• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

a moronic Richard Dawkins saying

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't think I disagree with that. I certainly agree that "ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence," but "academic achievements" are relevant to a logically valid appeal to authority, which is valid when an authentic authority in a field, teaches what the entire field of authentic authorities in his field uniformly teaches, when the matter concerns that same field.

I don't even know if there are valid appeals to authority. Certainly, it's good to seek the knowledge of those in the know, but I find it sensible to keep the phrase "appeal to authority" exclusively for use to describe the fallacy.

So we probably have a semantic disagreement. :)
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Which is not unusual, and why would we expect a single science PhD to also be able to do philosophy? When PhD physicists or biologists weigh in on philosophical or political or even moral matters, they are a bridge too far, and their views in such matters have no more weight than yours or mine do.

No disagreement here. His expertise is in science and his personal views as regards religion are just that and nothing more.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I don't even know if there are valid appeals to authority. Certainly, it's good to seek the knowledge of those in the know, but I find it sensible to keep the phrase "appeal to authority" exclusively for use to describe the fallacy.

So we probably have a semantic disagreement. :)
We can agree to disagree, but for my part, I too held your view for many years, combining the logical fallacy with what some famous philosopher once said, something like that the appeal to authority is the weakest of arguments (this presumed that it was a valid appeal to authority).

But then it dawned on me that because there were three tests for the validity of an appeal to authority, then if all three tests are passed, then that appeal to authority is valid, and I asked myself, are there any areas where the valid appeal to authority, while the weakest of arguments, is still useful?

And my answer was that yes, in cases where the claim being argued only depends upon some widely held view from a particular field, but is not that same view, then valid appeals to authority can be employed profitably during discourse. For instance, if religion is or is not the root of all evil (re: to OP) cannot be supported by any valid appeal to authority, but that religion itself involves belief in abstract ideas, can be established through appealing to all the religions' authorities, and all the world's authorities in the secular field of religious studies, and seeing where the authoritative beliefs overlap, this would constitute, through analysis, a valid appeal to authority to establish what every religion has in common, which I am only positing is something like belief in abstract ideas of some kind.

I pit the valid appeal to authority against whatever it might take to instead demonstrate a proposition is true. I am not an authority in any field (I am not a doctor of any discipline), so it would be difficult to establish through demonstration that propositions from this or that field are true, but it is feasible for me to make a valid appeal to the proper authority in order to establish the truth of such propositions.

And it further implies that wherever there is actually a void of authority, it is in those spaces that my view and arguments are just as weighty as anybody else's. I am fighting a losing battle if I'm trying to argue that an entire field is wrong on some point that they uniformly agree on and teach, but there are lots of gaps in authority, especially in matters of faith, morals, politics, philosophy and theology. And Dawkins, in the OP, ventured into one of these fields when he made his claim about religion and roots of evil.

tldr; it's not important. :)
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
But it's like running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure.

Stuart

Is that a thing--"running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure"? What do you mean? Do you mean, like, cow manure is somehow powering a machine? Can any machine that you know of be running on cow manure in some sense? Were you really trying to draw some analogy, or just making some noise?
 

Stuu

New member
Oh he's not?

https://youtu.be/-AQvWrX-mKg

Pretty moronic, if you ask me...
The matter in the universe is borrowed gravitational energy from the expansion of space-time. One is positive and the other is negative energy, like credit and debit. The total energy of the universe is zero.

So actually, everything has come from nothing.

I note too that Mr. Pell, the man wearing the funny clothes and making the truly moronic comments in that video, is now in jail for sexual assault on a minor (actually two minors). As well as that representing justice for the victims, it seems a very satisfactory outcome more generally.

Stuart
 
Top