Sunday, August 14, 2011
Mean Ol' Theists!
Larry Moran is complaining that William Lane Craig is actually using logic against atheists. Furthermore, that's good enough reason for atheists to duck debates with Craig.
Sure, Larry calls what Craig is doing "rhetoric" and "gotcha" moments but the problem is, if they are so easy to refute, why should there be any problem?
Specifically, Craig has the temerity to punch logical holes in some of atheists' favorite arguments, which Larry calls "frustrating and aggravating." I'm sure it is ... especially since atheists of Larry's stripe are so quick to tell everyone how logical and scientific they are. It's always frustrating and aggravating to be shown not to be what you claim you are.
I'll mention only a couple:
One is the "argument from bad design," perhaps most famously made by Stephen Jay Gould in the form of "the panda's thumb." But it has been criticized by many more people than just theists like Craig. Elliot Sober, one of the best philosophers of science working today, has also pointed out its flaws, both scientifically and logically.
Another is the notion that the absence of (scientific) evidence for god(s) as a positive argument against the existence of god(s). Again Sober shows the logical and scientific flaws in this. Incidentally, Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy somehow got dragged into this, despite the fact that Russell made the argument against agnosticism, not theism. I have my own take on that and I am not, of course, a theist.
As an aside, Larry complains that Craig "simply refuses to accept the analogy being made and prefers to twist it around to make his point." Of course, it could be pointed out that such is the problem with arguments from analogy ... since they are not based in empiric fact ... that there is no way of telling whose "interpretation" of the analogy is correct.
All of which is not to say that I think debating Craig is a good idea for most atheists. It is clear that he has immersed himself in the arguments of his opponents to a great degree (which some atheists think is beneath them ... [cough]Courtier's Reply[cough]) and has read widely in the philosophy of science. Nor is it to say that there aren't many good arguments against Craig's claims.
But it's always a bad idea to undertake what you are unwilling to prepare for.
.
Comments:
<< Home
I only heard one of his debates, the one against Lawrence Kraus.
I was actually disappointed in how much he relied on rhetorical tricks and argument from authority.
For instance when talking about the start of the universe Kraus is an authority, and he made arguments to support his case. Craig then first refutes him with only a call to authority, and then misrepresents Kraus position. He then continues to mock his own strawman.
I know this is just a debate, and he only has to convince his audience, but some people claim that Craigs debate shows something about the subjects of the debate, when Craigs only motive is to use every trick in the book to get th saudience on his side. As Moran says, Craig is not the least concerned about the truth of his position, and neither is he concerned about representing hios opponents postition fairly.
I was actually disappointed in how much he relied on rhetorical tricks and argument from authority.
For instance when talking about the start of the universe Kraus is an authority, and he made arguments to support his case. Craig then first refutes him with only a call to authority, and then misrepresents Kraus position. He then continues to mock his own strawman.
I know this is just a debate, and he only has to convince his audience, but some people claim that Craigs debate shows something about the subjects of the debate, when Craigs only motive is to use every trick in the book to get th saudience on his side. As Moran says, Craig is not the least concerned about the truth of his position, and neither is he concerned about representing hios opponents postition fairly.
Craig is not the least concerned about the truth of his position, and neither is he concerned about representing hios opponents postition fairly.
As I said, there are plenty of arguments against Craig's claims. But it's no use complaining that he is using rhetoric when, in fact, he is pointing to logical holes in arguments that have been described by others who are not theists and not just out to score debating points.
Nor is Craig alone in showing a lack of interest in "the truth" or representing his opponents' positions fairly.
As I said, there are plenty of arguments against Craig's claims. But it's no use complaining that he is using rhetoric when, in fact, he is pointing to logical holes in arguments that have been described by others who are not theists and not just out to score debating points.
Nor is Craig alone in showing a lack of interest in "the truth" or representing his opponents' positions fairly.
I haven't read any of the transcripts at Craig's site since I would have to register there, and I'm not sure I want to.
