Changes

Atheism and logical fallacies (view source)

Revision as of 19:55, January 6, 2016

52 bytes removed , 19:55, January 6, 2016

trimmed vertical white space

Line 5: Line 5:

*[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.

*[http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2012/03/21/atheists-dont-own-reason/10924 Atheists don’t own reason] by Tom Gilson

−

* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny

+

* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny

−

* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html Theism, Atheism, and Rationality] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]

+

* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html Theism, Atheism, and Rationality] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]

*''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by [[Vox Day]], Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008'' , ISBN-10: 1933771364; ISBN-13: 978-1933771366

</ref>

−

Below are a number of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit.

+

Below are a number of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit.

== Atheists and the fallacy of exclusion ==

−

+

''See also:'' [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] and [[Christian apologetics]] and [[Arguments for the existence of God]]

−

''See also:'' [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] and [[Christian apologetics]] and [[Arguments for the existence of God]]

[[Fallacy of exclusion]] - The fallacy of exclusion is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the 'principle of total evidence'."<ref>http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm</ref>. See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]

Line 22: Line 21:

''See also:'' [[Historicity of Jesus]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]

−

A classic use of the exclusion fallacy committed by many atheists is the denial that [[Jesus]] Christ ever existed.

+

A classic use of the exclusion fallacy committed by many atheists is the denial that [[Jesus]] Christ ever existed.

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for [[Jesus Christ]] living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed (see: [[Historicity of Jesus]]).

Line 30: Line 29:

==== Unreasonable and inconsistent evidential standards ====

−

''See also:'' [[Atheism and irrationality]] and [[Atheist hypocrisy]]

Line 38: Line 36:

*Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism - etymology"]. Retrieved July 15, 2014.</ref> See also: [[Definition of atheism]] and [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions of atheist and agnostic]] and [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

−

Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence]] that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity]] and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of [[Christianity]]. Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.

+

Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence]] that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity]] and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of [[Christianity]]. Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.

In addition, when atheist make claims related to [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], make personal claims or make accusations against [[theism|theists]], they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards.<ref>

Line 50: Line 48:

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|left|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]

Lewtontin wrote:

−

{{cquote|Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

+

{{cquote|Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

−

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

+

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

−

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.<ref>[http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote Amazing admission]</ref>}}

+

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.<ref>[http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote Amazing admission]</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

Line 61: Line 59:

[[File:Zero scale.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The popular YouTube Christian [[Shockofgod]] asked for proof and evidence that atheism is true. When atheism is weighed on the proof and evidence scale, it lacks evidential weight that it is a valid worldview. [[Christian apologetics website resources|Unlike Christianity]], there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true.]]

−

The popular Christian [[YouTube]] Christian [[Shockofgod]] likened atheism to a clown due to its hypocritical and foolish evidential standards.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref> Shockofgod repeatedly asked the YouTube atheist community, "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?".

+

The popular Christian [[YouTube]] Christian [[Shockofgod]] likened atheism to a clown due to its hypocritical and foolish evidential standards.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref> Shockofgod repeatedly asked the YouTube atheist community, "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?".

The YouTube atheist community became flustered and upset by his question.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref> Shockofgod declared concerning their reaction to his question: "The hostility I am getting over this question is unbelievable...It's like..picture this...Atheism is a clown and it didn't know it. And then I got the clown and I walked it over...I forced it to look itself in the mirror. And it sees itself in all its red hair, big nose, big shoes, polka dot glory."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref>

==== Atheism and extraordinary claims ====

−

Western Atheists often claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet they have no proof and evidence that the extraordinary claim of non-life becoming the first life solely through natural processes is true (See: [[Origin of life]]).<ref>

*[http://carm.org/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]

Line 73: Line 70:

== Atheists and the genetic fallacy ==

−

[[Genetic fallacy]] - The genetic fallacy is a [[logical fallacy]] wherein an argument is based on the circumstances of something's origin or history when that origin or history has nothing to do with the present value of that something.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Fallacy Files: Genetic Fallacy]</ref> The fallacy is thus a fallacy of relevance.

