Common Fallacies

[idav]

Here is a list of common fallacies I've seen along with the religions I've seen use them. Of course most everyone may use all them at some point. Do you think certain religions use fallacies common to their belief?

Here is what I came up with.

Christian - Special Pleading
Islam - Appeal to Authority
Hinduism - Loaded Question
Atheism - Generalization
Pantheism - Begging the Question
Agosticism - Ad Hominem

Agree or disagree?

Feel free to add more.

I'm probably using the generalization fallacy right now.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

All the Abrahamic Religions do the Special Pleading thing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Here is a list of common fallacies I've seen along with the religions I've seen use them. Of course most everyone may use all them at some point. Do you think certain religions use fallacies common to their belief?

Here is what I came up with.

Christian - Special Pleading
Islam - Appeal to Authority
Hinduism - Loaded Question
Atheism - Generalization
Pantheism - Begging the Question
Agosticism - Ad Hominem

Agree or disagree?

Feel free to add more.

I'm probably using the generalization fallacy right now.

Logical fallacies are not particular to any faith/religion/belief/etc. Also, not all of the examples are fallacious. For example, ad hominem certainly doesn't address an argument, but it isn't a fallacy. Generalization is only fallacious under certain circumstances. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, but what people lable "appeal to authority" is often not what the classical fallacy involves. Appeal to one expert or the church or Jesus is "an appeal to authority." Appeal to academic authority is not a fallacy. It isn't unproblematic, as even the the majority of specialists can be wrong, but it isn't the classical fallacy either.

 

[idav]

Logical fallacies are not particular to any faith/religion/belief/etc.

If they have particular beliefs they may use certain types of argumentation.

Also, not all of the examples are fallacious. For example, ad hominem certainly doesn't address an argument, but it isn't a fallacy.Generalization is only fallacious under certain circumstances.

Ad Hominem is similar to Red Herring which is a fallacy. That and generalizations are informal though.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy, but what people lable "appeal to authority" is often not what the classical fallacy involves. Appeal to one expert or the church or Jesus is "an appeal to authority." Appeal to academic authority is not a fallacy. It isn't unproblematic, as even the the majority of specialists can be wrong, but it isn't the classical fallacy either.

Appeal to academic authority can be a fallacy if say someone wants to use the credentials, the title, when their credentials aren't even in the field of argument.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Appeal to academic authority can be a fallacy if say someone wants to use the credentials, the title, when their credentials aren't even in the field of argument.

Especially when they appeal to academic authority when the authority makes a statement out of their field.

Example:

Stephen Hawkings says God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

 

[idav]

All the Abrahamic Religions do the Special Pleading thing.

I could see that for some of the more heinous actions of the god in question.

I'll add that theists use appeal to authority.

 

[idav]

Stephen Hawkings says God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

To be fair Einstein believed in God so there should be no argument.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

To be fair Einstein believed in God so there should be no argument.

Or some scientist like the Grateful Dead, so the Grateful Dead must be a great band.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I could see that for some of the more heinous actions of the god in question.

I'll add that theists use appeal to authority.

I think Christians in general are more given over to the No True Scotsman fallacy than anything.

 

[Quintessence]

Here is what I came up with.

Christian - Special Pleading
Islam - Appeal to Authority
Hinduism - Loaded Question
Atheism - Generalization
Pantheism - Begging the Question
Agosticism - Ad Hominem

Agree or disagree?

I'm more curious to hear why you labeled these categories with these particular problems. I don't follow them, probably because there's so much diversity of ideas under these labels that I'm not sure what ideas within these categories you're referencing.

 

[Madhuri]

Hinduism - Loaded Question

Oh no! Do we really? I'd love some examples

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I wonder what fallacy Buddhists use.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I wonder what fallacy Buddhists use.

Same as my religion - Poisoning the Well

 

[idav]

I'm more curious to hear why you labeled these categories with these particular problems. I don't follow them, probably because there's so much diversity of ideas under these labels that I'm not sure what ideas within these categories you're referencing.

Well Atheists is the easy one. Most atheists I come across as very intelligent but a few bad apples like to generalize, particularly when trying to lump theists under the tyrannical bible god or lumping christians together with mainstream.