But a couple of points:
Skongstad - a minor point - when Kraus argues as an authority, one has to know he is an authority and accept that he is an authority. Krause, though, is presented not just as a scientist but as an atheist.
So for many in the audience, I would guess that they would see him making an equal call to authority because of that.
Second, science just does not prove atheism. When scientists debate creationists, if they're well prepared they can "win" against even Galloping Gish-style debates. Because they're sticking to the findings of science and dealing with conflicts that arise only when beliefs and science collide.
But atheism is a philosophical position - a valid one but only as valid as some theist positions that also accept science, and it's just not enough to not believe in any gods if you want to engage in debate against people who are well prepared in philosophy.
But a couple of points:
Skongstad - a minor point - when Kraus argues as an authority, one has to know he is an authority and accept that he is an authority. Krause, though, is presented not just as a scientist but as an atheist.
So for many in the audience, I would guess that they would see him making an equal call to authority because of that.
Second, science just does not prove atheism. When scientists debate creationists, if they're well prepared they can "win" against even Galloping Gish-style debates. Because they're sticking to the findings of science and dealing with conflicts that arise only when beliefs and science collide.
But atheism is a philosophical position - a valid one but only as valid as some theist positions that also accept science, and it's just not enough to not believe in any gods if you want to engage in debate against people who are well prepared in philosophy.
# posted by 
: 9:26 AM
: 9:26 AM
I've never paid much attention to Craig, but I wonder, how much of a creationist is he? Larry Moran's post has a photo of Craig holding Denton's "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" which pretty much means ID/creationist if Craig takes it seriously.
I've never paid much attention to Craig, but I wonder, how much of a creationist is he?
I don't pay all that much attention to him either but he was certainly arguing for the validity of ID as science in one of Larry's videos. My impression is that ID isn't high on his priority list but he's happy to use it as a talking point against atheists.
I don't pay all that much attention to him either but he was certainly arguing for the validity of ID as science in one of Larry's videos. My impression is that ID isn't high on his priority list but he's happy to use it as a talking point against atheists.
To nitpick, Sober actually believes that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (see his 2010? paper Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence). If by evidence you mean any information/observation that shifts your subjective probabilities after Bayesian updating, then absence of evidence (where there was some nonzero chance you would see positive evidence) is always evidence of absence, although it may be much weaker than the alternative positive evidence would have been. Two caveats: 1) Sober doesn't think anything can count as evidence for "intelligent design", and for some reason doesn't want to consider more specific hypotheses (e.g. theism, Christian theism, etc.) unless we have independent evidence for the additional assumptions that differentiate these hypotheses in the "intelligent design" hypothesis-space (this is because Sober isn't a Bayesian); 2) if anything could count as evidence for ID and we don't find such evidence, that disconfirms ID in the sense that it decreases the rational subjective probability one can assign to it, but of course doesn't disprove it (since there is no probabilistic modus tollens).
Nor is it to say that there aren't many good arguments against Craig's claims.
Which are?
One is the "argument from bad design,"
This argument doesnt start of as life is badly designed , hence no God(Which would be a flawed argument - to comment on design you need to know most of the variables and the constraints which we don't). However it is a valid response to life is well designed. Because here you are judging "good" by human standards so "bad" will be by our standards too.
the absence of (scientific) evidence for god(s) as a positive argument against the existence of god(s)
If you have no record of any plague hitting Egypt, then the absence of that evidence is proof that things didn't happen as described in the Bible. If you don't have any evidence of the Roman's having some census when you have other meticulous records from Romans , at the same time, then that absence of evidence is proof as well. You cannot disprove existence , but you certainly can use it to show flaws in the other persons arguments.
Which are?