Line 81: Line 77:

=== Atheists, family/societal origin of religious belief and the genetic fallacy ===

−

''See also:'' [[Atheists, origin of religious belief and the genetic fallacy]]

[[File:800px-Georgetown University -351.JPG|thumbnail|left|200px|In 2012, a [[Georgetown University]] study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-atheists-have-lowest-retention-rate-compared-to-religious-groups-78029/ Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups</ref>]]

−

Atheists have given themselves pretentious monikers such as [[Freethought|freethinker]], rationalist and "[[Brights Movement|bright]]" (see also: [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intelligence]] and [[Causes of atheism]]).

+

Atheists have given themselves pretentious monikers such as [[Freethought|freethinker]], rationalist and "[[Brights Movement|bright]]" (see also: [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intelligence]] and [[Causes of atheism]]).

−

Like many atheists/agnostics, the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] often arrogantly claims that a person is an adherent of a particular religion purely due to their upbringing and environment.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"]</ref> These same atheists often complain that religion is purely the result of religious indoctrination while ignoring the existence of [[atheist indoctrination]].

+

Like many atheists/agnostics, the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] often arrogantly claims that a person is an adherent of a particular religion purely due to their upbringing and environment.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"]</ref> These same atheists often complain that religion is purely the result of religious indoctrination while ignoring the existence of [[atheist indoctrination]].

This type fallacious thinking is an example of the [[genetic fallacy]] and ignores the existence of people changing their religion/worldview based on thoughtful consideration or due to divine intervention. For example, one of Christianity's greatest evangelist was the [[Saint Paul|Apostle Paul]] who was a zealous Jew who persecuted Christians until his experience with [[Jesus]] on the road to Damascus. In recent years, there are many reports of [[Islam|Muslims]] receiving dreams/visions and becoming Christians.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqHDUpIZO68 LAST DAYS! Muslims Coming To Jesus Through Visions!]</ref>

=== Atheism has a lower retention rate than other worldviews ===

−

''See also:'' [[Atheism has a lower retention rate compared to other worldviews]]

Line 97: Line 91:

==== Abandonment of atheism in atheistic communist countries ====

+

In addition, in atheistic [[Communism|Communist]] China, Christianity is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>http://www.millennialstar.org/christianity-exploding-in-china/</ref><ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/shows/cwn/2008/August/Christianity-Growing-in-China-/</ref> On July 3, 2005, the [[New York Times]] reported concerning many countries in the former [[Soviet Union]]: "A return to religion in [[Romania]] and the region's other formerly Communist countries has in many places outrun the speed at which the church can screen and train clergy..."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/international/europe/03romania.html</ref>

−

In addition, in atheistic [[Communism|Communist]] China, Christianity is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>http://www.millennialstar.org/christianity-exploding-in-china/</ref><ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/shows/cwn/2008/August/Christianity-Growing-in-China-/</ref> On July 3, 2005, the [[New York Times]] reported concerning many countries in the former [[Soviet Union]]: "A return to religion in [[Romania]] and the region's other formerly Communist countries has in many places outrun the speed at which the church can screen and train clergy..."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/international/europe/03romania.html</ref>

===== Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union =====

−

See: [[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]

=== Allegation that all religion is superstitious and the genetic fallacy ===

−

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

−

A commonly ploy of atheists is to attempt to disqualify biblical writers on the spurious ground that they were allegedly superstitious and therefore their testimony is unreliable. Yet, the irreligious population has significant problem with superstition (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]])<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>

+

A commonly ploy of atheists is to attempt to disqualify biblical writers on the spurious ground that they were allegedly superstitious and therefore their testimony is unreliable. Yet, the irreligious population has significant problem with superstition (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]])<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>

In September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:

Line 116: Line 108:

=== Atheists, the genetic fallacy and false accusations of mental illness ===

−

+

Atheists often falsely accuse theists (particularly those who criticize atheism) of mental illness<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/10/mailvox-continuing-education.html Mailvos - Continuing education]</ref>, despite the fact that atheists have higher incidences of depression and suicide (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

