards belief in God since this mind insists on order the logical extension of which is a unified theory. With increased sophistication using inductive reasoning this will become increasingly obvious, as patterns are detected in apparently independent observations. Why else would an otherwise rational thinker like Jung declare publically I know that God exists and fail to present proofs.

 

[Lark]

And yet no matter how much mankind rationalises about this or that proof or disproof of God's existence God remains. God is.

And God is Good.

 

[/DG/]

And yet no matter how much mankind rationalises about this or that proof or disproof of God's existence God remains. God is.

And God is Good.

But how can you just claim to know this? Why do you require no further proof or explanation?

If I told you I had an invisible, microscopic dragon living in my house, would you believe me if I had nothing other than my word to back me up? You shouldn't. So why should I believe you when you say God exists?

 

[Lark]

But how can you just claim to know this? Why do you require no further proof or explanation?

If I told you I had an invisible, microscopic dragon living in my house, would you believe me if I had nothing other than my word to back me up? You shouldn't. So why should I believe you when you say God exists?

Ha!

The invisible microscopic dragon has not been something which has been discussed and debated and driven thinkers from the very beginning of oral tradition and later written records.

I'm actually claiming nothing, it is a fact, God is, even in the act of attempting to deny, deride or disprove God, God is. If God were not there would be no discussion. Do you understand? This is not unproblematic an understanding to convey and I would suspect that you would have to have read the sources I have, considered the things I have to reach the same conclusions I have.

Which would include masses of Jung, many of his primary sources too.

So far as the requisite further proof or explanation, I'm not sure I do, I mean maybe, sometimes, I do think that way but it is a little like a lot of open ended questions in relationships, how can one person be certain when another says to them they love them for instance? It is a case that for some there never will be sufficient evidence, while for others they do not need any to begin with. That's a basic question of belief, you do or you dont, you either can or you cant, you will struggle with that or you wont.

A lot of the doubts, which are articulated frequently with haughty arrogance or even cruel malice rather than simple certainty, are a form of confirmation bias and category error, there is a hope and a wish which is easily confirmed and that experience it is hoped can be transmitted as quickly and widely as any countervailing opinion or belief.