I've been accused a few times of begging the question so I threw pantheism there. Particularly when trying the argue the origin of things like spirit, awareness and existence in general by assuming the premise as proof of the conclusion you draw.

Christian special pleading is done when they ignoring bad parts of the argument by some special exception that likely doesn't exist. I see this a lot on those endless evolution and cosmology threads.

Ad hominem is attacking the poster rather than the argument. A few do this not necessarily anyone particular, I don't think, but agnosticism needed a category, and I'm sure theyve been guilty of it .

Islam, appeal to authority is done generally with monotheism, since whose authority is higher than the highest god. It is particularly used to give holy texts special status. This may be found in other Abrahamic religions.

Hinduism was a tough one. I remember seeing some from the eastern religions using loaded questions which steers the conversation toward a certain light intended by the OP. To be fair they do at least answer the objection and quickly steer the debate where it needs to go. I've actually probably seen this a lot more from non-hindu posters, particularly anti-christian posters.

 

[crocusj]

Especially when they appeal to academic authority when the authority makes a statement out of their field.

Example:

Stephen Hawkings says God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

Is this not a whole can of worms thingy. The authority is not making a statement out of their field. God does not exist for Steven Hawkings, how can God be out of his field?

 

[backwateru]

Especially when they appeal to academic authority when the authority makes a statement out of their field.

Example:

Stephen Hawkings says God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

I love how you talk about making statements out of one's field. Being a Christian with nearly zero scientific background whatsoever, never, would I dream of trying to lecture a scientist about science. Likewise, I would hope a scientist, with no christian experience, would extend me, as a Christian, the same courtesy.

 

[Student of X]

I love how you talk about making statements out of one's field. Being a Christian with nearly zero scientific background whatsoever, never, would I dream of trying to lecture a scientist about science. Likewise, I would hope a scientist, with no christian experience, would extend me, as a Christian, the same courtesy.

What, and squander the prestige of being a famous scientist?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Is this not a whole can of worms thingy. The authority is not making a statement out of their field. God does not exist for Steven Hawkings, how can God be out of his field?

If one never had a religious experience how is it one can criticize religious experience?

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Dig it?

 

[crocusj]

I love how you talk about making statements out of one's field. Being a Christian with nearly zero scientific background whatsoever, never, would I dream of trying to lecture a scientist about science. Likewise, I would hope a scientist with no christian experience would extend me, as a Christian, the same courtesy.

But it is not about "lecturing" about Christianity, it is about evidence for God. They are not the same thing (there are a lot of gods). Why can a scientist not expound about why he or she does not (or does) believe in the Christian God, is this God not personal?
On the other hand, it might be true that appeals to authority should carry no weight with one's own beliefs but should we pay no attention at all to others. Should we ignore a geologist when a YEC tells us that the Earth is 6,ooo years old? Our view of God is what it is but our view of Christianity and Christianity itself has - without doubt - changed specifically because of appeals to authority and the wisdom of that authority. I do not understand Christianity but I am sure that it makes claims about a supernatural supreme being who created life, the universe and everything, it is hardly displaying a lack of courtesy for a scientist who can find no evidence to support this idea to say so from the standpoint of his observations. That does not mean we should alter our beliefs because he is deemed "smarter" than us and it certainly does not mean that we should believe in the way he does but if religions make claims that do not stand up to investigation then it should alter how we interpret their words.

 

[crocusj]

If one never had a religious experience how is it one can criticize religious experience?

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Dig it?

Had to go and look that one up....What has religious experience got to do with it? Indeed, what has criticism got to do with it? If the idea of any god is based solely on personal experience then I am surprised by his ubiquity. This is obviously a supposition on my part (balanced by your own, unless you know something that i do not) but I am not aware that the majority of those who believe have had a personal experience of the god that they believe in. That would open an even bigger geographical and cultural can of worms, surely. If someone tells me that they believe that they are Napoleon, must I not question them? Must I take their experience as truth (it is for them) and ignore the evidence before me that they - at least for me - are mistaken?