"When a man sacrifices himself to his religion, the first thing to go is his mind" - Anton Thorn

In a message dated May 20, 1998 HOWARD8984 writes:

Apparently Howard reads very selectively, as this is clearly NOT the case with my argument, as I noted in my original post. My argument is NOT based on a LACK of evidence to the contrary, BUT on OVERWHELMING evidence in support of my conclusion.

What is that evidence??

First of all, sense-perception: I perceive that there is a sun on a daily basis, and that it rises on an extremely regular basis (the relationship of the earth’s motion relative to the sun in fact is the basis of our own timekeeping - it is THAT reliable). This is verified on a daily basis, which I observe FIRSTHAND (EVIDENCE in support of my argument). In fact, I have observed this all my days of conscious existence: it is in fact unstoppable.

Which brings up the second point of my proof: consistency of experience. My firsthand experience of this fact (the sun rising on a daily basis) is SO consistent that I in fact govern much of my life by it (I am not the only one: ask any farmer if the sun’s regular relationship to the earth has any significance to his tasks).

Third, as I mentioned, there are the principles governing the relationship of the objects involved (the Law of Identity): the earth rotates on an axis (science has told us this, not the Bible), and it revolves around the sun. These principles alone are clearly enough to warrant the certainty of the sun rising the next day.

(Again, science has shown this to be true, NOT the Bible - in fact, the Bible states that one of its heroes STOPPED the sun for a day [Joshua, chapter 10]. If the Bible were truly ‘inspired’ by ‘god’ and therefore taken to be factually and divinely inerrant, the Bible would have been more accurate to state that the EARTH stopped rotating, causing the sun to appear like it had stopped; however the Bible indicates quite clearly that the ‘chosen’ elites of god’s favor were completely unaware of this principle [a heliocentric solar system].)

Is there any evidence in support of my claim that the sun will rise tomorrow? The answer is, in this case: an OVERWHELMING YES. As EVIDENCE in support of my claim, I cite sense-perception, consistent experience and science, all of which testify unequivocally to the accuracy of my certainty. Not only that, but in fact the sun did rise the next day, as I was certain it would (which proves my point beyond all doubt, as if there were any to begin with).

COUNTER-EVIDENCE???

As to the question: "Is there any evidence whatsoever that the sun might not rise tomorrow???" No, in fact there is none.

What is completely ABSENT, in fact, is any evidence contrary to my claim. But notice that my certainty was not based on this lack of evidence to the contrary, but on evidence in support of my claim. By absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e., evidence that contradicts my conclusion that the sun will rise again tomorrow), I merely point out that any doubt is unfounded, as there is no evidence that remotely suggests that my claim is in error.

THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY???

If one argues that ‘something might happen’ between now and tomorrow, which would prevent the sun from rising (or the earth from spinning), I would ask: 1) What is that ‘something’ (i.e., please identify)? and 2) What evidence do you have that this ‘something’ exists which threatens tomorrow’s sunrise? If these two questions cannot be answered [in the face of the overwhelming evidence in support of my claim], then obviously the claim that there is ‘something’ which threatens the sun’s rising tomorrow is unfounded and therefore arbitrary (by arbitrary I refer to any claim that is unsubstantiated by any evidence in support of it). Thus, if any claim to the contrary is unfounded (arbitrary), then it is only logical to go with the overwhelming evidence in support of the claim, which I cited above.

CONSIDER THE SOURCE:

Of course, if one attempts to assert that there is evidence of something that may be threatening tomorrow’s sunrise, that evidence is still subject to scrutiny to determine whether or not that evidence is legitimate. I would add the caveat, however, that, if the source is known for its subjective tendencies, such as our friend Howard has consistently shown, then I would already tend to dismiss any such claim as more mystical hysteria ("the sky is falling" comes to mind), and therefore bogus and arbitrary. This is because, as we have seen in Howard’s post to which I am responding, mysticism does not assess claims by the evidence in their support, but by their conformity to its chaotic worldviews, as Howard’s objections here definitely reveal.