One is the "argument from bad design,"
This argument doesnt start of as life is badly designed , hence no God(Which would be a flawed argument - to comment on design you need to know most of the variables and the constraints which we don't). However it is a valid response to life is well designed. Because here you are judging "good" by human standards so "bad" will be by our standards too.
the absence of (scientific) evidence for god(s) as a positive argument against the existence of god(s)
If you have no record of any plague hitting Egypt, then the absence of that evidence is proof that things didn't happen as described in the Bible. If you don't have any evidence of the Roman's having some census when you have other meticulous records from Romans , at the same time, then that absence of evidence is proof as well. You cannot disprove existence , but you certainly can use it to show flaws in the other persons arguments.
Nor is it to say that there aren't many good arguments against Craig's claims.
Which are?
I was highly amused by his argument that Zeus was theologically sufficient for ID, which goes against everything else he says about god.
He also make a version of Plantinga's argument that naturalism is self-defeating, which I've criticized before.
However it is a valid response to life is well designed. Because here you are judging "good" by human standards so "bad" will be by our standards too.
Fair enough but that means atheists can't, as all too many do, just throw it out as an argument against god or for atheism. It's not even a very good argument for evolution. Atheists have to do the heavy lifting and explain that it is a limited argument against limited theistic claims.
If you have no record of any plague hitting Egypt, then the absence of that evidence is proof that things didn't happen as described in the Bible.
Proof? Is it even evidence? We've learned only in the last decade or so of a climate disaster in Egypt during (IIRC) the Middle Kingdom. That doesn't even take into account the tendency to mythologize the past, particularly cultural history. If I find no evidence that George Washington ever chopped down a cherry tree, do I doubt the Revolutionary War?
You cannot disprove existence , but you certainly can use it to show flaws in the other persons arguments.
Again, fair enough, but that's still far away from an argument against gods or for atheism.
Which are?
I was highly amused by his argument that Zeus was theologically sufficient for ID, which goes against everything else he says about god.
He also make a version of Plantinga's argument that naturalism is self-defeating, which I've criticized before.
However it is a valid response to life is well designed. Because here you are judging "good" by human standards so "bad" will be by our standards too.
Fair enough but that means atheists can't, as all too many do, just throw it out as an argument against god or for atheism. It's not even a very good argument for evolution. Atheists have to do the heavy lifting and explain that it is a limited argument against limited theistic claims.
If you have no record of any plague hitting Egypt, then the absence of that evidence is proof that things didn't happen as described in the Bible.
Proof? Is it even evidence? We've learned only in the last decade or so of a climate disaster in Egypt during (IIRC) the Middle Kingdom. That doesn't even take into account the tendency to mythologize the past, particularly cultural history. If I find no evidence that George Washington ever chopped down a cherry tree, do I doubt the Revolutionary War?
You cannot disprove existence , but you certainly can use it to show flaws in the other persons arguments.
Again, fair enough, but that's still far away from an argument against gods or for atheism.
@John
an argument against gods or for atheism.
Whoever said it was.
The argument usually made is that there is no good argument for God and all of the above are refutations to theistic arguments.
And it follows , if there are no good arguments for God, why believe - which holds as much for an agnostic as it does for an atheist?
an argument against gods or for atheism.
Whoever said it was.
The argument usually made is that there is no good argument for God and all of the above are refutations to theistic arguments.
And it follows , if there are no good arguments for God, why believe - which holds as much for an agnostic as it does for an atheist?
I think the panda's thumb argument is not so much that the "design" is bad, as it is evidence of the role of contingency in evolution--the wrist bone and necessary musculature, already present, required but relatively little modification to be capable of a new function. Panda ontogeny further supports this view.
Other claims of "bad" design are similar. If one simply accepts the premise that things can be "poofed" into existence, then any feature can be seen as designed and no argument against such a view can prevail, even if we understand the biology of such things.
Other claims of "bad" design are similar. If one simply accepts the premise that things can be "poofed" into existence, then any feature can be seen as designed and no argument against such a view can prevail, even if we understand the biology of such things.
@John
Also from Larry's comments on his blog "The whole point of bringing up bad design in nature is not to refute the idea of god the creator—it's to expose Intelligent Design Creationism as religion, not science."
Emphasis mine.
So now , to justify this statement,
but that means atheists can't, as all too many do, just throw it out as an argument against god or for atheism.