−

Atheists often falsely accuse theists (particularly those who criticize atheism) of mental illness<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/10/mailvox-continuing-education.html Mailvos - Continuing education]</ref>, despite the fact that atheists have higher incidences of depression and suicide (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

Mental hospitals in the [[Soviet Union]] were used to persecute the religious.<ref>[http://www.roca.org/OA/5/5e.htm The Cry of the New Martyrs - Psychiatric “Treatment” of Christians]</ref>

Line 126: Line 117:

''See also:'' [[Sigmund Freud's view of religion]]

−

[[Psychology|Psychologist]] [[Sigmund Freud]] was a proponent of atheism who argued that theism was detrimental to mental health.<ref name="christtoday">McGrath, Alister (February 28, 2005). [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/21.36.html "The twilight of atheism"]. ''Christianity Today'' website. Retrieved on May 23, 2015.</ref> [[Oxford]] Professor [[Alister McGrath]], author of the book ''The Twilight of Atheism'', stated the following regarding Freud:

+

[[Psychology|Psychologist]] [[Sigmund Freud]] was a proponent of atheism who argued that theism was detrimental to mental health.<ref name="christtoday">McGrath, Alister (February 28, 2005). [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/21.36.html "The twilight of atheism"]. ''Christianity Today'' website. Retrieved on May 23, 2015.</ref> [[Oxford]] Professor [[Alister McGrath]], author of the book ''The Twilight of Atheism'', stated the following regarding Freud:

{{cquote|One of the most important criticisms that Sigmund Freud directed against religion was that it encourages unhealthy and dysfunctional outlooks on life. Having dismissed religion as an illusion, Freud went on to argue that it is a negative factor in personal development. At times, Freud's influence has been such that the elimination of a person's religious beliefs has been seen as a precondition for mental health.

Line 134: Line 125:

{{cquote|In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.

−

The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.<ref name="Mayo"/>}}

+

The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.<ref name="Mayo"/>}}

Freud remains popular among [[postmodern]] literary academics, who use his [[anti-Christian]] pseudoscience as a basis for their own anti-Christianity and moral relativism, even though his theories were disproved decades ago.

== Atheists and the strawman fallacy ==

−

[[Strawman fallacy]] - Many atheists/[[evolution]]ist commonly use the strawman fallacy.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/understanding-the-new-atheism A New Breed of Atheism]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/excellent-summary-of-so-many-strawman-arguments-used-by-anti-creationists ‘Excellent summary of so many strawman arguments used by anti-creationists’]</ref>

Line 147: Line 137:

== Atheists and the appeal to ridicule fallacy ==

−

''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]

−

The [[Appeal to ridicule|appeal to ridicule]] fallacy, also known as the appeal to mockery and the horse laugh, is a [[logical fallacy|fallacy of relevance]]. It consists of mocking an opposing argument rather than considering it on the merits.

+

The [[Appeal to ridicule|appeal to ridicule]] fallacy, also known as the appeal to mockery and the horse laugh, is a [[logical fallacy|fallacy of relevance]]. It consists of mocking an opposing argument rather than considering it on the merits.

[[File:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|On July 14, 1789, the [[Bastille]] was stormed by a mob and its prisoners freed, which is regarded as the start of the [[French Revolution]]. ]]

=== Appeal to ridicule fallacy and the history of French atheism ===

−

The [[Reign of Terror]] of the [[French Revolution]] established a state which was anti-[[Roman Catholicism]]/Christian in nature <ref>

*Tallet, Frank [https://books.google.com/books?id=aL4lsWdd-rAC&dq=&hl=en Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789], pp. 1-17 1991 Continuum International Publishing

Line 168: Line 156:

Lampooning of the Bible, Christian doctrine, and clergy dates back almost 400 years to the “strong thinkers,” French learned skeptics in the 16th century. The primary target of anti-religious satire was France’s official religion, Catholicism, the Church’s ties to the state, and its control over education. And the ridiculing wit long directed against these targets would eventually play a central and crucial role in reducing the status and influence of religion in the French Republic...

