Sophistry

[Falvlun]

Not that the OP wasn't overselling his/her point, either...You might want to read up about how scientists and philosophers a couple hundred years ago (there wasn't really a difference until then) talked about the life force, the spirit, the animating principle, etc. Historically, the term meant breath, and historically, it applied to all the facets of life--respiration, ingestion, motility, digestion, etc.

It was derived from breath, but that doesn't mean it meant breath. Spirit nearly always, both in the ancient and modern world, referred to incorporeal or metaphysical things.

I think the more important issue is not whether "spirit" can refer physical things or not. It is whether the context suggested that such was intended. If the context was about spirit in a non-physical way, then it doesn't matter that a definition can be interpreted to mean something physical.

Deliberately choosing to interpret a definition in a way clearly not intended by the speaker doesn't add any value to a debate.

Sure, it's possible to overthink things...but then, some people don't think enough about things and start commenting on subjects other people just might know more about.

Making a simplistic, generalized complaint about other peoples' "sophistry" is just plain stupid in my mind. It's not a good way to engage in a good discussion with people. Instead of talking directly to the individuals who uttered those statements, to start a new thread to complain in general, where lots of people can call you out for doing the exact thing you're complaining about...well, you should expect the kind of responses you get.

I agree that making a thread calling someone out on this is in poor taste. However, I do think that the OP makes a valid observation that clever interpretations are often counter-productive if your purpose is to clarify meaning.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My point in regard to the concept of spirit is that the dictionary definitions are WESTERN concepts, developed primarily by thinkers who were heavily influenced by monotheism. Others (anthropologists, historians, linguists, sociologists, missionaries, etc.) later tried to shoehorn ideas from other cultures into the western meanings of the terms, regardless of how well they fit. To insist that "spirit" always and permanently refers to what it says in Webster's (or whichever dictionary you want to use) is wrong: what other cultures refer to may or may not include an animating force or an immaterial being.

Someone--such as myself--who has researched the history of the term in English and other European languages, as well as what people in other cultures actually say about "spirit" finds the dictionary definition of limited use. If you're going to engage me, an animist, about spirit, you had better specify which sense you mean, and I will (at least try to) always clarify what I mean if I engage in such a discussion. You might not agree with the definitions I provide, but be assured I have good reasons for thinking them as legitimate.

 

[Falvlun]

My point in regard to the concept of spirit is that the dictionary definitions are WESTERN concepts, developed primarily by thinkers who were heavily influenced by monotheism. Others (anthropologists, historians, linguists, sociologists, missionaries, etc.) later tried to shoehorn ideas from other cultures into the western meanings of the terms, regardless of how well they fit. To insist that "spirit" always and permanently refers to what it says in Webster's (or whichever dictionary you want to use) is wrong: what other cultures refer to may or may not include an animating force or an immaterial being.

Someone--such as myself--who has researched the history of the term in English and other European languages, as well as what people in other cultures actually say about "spirit" finds the dictionary definition of limited use. If you're going to engage me, an animist, about spirit, you had better specify which sense you mean, and I will (at least try to) always clarify what I mean if I engage in such a discussion. You might not agree with the definitions I provide, but be assured I have good reasons for thinking them as legitimate.

I don't think that there's a problem with asking someone to clarify what the mean. This is where I differ from OP.

I do think that there's a problem with deliberately misinterpreting someone's subsequent explanation. If I'm talking about spirit embodying someone's personality and how it resides in each of us, and define it as the vital life force, it's clear that I don't mean metabolism. Why even bring it up?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't think that there's a problem with asking someone to clarify what the mean. This is where I differ from OP.

I do think that there's a problem with deliberately misinterpreting someone's subsequent explanation. If I'm talking about spirit embodying someone's personality and how it resides in each of us, and define it as the vital life force, it's clear that I don't mean metabolism. Why even bring it up?

well, if that was the context of the original (which I'm not familiar with, at least I don't recognize it), yeah, I wouldn't bring it up, unless there was some extension to the conversation that made sense...as you said, context matters. And, it can matter greatly if the context is a DIR, debate, comparative religion, etc., thread.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, to be fair, nobody equates "spirit" with "metabolism", and it would be pretty rare to equate it with a physical process at all. I think that's part of agondonter's point.

Even if "metabolism" could technically fit the definition he provided for "spirit", it is obviously not what he means, or what is usually meant by, the word. As he says, the context should have eliminated metabolism as a possibility.

But if someone actually did equate the two, I would personally first assume that the person doing so simply doesn't understand how metabolism works, not being deliberately deceptive.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But if someone actually did equate the two, I would personally first assume that the person doing so simply doesn't understand how metabolism works, not being deliberately deceptive.

Well, there has recently been another thread in which the existence of a "life force" is present, and whether or not it differs from metabolism and the other functions of life. I don't recall the term "spirit" ever being raised in that thread, certainly if it was the term was tangential to the discussion as it occurred--even though a "life force" is pretty much one of the accepted meanings of spirit...but that is how one of the posters seemed to be approaching the subject.

 

[Falvlun]

well, if that was the context of the original (which I'm not familiar with, at least I don't recognize it), yeah, I wouldn't bring it up, unless there was some extension to the conversation that made sense...as you said, context matters. And, it can matter greatly if the context is a DIR, debate, comparative religion, etc., thread.

I agree.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if that was the context of this particular instance either. It was more a hypothetical.

 

[Agondonter]

I'm sorry it took me so long to post.

The sophistry that prevails in society today is depressing. Examples abound In this forum. In matters of religion, for instance, 'spirit' is defined as “the vital principle or animating force within living things.” It is, in other words, purposive energy or a self-organizing principle undergirding the manifested order. The fallacy of equivocation is committed when the term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. It literally stuns me to see educated people so brazen as to suggest that the word 'spirit,' used in religious discourse, can refer to something like metabolism, neural activity, or anything else outside a religious context.