You will have to name names.
Also from Larry's comments on his blog "The whole point of bringing up bad design in nature is not to refute the idea of god the creator—it's to expose Intelligent Design Creationism as religion, not science."
Emphasis mine.
So now , to justify this statement,
but that means atheists can't, as all too many do, just throw it out as an argument against god or for atheism.
You will have to name names.
Deepak: "So now , to justify this statement,
but that means atheists can't, as all too many do, just throw it out as an argument against god or for atheism.
You will have to name names."
Do a google search on bad design evidence against god."
It's common enough to rate a Wikipedia article where, it's alleged through a link, poor design was one of the arguments that turned Dawkins away from religion.
but that means atheists can't, as all too many do, just throw it out as an argument against god or for atheism.
You will have to name names."
Do a google search on bad design evidence against god."
It's common enough to rate a Wikipedia article where, it's alleged through a link, poor design was one of the arguments that turned Dawkins away from religion.
# posted by : 6:40 PM
: 6:40 PM
Also from Larry's comments on his blog "The whole point of bringing up bad design in nature is not to refute the idea of god the creator—it's to expose Intelligent Design Creationism as religion, not science."
Um ... wanna check the date of Gould's article "The Panda's Thumb" with the rise of ID?
Um ... wanna check the date of Gould's article "The Panda's Thumb" with the rise of ID?
humans/life being "well" designed is something that predates ID is it not? And aren't you referring to current affairs?
And aren't you referring to current affairs?
The whole point of the post was atheists who were unprepared and/or made arguments that could could easily have holes punched into them. The argument that life is well designed, ergo god, indeed predates ID. It predates Darwin. It predates most of Western civilization. So why was Larry stating that it was raised to expose Intelligent Design Creationism? It's that type of sloppiness that allows Craig to do what he does. I repeat: it's always a bad idea to undertake what you are unwilling to prepare for.
The whole point of the post was atheists who were unprepared and/or made arguments that could could easily have holes punched into them. The argument that life is well designed, ergo god, indeed predates ID. It predates Darwin. It predates most of Western civilization. So why was Larry stating that it was raised to expose Intelligent Design Creationism? It's that type of sloppiness that allows Craig to do what he does. I repeat: it's always a bad idea to undertake what you are unwilling to prepare for.
. I repeat: it's always a bad idea to undertake what you are unwilling to prepare for.
I didnt disagree with that.
So why was Larry stating that it was raised to expose Intelligent Design Creationism?
Are you missing the "creationism" part of that response?
Most atheists I know (from whatever blogs/comments I follow) - only have this as a response - not as an argument for the non-existence of God. You seem to imply this is not the case so who are you referring to? I doubt you meant Gould(and did he do that?). And it cant be Larry because he has explicitly stated that it isn't an argument for the non existence of God.
I didnt disagree with that.
So why was Larry stating that it was raised to expose Intelligent Design Creationism?
Are you missing the "creationism" part of that response?
Most atheists I know (from whatever blogs/comments I follow) - only have this as a response - not as an argument for the non-existence of God. You seem to imply this is not the case so who are you referring to? I doubt you meant Gould(and did he do that?). And it cant be Larry because he has explicitly stated that it isn't an argument for the non existence of God.
You seem to imply this is not the case so who are you referring to?
I have no control over what you "imply". Larry complained about the video where Craig made the argument that "bad design" is not a very good argument against creationism. I merely pointed out that non-theists have made the same point. If you (as you did) want to limit it to an argument that we can't easily tell what is good and bad design, that's fine, but the IDers make the same argument to claim the "argument from bad design" fails.
TB has already pointed out a source of atheists using bad design as an argument for atheism. Trying to limit the sample size to "whatever blogs/comments I follow" is hardly scientific.
And I'm reasonably sure that, if you asked Larry what "absence of evidence" he would count as an argument against god(s), he'd include the absence of evidence that life is created/designed and that would then circle back to the bad design argument.
