A starting point for debate in apologetics

[peterLounsbury]

Identifying and staying from logical fallacies are "a way of removing an argument from the debate". Much more often than not in these types of forums a good 90% or more of any given debate is grounded in one or more logical fallacies, so I thought I share them with you in the hopes of establishing the framework for productive debates.

Go here for the list: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Another thing that is oftentimes used in debates by both atheists/agnostics and theists is the use of an a priori basis in conjunction with foundational beliefs that effect the ability to objectively explore all of the facts in an attempt to discover the truth.

A good explanation of where I am coming from can be found here: http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/

The point of all of this is that it is very possible to have civil debates, even about religion, if you can agree to stay away from an a priori bias that rules in or out a theory without going the process of discovery using scientific method, and to refrain from the use of logical fallacies.

[Jedidiah]

The scientific method is impotent on the topic of God.

[peterLounsbury]

I disagree. God created the heavens and the earth and the scientific method is a means to marvel at His glory!

[justsumguy]

Identifying and staying from logical fallacies are "a way of removing an argument from the debate". Much more often than not in these types of forums a good 90% or more of any given debate is grounded in one or more logical fallacies, so I thought I share them with you in the hopes of establishing the framework for productive debates.

Go here for the list: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Another thing that is oftentimes used in debates by both atheists/agnostics and theists is the use of an a priori basis in conjunction with foundational beliefs that effect the ability to objectively explore all of the facts in an attempt to discover the truth.

A good explanation of where I am coming from can be found here: http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/

The point of all of this is that it is very possible to have civil debates, even about religion, if you can agree to stay away from an a priori bias that rules in or out a theory without going the process of discovery using scientific method, and to refrain from the use of logical fallacies.

It's all ok if everything is defined as it goes. The definitions themselves have to be defined. It's tedious but worth the effort. Agenda is the main roadblock. When something cannot be addressed because it seemingly causes injury to the agenda, the debate becomes less defined. It does little good to debate when the parties are using the same words but not describing the same things.

The biggest problem with debating in the religious realm is so much of the realm is poorly defined. This lack of definition is the cause for major debate within the realm and to make it worse, those outside of the realm use many words that are literally coming from the realm of religion. Faith is a great example. Most people need to simply drop the word and use the word "belief". The Biblical definition of the word faith is certainly not "belief". Biblical faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is substance and evidence itself...it is that which proves to the believer.

As far as the scientific method goes…
Science is the study and exploration of the observable universe. Science does not pretend to be the study of that which cannot be observed. Whether a scientist wants the fact of evolution (evolution is a fact – it is not a theory) to be the proof against a creator or not has no bearing on what the scientist will end up finding. That which can be found makes up all that can be found. A perfect creator cannot be found in or outside of the universe by humans. Humans won’t get in the fastest conceivable spaceship, reach the limit of the universe…poke there heads through the end of the universe and find God sitting there. While that which can be observed causes problems with some religious interpretations of scriptures, it has no bearing on whether or not there is a creator and it never will. While some believe that they could do everything science can accomplish in this universe if they had enough faith (they could move a mountain), until they do it, they might as well keep that claim to themselves. Once they get enough faith to feed everyone and heal everyone and keep everyone safe…there isn’t any need to blame science for butting in.

In my opinion, it’s a simple case of religions clinging to the world. The evidence of God is within us. There is something about us that is much more than the universe.

From where I sit, believers find it much easier to blame the world for believers lack of faith than to pin it on themselves. Most of the confusion is caused by believers trying to blame science for not trying to prove what they cannot prove to themselves.

And I should end this little note with the attempts to introduce intelligent design as science are disgusting. If this keeps up, science will continue to do damage to believers who cling to the world and believing will seem so idiotic to the outsider, it won’t even be considered if not outlawed.

There's a few starting points for debate.

[peterLounsbury]

A very thought provoking post justsumguy :)

The last point you made was a case of argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust). but I would love to have that debate minus the logical fallacy!!!

[Jedidiah]

I disagree. God created the heavens and the earth and the scientific method is a means to marvel at His glory!

Marveling does not accomplish anything and has no function in a debate as to the existence of God.

And I can marvel, quite nicely thank you, using no science at all. Science is a tool useful only within the created universe.

[The Pixie]

peterLounsbury

A good explanation of where I am coming from can be found here: http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/

I find it sad that a medical doctor can be so ignorant of science, and especially of biology. You say you are interested in debates, so let us explore what this guy is claiming.

First off, he is setting up a dichtomy (or two), characterised by these quotes:

It all boils down to what scientists define as "natural" verses "supernatural".

Does its form give evidence of deliberate design over a mindless cause?

This shows a fundamental ignorance of how science is done, something I would find frightening in any doctor treating me. Science is not done by arbitrarily dividing hypotheses into two groups (natural and supernatural, or deliberate and mindless), and deciding which one we prefer. Real science is about stating a clear hypothesis that purports to explain a set of observations, and then supporting that hypothesis by drawing predictions from it, and showing how they match observations.

Of course, if Dr. Pitman had any clue about science, he would not have to ask this:

Upon what basis are all considerations of the workings of an intelligent mind excluded, without any consideration whatsoever, when it comes to determining the origin and diversity of life on this planet?

It is done on the basis that we have an excellent model to explain the diversity of life, one that makes good predictions, where those predictions match the observations.