But that's not the only logical fallacy or error of reasoning commonly used in this forum. The fallacy of division, popularized by the 'new atheists,' has been picked up by many and is particularly insidious in its deceitfulness. This fallacy is committed when it is inferred that because a whole has a property, a part of the whole also has that property. Examples of this fallacy are these:

(1) Water is liquid.
Therefore:
(2) H2O molecules are liquid.

And

(1) Religion has a sordid history.
Therefore
(2) All religion is sordid.

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. It's often used without it being realized: even those skeptics who claim to have an understanding of classical theism will often liken belief in God to a belief in fairies and argue from the problem of evil (both of which presuppose an anthropomorphic God).

In debates about morality, secularists, atheists and agnostics employ the naturalistic fallacy from the very get-go because factual premises cannot establish a value judgment. That's because statements of fact and statements of value are two fundamentally different types of statement: the former describes the way the world is and the latter describes the way that the world ought to be. For example: (1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a philosopher. The first statements are statements of fact while the last is a value judgment and clearly an invalid conclusion. Secularists, atheists and agnostics necessarily employ the same kind of reasoning in debates that involve morality. That's because the premise 'no God,' being a statement of fact, merely describes the way that the world is presumed to be, and as the above example illustrates, you can’t get an 'ought' from an ‘is’ (or vice versa). The moralistic fallacy is just the opposite: it moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are. That is to say, the rules of the road don’t necessarily describe actual driving practices.

 

[Agondonter]

Well, to be fair, nobody equates "spirit" with "metabolism", and it would be pretty rare to equate it with a physical process at all. I think that's part of agondonter's point.

Even if "metabolism" could technically fit the definition he provided for "spirit", it is obviously not what he means, or what is usually meant by, the word. As he says, the context should have eliminated metabolism as a possibility.

Believe it or not, people here do equivocate in that way. The OP was referring to things actually said in another thread.

 

[Acim]

Poster ACIM says that human parents are all Gods Because of the last two definitions in Webster.

3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

That's not what I read. I heard poster ACIM says parents could be consider gods of their offspring because of the definition in his computer's dictionary that says:

3 (god)an adored, admired, or influential person

Then some atheists said they lack a belief in the existence of parents.

 

[Agondonter]

Oh, and let's not forget the double standard.

If it is fair to say, as I've seen said many times in this forum, that religious experience might be the result of a brain malfunction, then it is also fair to say that atheism, agnosticism and secularism are a kind of mental illness called 'anosognosia,' a lack of insight. (Yes, it's a real word.)

Here is an interesting BBC video: The Trouble With Atheism:

 

[atanu]

Sophistry, a deliberately invalid argument or statement displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, bugs the crap out of me. Statements like "I would have to know what you mean by "spirit" before thinking about whether a body can produce one" and “Metabolism would fit that [dictionary] definition [of spirit]” are prime examples of what I mean.

Give me a break.

The dictionary definition of spirit is “the vital principle or animating force within living things.” Only a sophist intent on sowing confusion would say 'metabolism' fits that the dictionary definition of 'spirit.'

Why would they do that?

That is fine. But, we are asked to cultivate the view that all that we see and know are not separate from our own awareness.

 

[Agondonter]

That is fine. But, we are asked to cultivate the view that all that we see and know are not separate from our own awareness.

Exactly. That's why 'anosognosia' is a mental illness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, and let's not forget the double standard.

If it is fair to say, as I've seen said many times in this forum, that religious experience might be the result of a brain malfunction, then it is also fair to say that atheism, agnosticism and secularism are a kind of mental illness called 'anosognosia,' a lack of insight. (Yes, it's a real word.)

First, I'll say that I strongly disagree with the folks over in that thread that all religious fundamentalism is a mental illness.
Now, let's look at....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia

From the above description of anosognosia, we see that it doesn't apply to lack of awareness of a "disability".
Consider 2 cases of atheists....
1) For those of us who know we're disbelievers (presuming this is a disability), this awareness precludes anosognosia.
2) For those of us who don't know we're disbelievers (which might include infants or remote cultures who are unaware of the concept of gods), this is not a disability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regarding the issue of religious experiences signifying mental illness, I offer this simplistic test.....
If God (the voice in your head) tells you to obey the golden rule, then this is normal.
If the voice tells you to murder your family, then this is mental illness.

 

[atanu]

That is fine. But, we are asked to cultivate the view that all that we see and know are not separate from our own awareness.

Exactly. That's why 'anosognosia' is a mental illness.

Probably, I was not clear. Seeing 'anosognosia' in another is possibly seeing own mind.

 

[Agondonter]

Probably, I was not clear. Seeing 'anosognosia' in another is possibly seeing own mind.

You're right, but it's a two-way street. The point is, one cannot say that religious experience is the result of some kind of brain malfunction without opening oneself to the possibility that the lack of religious experience is the result of lack of insight, a metal disorder like anosognosia.

Oh, and to borrow from the Wiki article Rev linked to, anosognosia is "a deficit of self-awareness, a condition in which a person who suffers some disability seems unaware of the existence of his or her disability."

 

[Riverwolf]

Don't forget about the Fallacy Fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html

 

[Agondonter]

Don't forget about the Fallacy Fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html

Good point. This is from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Explanation
The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.

It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority: “Simon Singh says that 2+2=4”. Or one could argue that taking paracetamol relieves headaches using a post hoc: “I took the paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked!”

Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty.

Example
“People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can’t accept that when we die that’s it. This is an appeal to consequences; therefore there is no life after death.”