But that wasn't the point I was making either.
I have no control over what you "imply". Larry complained about the video where Craig made the argument that "bad design" is not a very good argument against creationism. I merely pointed out that non-theists have made the same point. If you (as you did) want to limit it to an argument that we can't easily tell what is good and bad design, that's fine, but the IDers make the same argument to claim the "argument from bad design" fails.
TB has already pointed out a source of atheists using bad design as an argument for atheism. Trying to limit the sample size to "whatever blogs/comments I follow" is hardly scientific.
And I'm reasonably sure that, if you asked Larry what "absence of evidence" he would count as an argument against god(s), he'd include the absence of evidence that life is created/designed and that would then circle back to the bad design argument.
But that wasn't the point I was making either.
@John
I did ask for your samples, I didn't imply that my sample is scientific or representative.
I merely pointed out that non-theists have made the same point.
No you pointed it out as a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that "design" (good or bad or incompetent) cannot be determined , in general without knowing a whole lot of things , which we don't. It doesn't remain a fallacy when you set up the boundaries of "good".
There is a difference between what is a good argument and what is a logical fallacy. Pointing out that a study about health benefits of smoking is funded by some cigarette company maybe a good argument against it, but it is still a logical fallacy.
It is the logical fallacy part of your post that Im responding to.
I did ask for your samples, I didn't imply that my sample is scientific or representative.
I merely pointed out that non-theists have made the same point.
No you pointed it out as a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that "design" (good or bad or incompetent) cannot be determined , in general without knowing a whole lot of things , which we don't. It doesn't remain a fallacy when you set up the boundaries of "good".
There is a difference between what is a good argument and what is a logical fallacy. Pointing out that a study about health benefits of smoking is funded by some cigarette company maybe a good argument against it, but it is still a logical fallacy.
It is the logical fallacy part of your post that Im responding to.
No you pointed it out as a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that "design" (good or bad or incompetent) cannot be determined , in general without knowing a whole lot of things , which we don't. It doesn't remain a fallacy when you set up the boundaries of "good".
Except you didn't set up "boundaries". You posited a situation where there was an argument that all design was alleged to be "good" by some standard, at which point the argument from bad design might have some force. But as the Casey Luskin article I linked to shows, they know better than that now. For Larry to just say that bad design is an argument against ID walks straight into a Craig-like refutation on logical grounds.
Pointing out that a study about health benefits of smoking is funded by some cigarette company maybe a good argument against it, but it is still a logical fallacy.
What logical fallacy is involved in merely pointing out a possible motive to lie?
Except you didn't set up "boundaries". You posited a situation where there was an argument that all design was alleged to be "good" by some standard, at which point the argument from bad design might have some force. But as the Casey Luskin article I linked to shows, they know better than that now. For Larry to just say that bad design is an argument against ID walks straight into a Craig-like refutation on logical grounds.
Pointing out that a study about health benefits of smoking is funded by some cigarette company maybe a good argument against it, but it is still a logical fallacy.
What logical fallacy is involved in merely pointing out a possible motive to lie?
@John
But as the Casey Luskin article I linked to shows, they know better than that now.
Ah but there is value(at least to me) in getting people to admit their God is as competent as the designers of the Ford Pinto.
However you also helpfully have Josh Rosenau's quote
"Apparently, the vertebrate eye is backwards because God decided it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits than make the cheap fix earlier implemented for the cephalopods."
Doesn't this have the same fallacy you are complaining about ?
What logical fallacy is involved in merely pointing out a possible motive to lie?
The fallacy is in implying that the study is tainted - whether the study is accurate or not depends merely on what it says , not on the motive of the organization conducting the study.
But as the Casey Luskin article I linked to shows, they know better than that now.
Ah but there is value(at least to me) in getting people to admit their God is as competent as the designers of the Ford Pinto.
However you also helpfully have Josh Rosenau's quote
"Apparently, the vertebrate eye is backwards because God decided it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits than make the cheap fix earlier implemented for the cephalopods."