A REAL EXAMPLE OF ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE:

An example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, the argument from ignorance, is the following:

"A god exists because of the impossibility of the contrary."

(Gee, where have we heard this in the past????)

The underlined statement above (a proposition) does not proceed from evidence IN SUPPORT of the claim asserted (in fact, there is no attempt even in such a case as this to produce evidence in favor of such a claim), the argument rests entirely on a "lack of evidence to the contrary" (hence, argument from ignorance, as defined by our Howard). This is a classic example of this breed of fallacy.

It must be pointed out that evidence only works when positing something that is argued TO EXIST - i.e., when one posits an existential positive (as BSmith5044 mentioned in a recent post). There is no such thing as ‘evidence for something that does NOT exist’.

For instance, I do not have evidence that Santa Claus does NOT exist, however, my judgment is sound enough not to require complete argumentation that Santa does NOT exist in order to dismiss Santa as what it is: a myth. There is no evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that ‘Santa Claus’ exists, in any form other than a mythic character. The religionist’s own arguments have no more merit than the argument that ‘Santa Claus exists’. Airwaveboy [Nick] uses the example of the imaginary personal god ‘Blarko’, just as I would assert in analogy the personal gods ‘Doot-Eckies’, ‘Ashek-Livhere’ and ‘Gumbygod’. None of these versions of personal gods have any evidence in support of the claims that they exist, any more than the religionist’s claim that his Christian god exists. No evidence, no acceptance as knowledge. That’s pretty simple, no? The religionist argues that it is ‘not valid’, while obliterating the meaning of ‘valid’ altogether.

THE ONUS OF PROOF RULE: (again)

As I have pointed out in posts to the group in the past, the ONUS OF PROOF RULE must be observed: the onus of proof rests on those who assert a positive (i.e., an existential positive; by the term ‘existential positive’ it is meant some ‘thing’ or entity that one is arguing as existing).

The religionist, in his panic and desperation to get the onus off his claim an drag it back onto the atheist defending any claim he may or may not be positing, will restate the atheist’s position as arguing for a positive. Thus, the would-be clever religionist fashions the atheist as arguing for (a seeming positive) the non-existence of ‘god’, thus trying to make the atheist’s position appear like it is arguing for an existential positive, when indeed he is NOT. (Often, the religionist will punctuate his rewording of the atheist’s position with recommendations to reference grammar sources which he feels would support his subterfuge.)

This line of argumentation is an attempt to evade the fact that the atheist is not asserting any existential positive, WHILE THE THEIST IS. The theist’s claim that a ‘god exists’ as an existential positive, is contrasted with the atheist’s claim (if in fact the atheist even makes any claim) which would necessarily be an existential negative (and therefore NOT incumbent of the onus of proof rule). The atheist’s claim that there is no god (if in fact this is claimed), does not argue FOR the existence of any being or entity, whatsoever; no way, no how. The theist, however, attempts to switch roles. This is a classic red herring fallacy, as the ‘reasoning’ involved is nothing more than an attempt to drag the discussion off track.

$$$$

IN SUMMARY: WHO HAS COMMITTED THE FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE?

So the question is: WHO HAS INCORPORATED THE ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM (ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE) WHEN HE ARGUED "GOD EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY"????

And, just as ironically, my claim came true: On Sunday the sun did indeed climb high into the sky as I was certain it would on Saturday, AND, THERE IS NO GOD. Go figure. Whose methodology is correct and accurate? The one which appeals to evidence in support of his claims (mine: it’s called REASON), or the one that relies on a "lack of evidence to the contrary" (Howard: it’s called MYSTICISM)???

"FUTURE PANIC"

Next, Howard’s going to argue that I commit the fallacy of ‘argument ad evidentiam’, the "argument from evidence", as apparently, in his sophistry, evidence is unnecessary - in fact counteractive - to sound argumentation. Obviously, the religionist, since he has no legitimate evidence whatsoever in support of his claims that a ‘god’ exists, will try, in his desperation to save his religion, to attack reason as a means of validating his mystic claims.

