Natural vs. Supernatural and other logical fallacies
Several years ago my best friend from childhood became an atheist. He referred me to an atheist speaker that had strongly influenced him. I watched a youtube video by the said atheist speaker. As I watched the atheists presentation, I noticed that he was very influential through the use of many persuasive methods involving logical fallacies.
I see these methods absorbed and then perpetuated by other atheists, so I will identify a few. It's kind of like the "sales methods of the atheists". (Religious people also have methods, but that can be a post for another date).
Association; One way to make something look false, is to associate it with things which are already obviously false. This can be done through making sweeping generalizations or grouping things all together that dont belong together.
One way that this may be done is to utilize the logical fallacy called "Either/or": This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.
Here is an example: "Either you can go with 'natural' health options or you can go with 'unnatural' treatments. Natural health options include things like exercise and eating fruits and vegetables. Unnatural methods include things that doctors prescribe like thalidomide, blood-letting and vaccines."
This association grouping technique was used by the atheist speaker. He said something to the effect of :"either you can believe in natural things like physics and science, or you can believe in things like aliens, witches, monsters, fortune tellers, Santa Claus, unicorns, elves, dragons, and God."
He divided every idea in the universe into two piles of "either/or" and then made people feel like if they believed in God, then they were in the same pile as believing in Santa Claus.
People don't use logical fallacies because they are illogical, they use them because they are effective in persuading people to change their minds. This method is very effective.
But let's identify the problems with this technique and why there is more that "either/or" and how some ideas definitely dont belong in the same basket as others.
Rather than putting every idea for which there is not empirical proof into the same basket as santa claus-- let's further designate for amount of evidence.
How much evidence is there for elves? Essentially none. Have you met anyone who claimed to see an elf or found evidence for the existence of elves? Doubtful. Have you ever heard of anyone, ever meeting anyone who ever claimed to see an elf or even believed in elves or thought that there might be some evidence for them somewhere? Doubtful.
Lets compare that to the evidence for God. Unnumbered masses have claimed to have had interactions with God, if even only 1% of them are legitimate-- it is still countless accounts. Records in nearly every continent and culture for all of human history include records of interactions with God and for the most part-- they all give very similar accounts of their experiences.
What about logic? Is there a rational argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. Is there a rational argument for elves? Absolutely not.
The way that it was presented, made it seem like Natural and supernatural were two dichotomous world views that by definition HAVE to be in opposition to each other.
I would argue that "natural" and "supernatural" are not "worldviews" in and of themselves. Generally everyone believes in what they can see, touch and measure (natural stuff). Then there is a large pile of stuff that we don't know about-- we cant see, touch or measure it because is beyond the grasp of scientific observation at this time (supernatural).
Supernatural is defined as: "Of a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature [as we currently understand them]"
A person can have a worldview that includes natural and/or supernatural components. Which is to say, their worldview may encompass some components that they feel are not able to be either confirmed nor ruled out by use of the scientific method because of the unavailability of a way to observe or control the involved subject. History for example. Things happened, but we cannot observe those thing-- it is impossible. So we make theories.
History can go WAAAYY back: Why does anything exist at all? Either we pretend that this question doesn't exist, or we entertain a few theories that are attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding-- like dark matter or cosmic foam. When we see extremely complex entities, we come up with theories like spontaneous assembly or intelligent design. But even "intelligent design" isn't necessarily straightforward-- was the complex entity directly designed, or was the solar system designed to manufacture complex entities... or was the universe designed to manufacture solar systems that would produce complex entities? So if we assume that a human spontaneously assembled, we call this "natural" but why is it suddenly "supernatural" when we entertain any evidence that the universe may have also spontaneously assembled anything more intelligent than a human?
The thing about the "supernatural" pile is that it is a circle which, BY DEFINITION, shrinks as the circle of "natural" grows. Everything beyond scientific understanding is supernatural and everything that is within scientific understanding is natural.
If we discovered a 500 year old laptop computer sitting at the base of a volcano, we could choose to conclude that the elements in the volcano spontaneously melted together by random chance, or we could choose to conclude that something more intelligent designed the laptop. If you thought that something more intelligent designed the laptop, then your thought pattern needs to be labeled as "supernatural" world-viewer and you now have to stand in the same circle as someone who believes in witches and dragons?
See, this is the implementation of the either/or fallacy. There are not only 2 circles. There are not only 2 types of worldviews. The most logical worldviews involve lots and lots of evidence.
To take it back to our laptop analogy, imagine that there were billions of records all over the earth, in nearly every language and culture that documented the individual who made the laptop. You can still choose to believe that the laptop was formed naturally (spontaneously) because you dont want to be in the same "supernatural" circle as people who still believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy. Or maybe your perspective of worldviews as progressed a little bit past the limiting dichotomous way of seeing things and you can choose what you believe based on logic and evidence.