The various hyportheses that try to explain the diversity of life by the workings of an intelligent mind fail to do that. Either the predictions fail to match up, or the hypothesis is just so vague that there are no predictions.

It seems as though most scientists are uneasy with any theory that does not have its basis in the workings of a mindless nature for fear that the only alternative to this position, intelligent design, might bring back the darkness of superstition. However, many of these same scientists hope to find evidence, even historically based evidence, of intelligent life in the universe beyond our own world. Even within our own world, entire scientific disciplines, such as forensic science, are based on discovering the workings of purpose and intelligence. Clearly then, scientists seem quite confident in their abilities to detect intelligent activity as long as it has nothing to do with the origin of life or the fundamental workings of the universe and it isn't given the label of "God".

A huge number of scientists are theists, so there are plenty who do not have an a priori commitment to materialism. Is it really the case that these people are uneasy with such a theory? I somehow doubt it. Rather, what Dr Pitman is doing here is painting all scientists as the enemy; they are all atheists, they are all commited to destrying Christianity, he is almost saying.

As Pitman says, detecting intelligence is done routinely. There are plenty of people out there who believe in "intelligent design", numerous who have written books about detecting design. And yet none can actually do the science. What does that tell you?

Yet, this disguised religious philosophy has taken the scientific community by storm. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status. Who dares question it or openly admit that they do not see the emperor's clothes without putting their reputations and, on occasion, even their careers in jeopardy? I for one have been honestly looking for the emperor's clothes for some time now. But, the more I look the more naked he gets.

All he, or any creationist/IDists has to do is to propose a hypothesis that is better at explaining the observations that the modern theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologists, Christian or otherwise, because it is great science. It explains so much of what we see in the natural world.

If you dare to question it, and show you have good evidence for doing so, you will be respected. That is science. But if you dismiss it because of your religious beliefs, you deserve to lose your scientific reputation. Now, I wonder: Does Pitman reject evolution first and fdremost because of his religious convictions or the scientific evidence? I am guessing former.

[justsumguy]

All he, or any creationist/IDists has to do is to propose a hypothesis that is better at explaining the observations that the modern theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologists, Christian or otherwise, because it is great science. It explains so much of what we see in the natural world.

They don't have to propose a hypothesis that is better than the modern theory of evolution (that wouldn't be fair).
They just need to come up with a hypothesis that could be explored using science.

[peterLounsbury]

And fair was what this post was about. To ask questions and give answers to those questions minus logical fallacies and other debating "techniques" that although effective, are not debating fairly.

[justsumguy]

Be sure and logically point out to me any logical fallacies I engage in.

[peterLounsbury]

Hey I do my best to avoid them myself, but it is difficult sometimes to stay away from them because most of us are unaware that we do! So if I falter, please feel free to point them out to me too!

[The Pixie]

justsumguy

They don't have to propose a hypothesis that is better than the modern theory of evolution (that wouldn't be fair).
They just need to come up with a hypothesis that could be explored using science.

Yeah, I wonder when they will get around to doing that...

There are two different things here. The first is doing science. To do science, they need to come up with a hypothesis, and then do the lab and/or field work to show how the predictions from the hypothesis is borne out.

The second is getting accepted as science. This happened next, once the hypthesis has been shown to give good predictions. This is when you need your hypothesis to be better than the prevailing hypothesis, specifically, to give broader and/or more accurate predictions.

So far, ID has failed to come up with a hypothesis that could be explored using science. But they still want to have ID taught in school like it was real science.

[justsumguy]

justsumguy

Yeah, I wonder when they will get around to doing that...

There are two different things here. The first is doing science. To do science, they need to come up with a hypothesis, and then do the lab and/or field work to show how the predictions from the hypothesis is borne out.

The second is getting accepted as science. This happened next, once the hypthesis has been shown to give good predictions. This is when you need your hypothesis to be better than the prevailing hypothesis, specifically, to give broader and/or more accurate predictions.

So far, ID has failed to come up with a hypothesis that could be explored using science. But they still want to have ID taught in school like it was real science.

They want to have God taught in school. They want the possibility of a creator taught in school. They don't want to teach their children about Adam and Eve and then have the children go to school and learn about humans evolving from something that doesn't look like Brad Pitt and Carrie Underwood. They are going to have to do something about the way they teach the creation story. That will be much easier than trying to come up with something that is going to combat what is practically the unifying theory of biology.

[The Pixie]

They want to have God taught in school. They want the possibility of a creator taught in school. They don't want to teach their children about Adam and Eve and then have the children go to school and learn about humans evolving from something that doesn't look like Brad Pitt and Carrie Underwood. They are going to have to do something about the way they teach the creation story. That will be much easier than trying to come up with something that is going to combat what is practically the unifying theory of biology.

Exactly. And I understand why they want to do that; I would in their shoes. That does not mean they shold be allowed to promote their religious beliefs as science. It also does not excuse the dishonest tricks they employ to promote their religious beliefs as science.

[justsumguy]

Exactly. And I understand why they want to do that; I would in their shoes. That does not mean they shold be allowed to promote their religious beliefs as science. It also does not excuse the dishonest tricks they employ to promote their religious beliefs as science.

Certainly. And from my view it doesn't excuse their trying to prove God by building a tower of Babel instead of pointing to and living a life of love as has been commanded them.