−

The method of the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, laicité, would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.<ref>[Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition Kenneth R. Weinstein]</ref>}}

+

The method of the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, laicité, would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.<ref>[Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition Kenneth R. Weinstein]</ref>}}

The tactic of employing the ridicule instead of reason has been ineffective in stopping the rapid growth of [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Christianity]] in modern France.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0712/In-a-France-suspicious-of-religion-evangelicalism-s-message-strikes-a-chord In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord]</ref>

Line 183: Line 171:

=== Modern American/British militant atheists and the use of ridicule ===

−

The [[New Atheism|new atheist]] Richard Dawkins declared to this fellow atheists:

{{cquote|I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref>}}

Line 207: Line 194:

The University of Illinois psychologist Ryan Ritter published a study in the journal ''Social Psychological and Personality Science'' which showed among other things that atheists used profanity significantly more than Christians do on Twitter and that Christians had happier dispositions on Twitter.<ref>[http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/18/1948550613492345.full.pdf+html Happy Tweets: Christians Are Happier, More Socially Connected, and Less Analytical Than Atheists on Twitter Social Psychological and Personality Science 1948550613492345, first published on June 18, 2013]</ref>

−

Militant atheists/anti-atheists frequently accuse Christians of "lying for Jesus" despite the fact that historically atheists/evolutionists have frequently engaged in deception to promote their ideology (see: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheist indoctrination]]).

+

Militant atheists/anti-atheists frequently accuse Christians of "lying for Jesus" despite the fact that historically atheists/evolutionists have frequently engaged in deception to promote their ideology (see: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheist indoctrination]]).

−

See also:

−

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

+

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

*[[Evolutionary indoctrination]].

== Scientism is self-refuting ==

−

''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]

−

According to [[Discovery Institute]] [[scientism]] is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.<ref name="Magician">{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description|author=N/A |publisher=Discovery Institute Press |url=http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058 |accessdate= November 30, 2014 |quote=Beloved for his Narnian tales for children and his books of Christian apologetics for adults, best-selling author C.S. Lewis also was a prophetic critic of the growing power of scientism in modern society, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In this wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis's warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis's views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called "scientocracy."}}</ref>

+

According to [[Discovery Institute]] [[scientism]] is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.<ref name="Magician">{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society - Product Description|author=N/A |publisher=Discovery Institute Press |url=http://astore.amazon.com/discoveryinsti12-20/detail/1936599058 |accessdate= November 30, 2014 |quote=Beloved for his Narnian tales for children and his books of Christian apologetics for adults, best-selling author C.S. Lewis also was a prophetic critic of the growing power of scientism in modern society, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In this wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis's warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis's views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called "scientocracy."}}</ref>

Scientism is self-refuting. [[William Lane Craig]] wrote: "Scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven. But what about that very proposition itself? It cannot itself be scientifically proven."<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting Is scientism self-refuting?]</ref> The Christian apologist Jason Peterson similarly wrote: "Science has to presuppose the validity of mathematics, the laws of logic, and that our senses are valid. Science is unable to prove any of those things." <ref>[Christianity and Circular Reasoning] by Jason Petersen at Answers for Hope Ministry</ref> See also: [[Atheism and naturalistic intelligence]]

Line 226: Line 212:

== Atheists and the appeal to emotion logical fallacy ==

+

Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments from outrage when criticizing the Bible - especially when they are engaging in cultural imperialism.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.php Bible critics and arguments from outrage] by [[JP Holding]]</ref><ref>[http://www.tribosblog.org/?p=1640 Atheists and arguments From outrage]</ref><ref>[http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45 Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics] by Paul Copan</ref>