Doesn't this have the same fallacy you are complaining about ?
What logical fallacy is involved in merely pointing out a possible motive to lie?
The fallacy is in implying that the study is tainted - whether the study is accurate or not depends merely on what it says , not on the motive of the organization conducting the study.
Ah but there is value(at least to me) in getting people to admit their God is as competent as the designers of the Ford Pinto.
Yep. But then you don't complain about Craig pointing out that Ayala was making theoplogical arguments (you did watch the video, right?), you should embrace the theological arguments instead.
Doesn't this have the same fallacy you are complaining about ?
Nope, because it isn't being used as a scientific argument, much less an argument for atheism.
The fallacy is in implying that the study is tainted - whether the study is accurate or not depends merely on what it says , not on the motive of the organization conducting the study.
And that, in turn, depends on how open the study is ... has all the data be revealed, the statistical methods explained, the underlying assumptions revealed? There is nothing fallacious about being suspicious of someone with a motive to do wrong. It only becomes fallacious if you say there is no reason to look at the study at all and/or no reason to try to repeat its results.
In any event, suspicion of scientific results (even more so where the results are unexpected) is the norm in science. And scientific journals require statements of conflicts of interest. Surely science can't be operating on a falacious premise.
Yep. But then you don't complain about Craig pointing out that Ayala was making theoplogical arguments (you did watch the video, right?), you should embrace the theological arguments instead.
Doesn't this have the same fallacy you are complaining about ?
Nope, because it isn't being used as a scientific argument, much less an argument for atheism.
The fallacy is in implying that the study is tainted - whether the study is accurate or not depends merely on what it says , not on the motive of the organization conducting the study.
And that, in turn, depends on how open the study is ... has all the data be revealed, the statistical methods explained, the underlying assumptions revealed? There is nothing fallacious about being suspicious of someone with a motive to do wrong. It only becomes fallacious if you say there is no reason to look at the study at all and/or no reason to try to repeat its results.
In any event, suspicion of scientific results (even more so where the results are unexpected) is the norm in science. And scientific journals require statements of conflicts of interest. Surely science can't be operating on a falacious premise.
Saying life is well designed is not a fallacy so long as you say it is theology?
Arguing that you can establish scientifically what is good or bad design is a fallacy, in the absence of knowledge of the purpose and criteria of the designer. This is one of the major arguments against ID being science.
... surely you can apply human engineering standards to biology ...
Then you agree that ID is science (even if you think it is bad science)? After all, applying human standards of design/"information" to biology is the sole argument for ID. If that is okay in the absence of of knowledge of the purpose and criteria of the designer, then ID is science.
And somehow that fallacy worsens when I also say it is an atheistic claim?
Then you just put yourself firmly in the camp of the IDers that metaphysics can be dubbed "science." In that case, I have no reason to respect your position any more than I do the IDers.
Arguing that you can establish scientifically what is good or bad design is a fallacy, in the absence of knowledge of the purpose and criteria of the designer. This is one of the major arguments against ID being science.
... surely you can apply human engineering standards to biology ...
Then you agree that ID is science (even if you think it is bad science)? After all, applying human standards of design/"information" to biology is the sole argument for ID. If that is okay in the absence of of knowledge of the purpose and criteria of the designer, then ID is science.
And somehow that fallacy worsens when I also say it is an atheistic claim?
Then you just put yourself firmly in the camp of the IDers that metaphysics can be dubbed "science." In that case, I have no reason to respect your position any more than I do the IDers.
@John
Arguing that you can establish scientifically what is good or bad design is a fallacy,
Leave science out of it for a minute. If a theologian makes a (non scientific) claim that so and so is well designed by God - is it a fallacy according to you or not?
In that case, I have no reason to respect your position any more than I do the IDers.
The question was not one of "respect". The question was how the fallacy becomes worse.
Arguing that you can establish scientifically what is good or bad design is a fallacy,
Leave science out of it for a minute. If a theologian makes a (non scientific) claim that so and so is well designed by God - is it a fallacy according to you or not?
In that case, I have no reason to respect your position any more than I do the IDers.
The question was not one of "respect". The question was how the fallacy becomes worse.
Leave science out of it for a minute. If a theologian makes a (non scientific) claim that so and so is well designed by God - is it a fallacy according to you or not?
It is not a fallacy per se. After all, it could be true even if not scientifically demonstrable. You simply have a counter argument.
The question was not one of "respect". The question was how the fallacy becomes worse.
On top of making the argument that science can demonstrate what is "good" and "bad" design, the atheist is, like the theist who claims that science can determine the question, confusing science and metaphysics.
It is not a fallacy per se. After all, it could be true even if not scientifically demonstrable. You simply have a counter argument.
The question was not one of "respect". The question was how the fallacy becomes worse.
On top of making the argument that science can demonstrate what is "good" and "bad" design, the atheist is, like the theist who claims that science can determine the question, confusing science and metaphysics.
@John
It is not a fallacy per se. After all, it could be true even if not scientifically demonstrable.
I think you are using logical fallacy incorrectly. If I use for e.g. an ad hominem say against the discovery institute , it's still a logical fallacy even though I might be right. The truth/falsehood of a position doesn't determine whether an argument is a logical fallacy.
It is not a fallacy per se. After all, it could be true even if not scientifically demonstrable.
I think you are using logical fallacy incorrectly. If I use for e.g. an ad hominem say against the discovery institute , it's still a logical fallacy even though I might be right. The truth/falsehood of a position doesn't determine whether an argument is a logical fallacy.
I think you are using logical fallacy incorrectly. ... The truth/falsehood of a position doesn't determine whether an argument is a logical fallacy.
I didn't start using the term, you did. I thought of addressing this before but didn't think it was worth the bother. I merely said that the argument from bad design was scientifically and logically flawed (in that it doesn't follow from the premises). I should have objected to your characterization of what I said ... but, hey, this is the comment section of a blog.
Both the argument from good design and the argument from bad design are not science (calling them science might be a formal logical fallacy, possibly composition) and they are logically flawed because the conclusion that there is something objectively good or bad about design does not follow from the premises.
I didn't start using the term, you did. I thought of addressing this before but didn't think it was worth the bother. I merely said that the argument from bad design was scientifically and logically flawed (in that it doesn't follow from the premises). I should have objected to your characterization of what I said ... but, hey, this is the comment section of a blog.
Both the argument from good design and the argument from bad design are not science (calling them science might be a formal logical fallacy, possibly composition) and they are logically flawed because the conclusion that there is something objectively good or bad about design does not follow from the premises.
@John Pieret
logically flawed
Alright I did equate logically flawed to logical fallacy - but the point still holds. it is logically flawed to have something as "design" without describing constraints, alternatives and goals. This holds whether you think the design is "good" or "bad". Adding or removing science to this claim doesn't change this logical flaw. - so I still don't understand why you think it does (this isn't a gotcha game) - but i give up.
logically flawed
Alright I did equate logically flawed to logical fallacy - but the point still holds. it is logically flawed to have something as "design" without describing constraints, alternatives and goals. This holds whether you think the design is "good" or "bad". Adding or removing science to this claim doesn't change this logical flaw. - so I still don't understand why you think it does (this isn't a gotcha game) - but i give up.
Adding or removing science to this claim doesn't change this logical flaw. - so I still don't understand why you think it does (this isn't a gotcha game) - but i give up.
When I said "objectively" I meant it. Remove that claim (i.e. that you can determine it scientifically) and you can endlessly argue over what is designed and what isn't and why it was designed that way within that premise ... which was Craig's point (it's theology, not science) that Larry objected to.
Post a Comment
When I said "objectively" I meant it. Remove that claim (i.e. that you can determine it scientifically) and you can endlessly argue over what is designed and what isn't and why it was designed that way within that premise ... which was Craig's point (it's theology, not science) that Larry objected to.
<< Home
