Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 10, 2022 8:49:29 GMT -5
Fallacies Used to Support Atheism
Something is wrong with our educational system in the USA if our most educated scholars can make so many mistakes in reasoning. For example, Neil Degrass, this scientist who dedicates himself on mocking belief in a creator, just claimed that atheistic belief in atheistic ideas are more trustworthy because of the credentials of the scientists?
Claims that because of it they cannot be swept under the rug? Well, contrary to his belief, an idea can be swept under the rug if it is evaluated on its merit and is found defective regardless of who is supporting it. In fact, claiming that it cannot be, constitutes the fallacy of argument from Authority.
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The problem is, that in this case, both sides do not agree on the reliability of the atheist scientists. In fact, it is considered highly suspect. Other fallacies Degrass uses in order to support atheistic views are the following.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic often utilizes sarcasm in their argument.
Person A: At one time in prehistory, the continents were fused together into a single supercontinent, which we call Pangaea.
Person B: Yes, I definitely believe that hundreds of millions of years ago, some laser cut through the Earth and broke apart a giant landmass into many different pieces.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Claims that because of it they cannot be swept under the rug? Well, contrary to his belief, an idea can be swept under the rug if it is evaluated on its merit and is found defective regardless of who is supporting it. In fact, claiming that it cannot be, constitutes the fallacy of argument from Authority.
Argument from authority
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The problem is, that in this case, both sides do not agree on the reliability of the atheist scientists. In fact, it is considered highly suspect. Other fallacies Degrass uses in order to support atheistic views are the following.
Argumentum ad populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic often utilizes sarcasm in their argument.
An example of an appeal to ridicule:
Person A: At one time in prehistory, the continents were fused together into a single supercontinent, which we call Pangaea.
Person B: Yes, I definitely believe that hundreds of millions of years ago, some laser cut through the Earth and broke apart a giant landmass into many different pieces.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule