Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, as it is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

No, it isn't.
It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

That is not the case in the example above. It has nothing to do with a majority, nor their opinion on a particular issue.

I think you are guilty of a fallacy of a fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, as it is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

No, it isn't.

Yes it most definitely is.

If millions of people testify that they have had profound spiritual experiences of a kind they consider truly miraculous, is it reasonable to claim this does not constitute evidence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes it most definitely is.

Right, you carry on making your assertions.
Ignore reality. That's what you do.

What's the point of debating with people, and not addressing their points?

Argumentum ad populum uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

Does that apply to people who have experienced something that you haven't? Are you suggesting that their experiences are only their opinion, and you know that their experiences weren't real?

 

[Sheldon]

Right, you carry on making your assertions.
Ignore reality. That's what you do.

You made a bare appeal to numbers, which is irrational, and I pointed it out as you do it a lot, even after several posters have explained the fallacy to you. That is not "ignoring reality" clearly.

What's the point of debating with people, and not addressing their points?

I did address it, it was an argumentum ad populum fallacy, a bare appeal to numbers.

Argumentum ad populum uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

Does that apply to people who have experienced something that you haven't? Are you suggesting that their experiences are only their opinion, and you know that their experiences weren't real?

Of course a claim to have experienced something is just a bare opinion, unless you can demonstrate some corroborating objective evidence. I don't need to know their experiences are not real either, in this context I can't know that, this doesn't change the fact it is a bare appeal to numbers.

If I claimed I'd become invisible and flown to the moon, and couldn't be detected in any empirical way, is that evidence or a claim? If a million people make the same claim, and I suggested this lends it credence, then that is an argumentum ad populum. I can't analyse what you don't offer, so if your post is just a bare claim, and you then imply it has credence because millions share the belief, then it is a bare appeal to numbers.

 

[DNB]

I agree. We are wired for this, and evolution is the source of the circuitry. Our neurology is the source. A magical creator is not necessary. It's our own, simplistic invention.
Are you not aware of the observations of awe and "religious" demonstrations in chimps?
The "ontological requirements" are the drivers -- of adaptation and natural selection. Natural selection selects for both anataomy and psychology. Why would it not?
Ethologists are finding that comparative cognition among different species seems, more and more, to be quantitative as much or more than qualitative. Intellect is a continuum.
This simply does not follow. How do you come to this conclusion without an a priori presumption of a divine source?

Stardust and protoplasm, or whatever the big-bang theory denotes as the substance behind all creation, does not seminate a spiritual being, either in constitution or awareness.

 

[lukethethird]

Arriving at a Theistic Belief
...you have just entered The Twilight Zone.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Good points, and maybe valid if referring only to the Mystical Experience, which is fairly consistent and universal. But even this seems to have no relation to religion or the Abrahamic God.

Other "profound spiritual experiences" are extremely varied, unrelated to any particular religion, and informants seem to be referring to a wide variety of different experiences.

See William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, and;
Carl Jung, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious,
for studies of these phenomena from a secular, psychological perspective.

See John Milton; Paradise Lost,
William Blake; The Marriage Between Heaven and Hell, All Religions Are One
Emily Dickinson; various poems
Leo Tolstoy; War and Peace,
Mikhael Bulgakov; The Master and Margarita,
for literary examples of how personal epiphanies and spiritual awakenings have informed the artistic process.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, as it is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Once again, your personal skepticism doesn’t of itself invalidate other people’s lived experience. You’ll have to do better than simply reaching into your box of Latin fallacies, which you appear to have learned by rote but not really understood.

Ironically, you are like the medieval peasant who refuses to believe the earth is a globe, despite the testimony of people who have been to sea and caught a glimpse of it’s true dimensions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Care to demonstrate some of this evidence?

On another thread, we have begun to discuss such evidence--the Bible's extraordinary prescience in prophecies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I distrust Jesus, due to lack of evidence both within and without The Bible.

