home » religion

never an Englishman

26 December 2009 3 comments

I am going to do a lot of the work of analyzing logical fallacies on my own – “work” meaning gathering already-published expressions of the idea, of course.  But I ran across the video of Theremin Trees, in which he breaks down the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.  He does it so cogently, and with such a good speaking voice (with the added panache of his native British accent), that hardly anything I could add would be beneficial.  I highly recommend his other videos, which can be accessed from his YouTube page (here).

I have to state that my favorite quote by the Christians who replied to his original videos was the following one:

True Christians are not swayed by logical arguments.

While it would be great fun to have a go with this one, it would not be fair, as I know many logical Christians who are quite happy (and rightly so) with stating their beliefs as having nothing to do with reason.  Faith and reason, by definition, are opposed.  The Bible provides its own definition, one which a Christian (true or otherwise) cannot dismiss:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

At any rate, the NTS defense seems to be the least desperate of rebuttals, as it takes the least amount of imagination to employ.  It appeals to the user’s ego (”you’re not the quality of believer *I* am”), and thus has an implicit relationship to ad hominem argumentation.  It seems at first glance to be impervious to counter-attack (clearly, as the video demonstrates, it isn’t) – the reason for which is simple: bad logic is *always* immune to rebuttal.  In logic, the practitioner doesn’t spend time on debating not-P, if it is clear that P has no truth-functionality to begin with.

Finally, this is a fallacy that atheists and freethinkers can fall into as well; there is as much attraction to the position “no true freethinker/intellectual/logical being would be anything but a skeptic” as there is for the opposite claim.  As I have stated before, faith and reason are opposites.  They are binary; there is no sliding scale.  And yet, they are capable of residing in the same mind – “I have no proof for a god.  I have no reason to believe in one.  I believe in one, still.”  This was my position for a LONG time.  The incongruities of what a god was supposed to be started to shake that faith, and the *logic* behind much of what I had held by default started to unravel.  And I have stated since I embarked on the journey of non-belief that, if there were a compelling reason, I could believe again.  Clearly, every day that passes gets me further from that possibility, as the incongruities pile up exponentially.  Am I a *true* atheist now?  I think I am, just as I was a *true” believer back in the day.

3 Comments »

  • DG Seaton said:

    You know that I am fond of the study of logic and its resultant dividend of enhanced critical thinking. I applaud the wonderful exercise to sift through the various (and numerous) logical fallacies that exist. But I challenge you to go further and exercise critical thinking in your your own commentary. While faith and reason are binaries, prima facie, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that these are the only two options, that there is “no sliding scale.” You make that dichotomous statement but then flirt with the reality that acknowledges both opposites can exist in the same mind, which is actually a *third* option. You yourself existed in this mutual overlap. Purportedly you still remain there, willing to believe again if there is “compelling reason,” which suggests an emotional response, not a rational one. Since emotions can be “compelled,” and facts/reason cannot.

    Critical thinking is a hard-to-grasp but highly effective tool. It’s like a broad spectrum pesticide, working equally well on not just one topic or problem but many. It’s fed by curiosity about a host of subjects, not just one or two. It is also reflective. Discourse about the topic of fallacies is rooted in reasoning, yes; but it should also take assumptions and biases to task, and that’s an area in which we all can use exercise and practice.

    As a universal tool, reason should be used in large questions and small, personal and public. When we find flaws in it, they should be tweaked, and understanding should be increased. Binary thinking is a common fallacious mindset, and I’ve seen you use it in other arguments (e.g., the American/Christians and Iranian/Sharia most recently). Either/or thinking is dangerous; it leads to false conclusions when one sees only on/off, black/white, true/false. It’s the ambiguous that bedevils you, I suspect. Sometimes there *is* no right or wrong answer. Or maybe discomfort with the act of questioning is the root of your fondness for the dichotomous mindset?

    To tick off the fallacious without passing your own judgments and conclusions through that same filter of fallacies will not yield
    critical thinking. It will only be strenuous or protracted thinking about a topic. Real intellectual discipline operates hand-in-hand with deep curiosity and unwillingness to settle for just one perspective. Are you up for that?

    # 26 December 2009 at 9:17 pm
  • dan (author) said:

    First paragraph: I disagree. Faith and reason often exist in the same mind; that’s obvious. What I should have made clearer is that they do not – and cannot – share equal status on the topic of religion. Plenty of religious scientists out there. But as long as they don’t “have faith” that two plus two equals four, I don’t really care about it. I find religious scientists odd, I must say, but that’s my opinion. And if there is a third option, then there is still no overlap; you’ve merely hypothesized a trinary state. As for me, I had faith *in a god*, and it was contrary to reason – that there is no proof of one. I existed in two mental states simultaneously. That’s not a sliding scale, that’s dysfunction (at least for me it was). And you write as if *I* invented the difference between faith and reason.

    ““compelling reason,” which suggests an emotional response” – How? Your definition fails to compel, in either sense (and is ironically binary).

    If you can explain to me the logical reasons for believing in (to paraphrase Flew) an “invisible, intangible, flying god whose creation looks exactly like there isn’t a god,” then by all means, proceed, and perhaps I will better understand the gray area to whose defense you are marshaling.

    # 26 December 2009 at 11:00 pm
  • dan (author) said:

    And I will admit that my last paragraph is inflammatory, but that is a failing I will afford myself if, in the area of critical thinking, I seem to need educatin’.

    # 26 December 2009 at 11:06 pm