−

Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments from outrage when criticizing the Bible - especially when they are engaging in cultural imperialism.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.php Bible critics and arguments from outrage] by [[JP Holding]]</ref><ref>[http://www.tribosblog.org/?p=1640 Atheists and arguments From outrage]</ref><ref>[http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45 Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics] by Paul Copan</ref>

== Atheism and the fallacy of equivocation ==

−

''See also:'' [[Atheism and equivocation]]

Line 239: Line 224:

=== Atheism, equivocation and the origin in the universe ===

+

[[Creation science|Creationist scientists]] demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

−

[[Creation science|Creationist scientists]] demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

+

The [[CARM|Christian Apologetics and Research Ministy]] (CARM) points out that the prominent atheist [[Lawrence Krauss]] uses the [[logical fallacy]] of [[equivocation]] in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>

−

The [[CARM|Christian Apologetics and Research Ministy]] (CARM) points out that the prominent atheist [[Lawrence Krauss]] uses the [[logical fallacy]] of [[equivocation]] in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>

CARM declares:

Line 283: Line 267:

[[File:Shockofgod helmet.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]

−

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy]]

+

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy]]

−

The [[no true Scotsman]] fallacy is a [[logical fallacy]] and more specifically a special case of [[circular logic]]. It involves dismissing any counterexamples.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NoTrueScotsman No True Scotsman Fallacy], ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy], Idea Channel - PBS Digital Studios</ref>

+

The [[no true Scotsman]] fallacy is a [[logical fallacy]] and more specifically a special case of [[circular logic]]. It involves dismissing any counterexamples.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NoTrueScotsman No True Scotsman Fallacy], ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy], Idea Channel - PBS Digital Studios</ref>

The ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' describes the no true Scotsman fallacy thusly:

Line 303: Line 287:

=== Atheists claiming ex-atheists were never atheists ===

−

[[John W. Loftus]], one of the more prominent atheists in the atheist community. The [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] Darrin Rasberry used to write for the atheist John Loftus’ blog site ''Debunking Christianity''.<ref>[https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/arguments-for-gods-existence-leads-former-christ-hater-darrin-rasberry-to-christ-follower/ Arguments for God’s existence leads former “Christ-hater,” Darrin Rasberry, to Christ follower] by James Bishop</ref> After Rasberry became a Christian Loftus said that Rasberry “was never an atheist in the first place.”<ref>[https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/arguments-for-gods-existence-leads-former-christ-hater-darrin-rasberry-to-christ-follower/ Arguments for God’s existence leads former “Christ-hater,” Darrin Rasberry, to Christ follower] by James Bishop</ref>

Line 313: Line 296:

=== Atheists attempting to deny/minimize the roles of atheism/atheists in atheist atrocities ===

−

Atheist apologists commonly try to minimize or deny the role of atheism/atheists as far as atheist atrocites.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk Atheists Dodge Their History of Atrocities]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]</ref><ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/04/mailvox-no-true-atheist-defense.html Mailvox: the "No True Atheist" defense]</ref> It is as if no true atheist could be responsible for mass murder (see also: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]]).<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/04/mailvox-no-true-atheist-defense.html Mailvox: the "No True Atheist" defense]</ref>

Line 321: Line 303:

=== Evolutionists who are atheists committing the no true Scottsman fallacy ===

−

''See also:'' [[Christianity and science]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] and [[Creation science]]

−

[[Evolution]]ists who are atheists often claim that there are no real scientists who disbelieve evolution.<ref>[http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/blog/200902/many-scientists-do-not-accept-evolution Many Scientists Do Not Accept Evolution]</ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

+

[[Evolution]]ists who are atheists often claim that there are no real scientists who disbelieve evolution.<ref>[http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/blog/200902/many-scientists-do-not-accept-evolution Many Scientists Do Not Accept Evolution]</ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>

Line 332: Line 313:

=== Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy ===

−

[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]

== Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God ==

−

''See also:'' [[Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]]

Line 344: Line 323:

== See also ==

−

*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]

Dave Wilcox

46

edits

Changes

Atheism and logical fallacies (view source)

Revision as of 19:55, January 6, 2016

Navigation menu

Search