Lets go even deeper... Some conclude that the intelligent designer would be supernatural and spontaneous assembly would be natural-- but in reality, in an infinite universe combined with infinite time, it is just as probable for one thing to exist as another. Whether the endless possibilities of the universe produce a laptop or something that designs laptops (humans)-- or it produces humans, or something that designs humans ("God"), would be all explained by the same idea "spontaneous assembly". Rarher than rejecting or accepting spontaneous assembly, the question should be: "Is there there substantial evidence"
In summary, there is not just 2 circles; this is not an "either/or" fallacy. It is much more complex and when you dive deeper, the circles multiply and the borders get blurry.
Lets get back to a different method regurgitated by atheism enthusiats and promoters.
Another thing that the atheist speaker shared was the the most ridiculous examples of the silliest instances of people who attributed things to be supernatural. He shared stories about people seeing the outline of Jesus on their food and stories of people who thought that sprinklers hit a window was an act of God. These things became the "poster child" for believers. He talked about how the primitive cave man brain interprets its surroundings in such unintelligent ways and this is the source of all theology. Thus he had knocked down all origin of religious belief in a fatal blow, revealing that believing in Gid was nothing more than the spooky shadows we see in the darkness of ignorance. To use these ridiculous instances as the poster child for believers and then to demonstrate how its nonsense is an example of the strawman fallacy.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
Near the end of his presentation he shared that his mother had alzheimers and he watched her personality change because her brain was damaged, and then, as if this experience gave definitive undeniable evidence, he communicated: "this is how I know that there is no God and there is no such thing as a soul".
This is an example of the logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.
This occurs with many people who find problems with some of the beliefs of their nativity. Maybe a corrupt leader or a traditional idea that was way off base. Then they rapidly; without sufficient further extensive analysis or much attempts at theory restructuring, toss massive amounts of evidence in the trash without even evaluating it, while saying "I dont need to look at any evidence, i already know its all wrong". If a similar approach were to be taken with medical science, (with it's terrible background), the field of medicine might have never come to fruition. There are people who go from fully believing in God, to full blown atheist in a week without even cracking a book. And then, not a piece of evidence in the world can budge them (of course the fact that they wont even peek at any evidence doesnt help).
The basest and most deplorable fallacy was witnessed by this speaker when at one point in his presentation he communicated that universities and employers are going to stop hiring and promoting people who believe in God because it is becoming increasingly unpopular to believe in God and people will think they are stupid and ignorant.
Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.
A similar effect is attempted when preachers of atheism utilize the "either/or" fallacy and tell people that there are only two types of worldviews and one of them includes children who believe in the tooth fairy... which group do YOU want to be in?
This is a common atheism conversion technique that has great sway on people who really feel a strong need to appear intelligent to others.
In conclusion, whether you choose to be atheist or theist has little or nothing to do with intelligence. There are intelligent and logical ways of being on either side of this opinion. The answer to this question is currently beyond the empirical scope of science. But a few things are certain: a person isnt automaticall bad or good; smart or dumb because they do or do not believe in God.
I see these methods absorbed and then perpetuated by other atheists, so I will identify a few. It's kind of like the "sales methods of the atheists". (Religious people also have methods, but that can be a post for another date).
Association; One way to make something look false, is to associate it with things which are already obviously false. This can be done through making sweeping generalizations or grouping things all together that dont belong together.
One way that this may be done is to utilize the logical fallacy called "Either/or": This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.
Here is an example: "Either you can go with 'natural' health options or you can go with 'unnatural' treatments. Natural health options include things like exercise and eating fruits and vegetables. Unnatural methods include things that doctors prescribe like thalidomide, blood-letting and vaccines."
This association grouping technique was used by the atheist speaker. He said something to the effect of :"either you can believe in natural things like physics and science, or you can believe in things like aliens, witches, monsters, fortune tellers, Santa Claus, unicorns, elves, dragons, and God."
He divided every idea in the universe into two piles of "either/or" and then made people feel like if they believed in God, then they were in the same pile as believing in Santa Claus.
People don't use logical fallacies because they are illogical, they use them because they are effective in persuading people to change their minds. This method is very effective.
But let's identify the problems with this technique and why there is more that "either/or" and how some ideas definitely dont belong in the same basket as others.
Rather than putting every idea for which there is not empirical proof into the same basket as santa claus-- let's further designate for amount of evidence.
How much evidence is there for elves? Essentially none. Have you met anyone who claimed to see an elf or found evidence for the existence of elves? Doubtful. Have you ever heard of anyone, ever meeting anyone who ever claimed to see an elf or even believed in elves or thought that there might be some evidence for them somewhere? Doubtful.
Lets compare that to the evidence for God. Unnumbered masses have claimed to have had interactions with God, if even only 1% of them are legitimate-- it is still countless accounts. Records in nearly every continent and culture for all of human history include records of interactions with God and for the most part-- they all give very similar accounts of their experiences.
What about logic? Is there a rational argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. Is there a rational argument for elves? Absolutely not.
The way that it was presented, made it seem like Natural and supernatural were two dichotomous world views that by definition HAVE to be in opposition to each other.
I would argue that "natural" and "supernatural" are not "worldviews" in and of themselves. Generally everyone believes in what they can see, touch and measure (natural stuff). Then there is a large pile of stuff that we don't know about-- we cant see, touch or measure it because is beyond the grasp of scientific observation at this time (supernatural).