That's odd, since you've thus read the most influential person's influential statements that have transformed culture, enlightened billions and changed history.

 

[Sheldon]

Once again, your personal skepticism doesn’t of itself invalidate other people’s lived experience. You’ll have to do better than simply reaching into your box of Latin fallacies, which you appear to have learned by rote but not really understood.

It is clearly you has misunderstood, as I didn't create the principles of logic, and if someone bases an argument on a logical fallacy the inference is clear.

Ironically, you are like the medieval peasant who refuses to believe the earth is a globe, despite the testimony of people who have been to sea and caught a glimpse of it’s true dimensions.

Ironically you're playing the man, and not the ball, and don't seem to understand what that means. Or would you prefer the logical fallacy in Latin?

 

[Sheldon]

On another thread, we have begun to discuss such evidence--the Bible's extraordinary prescience in prophecies.

I will take a look of course, but you made the claim here, surely you can demonstrate something to support it? Perhaps not then.

 

[1213]

...You have yet to offer anything beyond your bare unevidenced claim that children are more able to think rationally than adults, and even a foetus is more able to think rationally than an adult.

My thought is based on the observations how well small children learn and how difficult it is for many older people to learn. But, i can accept that it is just my opinion, which has no weight here.

 

[Sheldon]

My thought is based on the observations how well small children learn and how difficult it is for many older people to learn. But, i can accept that it is just my opinion, which has no weight here.

Absorbing or retaining information very quickly has nothing to do with being rational. Though it clearly would once have been a vital survival tool for children.

 

[Valjean]

See William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, and;
Carl Jung, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious,
for studies of these phenomena from a secular, psychological perspective.

See John Milton; Paradise Lost,
William Blake; The Marriage Between Heaven and Hell, All Religions Are One
Emily Dickinson; various poems
Leo Tolstoy; War and Peace,
Mikhael Bulgakov; The Master and Margarita,
for literary examples of how personal epiphanies and spiritual awakenings have informed the artistic process.

I have most of these in my library, but I don't see your point.

 

[Valjean]

Once again, your personal skepticism doesn’t of itself invalidate other people’s lived experience. You’ll have to do better than simply reaching into your box of Latin fallacies, which you appear to have learned by rote but not really understood.

Ironically, you are like the medieval peasant who refuses to believe the earth is a globe, despite the testimony of people who have been to sea and caught a glimpse of it’s true dimensions.

Which would be quite reasonable on the peasant's part. Testimony is bunk. Where's the hard evidence?

 

[Valjean]

On another thread, we have begun to discuss such evidence--the Bible's extraordinary prescience in prophecies.

The Bible has no extraordinary prescience in prophesy. Nor do any of the other religions and prophetic works. The prophesy is imagined.

 

[Valjean]

That's odd, since you've thus read the most influential person's influential statements that have transformed culture, enlightened billions and changed history.

What's that have to do with veracity?
As for transformation -- that's been a mixed bag.

 

[Valjean]

Man's innate desire and need to both comprehend and apprehend the supernatural, necessitates a source for this impulse. No other creature on earth delves into these realms, nor can they.

1. No, it doesn't.
2. Yes, we are cognitively unique. So what?

Evolution does not develop spiritual awareness as in love, altruism, charity, compassion, etc... The ontological requirements must be there to begin with. Again, there is a distinct dichotomy and disparity between what man can fathom and comprehend, than what any other living being on this planet can. And, it is not intellect that defines this distinction, for if there is no God, then the catalyst behind such a deluded belief would have to be a lack of intelligence, or a malfunction in one's perception.

Evolution develops what's reproductively advantageous. Tribal solidarity and altruism are useful traits.
Yes, humans are very clever. As for a catalyst, I don't follow your argument.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which would be quite reasonable on the peasant's part. Testimony is bunk. Where's the hard evidence?

He might not understand the calculations of Copernicus et al. But if you took him to sea, he could witness for himself the curvature of the earth.