BASIC REQUIREMENTS:

Below I give in rough form the basic requirements for accepting knowledge claims as true:

1) There must be evidence in support of the claim;

2) The claim must be internally consistent;

3) The claim must be consistent with previously validated knowledge.

Short of meeting each of these three criteria, no claim can be accepted as validated knowledge. Have we heard any claim from the theist that meets any of these criteria (let alone all three) when arguing for the existence of his ‘god’?

$$$

DOES HOWARD USE OTHER FALLACIES?

Another example of Howard’s use of fallacy is the following statement:

The statement that is italicized states that one’s value system (i.e., one’s moral code) is derived from one of two versions of subjectivism: either the ‘mob rules views’ or by ‘God’s revelation’. This is the fallacy known as FALSE DICHOTOMY: this type of fallacy is committed when one premise of an argument is an ‘either ... or’ (disjunctive) statement that presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (i.e., as if no third alternative were possible). One of these views is usually preferred by the arguer, in this case, Howard.

Howard strongly insinuates that value systems are subjective by reason of atheism, or by virtue of Christianity (remember: SUBJECTIVISM IS THE VIEW THAT EXISTENCE FINDS ITS SOURCE IN A FORM OF CONSCIOUSNESS; Religion, therefore, is the ‘dark prince’ so to say of subjectivist philosophies). Not only has Howard NOT shown that these are the only two alternatives possible (in fact, they are not), he does not even seem to be aware that an objective ethical system exists (for he himself has argued that "no one observes facts or events objectively" - a statement that necessarily invalidates itself). According to his view, Howard’s own, one can be either subjective and ‘lost’ (i.e., cut off from his ‘god’ by his ‘sins’) or subjective and ‘saved’ (i.e., redeemed by the execution of a homeless preacher 2,000 years ago). Basically, this argument states: either morality is subjective, or, it is subjective.

(It must be noted that Objectivist ethics is only possible when established upon objective metaphysics [objective reality] and objective epistemology [reason and logic]. The Bible, as we have seen so many times, does not provide this basis, but in fact precludes it altogether. I leave this topic for future posts.)

OTHER EXAMPLES OF HOWARD CAUGHT IN THE ACT:

Classic RED HERRING: Howard evades the legitimate question asked of him by drawing the attention away from its topic and attempting to put the focus back onto the atheist. He does not answer the question. Why? Perhaps he’s not prepared for it.

This statement ignores the fact that the claim that the Bible is antagonistic to sense-perception and reason has already been validated.

False intimation: Empirical means are not a form of knowledge, they are a means of gathering knowledge (by way of percepts).

This statement fails to recognize that knowledge is hierarchical, and that the only means of gathering knowledge and validation is through sense-perception and reason, to which the Bible has been shown to be antagonistic. Also, the Christian would be quite hard-pressed to show where in the Bible that reason is taught as a means of knowledge (not just mentioned in some careless, passing verse), and to show how reason is compatible with the so-called ‘means of knowledge’ advocated in the Bible, which is faith. Howard does not address this.

This statement commits the fallacy of context-dropping. Nor does it inform a system of epistemology.

This statement is completely unfounded, and therefore entirely untenable. It is a mere assertion.

Nowhere in the Bible is this stated.

Another example of context-dropping, if the religionist believes he can apply this principle without exception to his god-belief claims. He's welcome to try, however. The Law of Identity, A is A, states that a thing is itself, and that an entity can only act according to its nature. A corollary to this principle is the principle that states, if A should exist, it must be A. All identity is finite. Positing the "infinite" is a violation of this principle. If the Christian asserts that his god is "infinite" in any way, shape or form, he relinquishes all epistemological rights to this principle.

There are many, many more such instances of Howard’s fallacious argumentation. However, these should serve as ample evidence (along with those provided by BSmith, Airwaveboy, Davelone and others), of Howard’s inability to reason effectively.

I have to go for now, but I’ll be back!

May you get what you deserve,

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________