Supernatural is defined as: "Of a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature [as we currently understand them]"
A person can have a worldview that includes natural and/or supernatural components. Which is to say, their worldview may encompass some components that they feel are not able to be either confirmed nor ruled out by use of the scientific method because of the unavailability of a way to observe or control the involved subject. History for example. Things happened, but we cannot observe those thing-- it is impossible. So we make theories.
History can go WAAAYY back: Why does anything exist at all? Either we pretend that this question doesn't exist, or we entertain a few theories that are attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding-- like dark matter or cosmic foam. When we see extremely complex entities, we come up with theories like spontaneous assembly or intelligent design. But even "intelligent design" isn't necessarily straightforward-- was the complex entity directly designed, or was the solar system designed to manufacture complex entities... or was the universe designed to manufacture solar systems that would produce complex entities? So if we assume that a human spontaneously assembled, we call this "natural" but why is it suddenly "supernatural" when we entertain any evidence that the universe may have also spontaneously assembled anything more intelligent than a human?
The thing about the "supernatural" pile is that it is a circle which, BY DEFINITION, shrinks as the circle of "natural" grows. Everything beyond scientific understanding is supernatural and everything that is within scientific understanding is natural.
If we discovered a 500 year old laptop computer sitting at the base of a volcano, we could choose to conclude that the elements in the volcano spontaneously melted together by random chance, or we could choose to conclude that something more intelligent designed the laptop. If you thought that something more intelligent designed the laptop, then your thought pattern needs to be labeled as "supernatural" world-viewer and you now have to stand in the same circle as someone who believes in witches and dragons?
See, this is the implementation of the either/or fallacy. There are not only 2 circles. There are not only 2 types of worldviews. The most logical worldviews involve lots and lots of evidence.
To take it back to our laptop analogy, imagine that there were billions of records all over the earth, in nearly every language and culture that documented the individual who made the laptop. You can still choose to believe that the laptop was formed naturally (spontaneously) because you dont want to be in the same "supernatural" circle as people who still believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy. Or maybe your perspective of worldviews as progressed a little bit past the limiting dichotomous way of seeing things and you can choose what you believe based on logic and evidence.
Lets go even deeper... Some conclude that the intelligent designer would be supernatural and spontaneous assembly would be natural-- but in reality, in an infinite universe combined with infinite time, it is just as probable for one thing to exist as another. Whether the endless possibilities of the universe produce a laptop or something that designs laptops (humans)-- or it produces humans, or something that designs humans ("God"), would be all explained by the same idea "spontaneous assembly". Rarher than rejecting or accepting spontaneous assembly, the question should be: "Is there there substantial evidence"
In summary, there is not just 2 circles; this is not an "either/or" fallacy. It is much more complex and when you dive deeper, the circles multiply and the borders get blurry.
Lets get back to a different method regurgitated by atheism enthusiats and promoters.
Another thing that the atheist speaker shared was the the most ridiculous examples of the silliest instances of people who attributed things to be supernatural. He shared stories about people seeing the outline of Jesus on their food and stories of people who thought that sprinklers hit a window was an act of God. These things became the "poster child" for believers. He talked about how the primitive cave man brain interprets its surroundings in such unintelligent ways and this is the source of all theology. Thus he had knocked down all origin of religious belief in a fatal blow, revealing that believing in Gid was nothing more than the spooky shadows we see in the darkness of ignorance. To use these ridiculous instances as the poster child for believers and then to demonstrate how its nonsense is an example of the strawman fallacy.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
Near the end of his presentation he shared that his mother had alzheimers and he watched her personality change because her brain was damaged, and then, as if this experience gave definitive undeniable evidence, he communicated: "this is how I know that there is no God and there is no such thing as a soul".
This is an example of the logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.
This occurs with many people who find problems with some of the beliefs of their nativity. Maybe a corrupt leader or a traditional idea that was way off base. Then they rapidly; without sufficient further extensive analysis or much attempts at theory restructuring, toss massive amounts of evidence in the trash without even evaluating it, while saying "I dont need to look at any evidence, i already know its all wrong". If a similar approach were to be taken with medical science, (with it's terrible background), the field of medicine might have never come to fruition. There are people who go from fully believing in God, to full blown atheist in a week without even cracking a book. And then, not a piece of evidence in the world can budge them (of course the fact that they wont even peek at any evidence doesnt help).
The basest and most deplorable fallacy was witnessed by this speaker when at one point in his presentation he communicated that universities and employers are going to stop hiring and promoting people who believe in God because it is becoming increasingly unpopular to believe in God and people will think they are stupid and ignorant.
Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.
A similar effect is attempted when preachers of atheism utilize the "either/or" fallacy and tell people that there are only two types of worldviews and one of them includes children who believe in the tooth fairy... which group do YOU want to be in?
This is a common atheism conversion technique that has great sway on people who really feel a strong need to appear intelligent to others.
In conclusion, whether you choose to be atheist or theist has little or nothing to do with intelligence. There are intelligent and logical ways of being on either side of this opinion. The answer to this question is currently beyond the empirical scope of science. But a few things are certain: a person isnt automaticall bad or good; smart or dumb because they do or do not believe in God.
Comments
Post a Comment