Yes, the statement I initially quoted is simply fallacious.
I’m afraid that this does not surprise me. It is one of the reasons I try to avoid conversing with you, as it makes such conversations both unproductive and very frustrating.
I am familiar with it both as a mathematician, and as a student of Formal Logic. I am afraid however that your following exposition makes me doubt that you fully grasp the concept.
I have already stated this to be a logically valid argument.
Unfortunately this does not establish the validity of “any other argument (e.g. from science, philosophy, or theology) that results in the [affirmation] of 3)” – which was the matter under dispute.
You can have logically invalid arguments even for demonstrably true conclusions.
For example, it is demonstrably true that water is wet (for given temperatures and pressures). But the statement that “water is wet because it is Tuesday” is logically invalid (a non sequitor fallacy).
Addendum: on further thought, I don’t think that Daniel’s argument is a proof by contradiction at all.
A proof by contradiction is an argument of the form:
Assume that the proposition you are wanting to prove is false.
Show that this assumption leads to a(n internal) contradiction (i.e. it leads to both a statement and that statement’s negation).
Such contradictions cannot occur, so the original proposition cannot be false.
Given that, as far as I can see, Daniel has not demonstrated that assuming any given proposition is false leads to an internal contradiction (being in contradiction to his beliefs doesn’t count), he has not made an argument of this form.
The statement under contention was phrased as a matter of necessity not probability.
In order to make a probabilistic Bayesian argument, you first need to (non-arbitrarily) establish the prior probabilities: i.e. the probabilities that the stated theological consequences must be true. This would likely be fairly intractable, as well as yielding premises that are no less under dispute than Biblical Inerrancy.
Genetic data from our genomes tells a lot of information, valid information, about the past. But it doesn’t tell us everything.
For example, I recall that I had a few slices of pizza for dinner today. I do not know this from DNA, but from another valid way of knowing something. What way? Well, my personal experience of eating that pizza. Perhaps you doubt my personal experience, or my report of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that I really did have pizza for dinner.
And of course, I can’t derive this fact about the past from an analysis of DNA either. That doesn’t trouble me in any way, because I do not expect to produce DNA evidence of this.
I’m not sure I understand you. Here, we’re not presenting a new, independent argument that proves 3), i.e. Adam existed. Rather, we’re speaking about people who already assume 3) from independent grounds. We’re not trying to give such a person more assurance in 3) by providing a new argument proving it.
“George is an adult because he has blue eyes” is a fallacious argument.
“George is an adult because he is 25 years old” is a valid argument (assuming that whatever local definition of “adult” kicks in somewhere below 25, as is the case in most places).
Neither the validity of (2), nor it being an established fact that “George is an adult” alters the fact that (1) is a fallacious argument.
Similarly, the statement I originally quoted is a fallacious argument. The fact that you can make other, more logically-valid, arguments for its conclusion does not and cannot change this fact.
Also, as an aside, the fact that it is a fallacious argument does not prove its conclusion to be false (it simply fails to prove it to be true).
I don’t disagree with this. I’m just trying to tell you that we’re not trying to make such an argument in the article. It seems that you’ve misunderstood the intent behind the words you quoted originally.
Here’s perhaps a better analogy: we are trying to ascertain whether George is an adult or not (assuming anyone over 18 is one). An acquaintance says that he is in fact only 17. However, his passport and birth certificate both say that he is 19. It is possible the passport and birth certificate are fake or mistaken. But many people think this is very unlikely on independent grounds (e.g. examination of the documents, the likelihood of obtaining fraudulent documents in the country, etc.). Thus it is more likely that the acquaintance’s observation was simply mistaken and George is in fact an adult.
Daniel, you can “try” all you want. But until you can articulate a logical argument why the following statement is not an ‘Appeal to Consequences’ fallacy (which is NOT the same as arguing that its conclusion is supportable by some other argument, or is accepted, or is true, etc), your attempts will be necessarily unavailing.
In addition, other theological concerns may make a historical Adam and Eve necessary, such as maintaining the uniqueness of human beings as made in the image of God, the unity of all humans, a historical Fall from original sinlessness, and the doctrine of original sin.
No Daniel it is an awful analogy.
The problem being that for it to be analagous we are NOT " trying to ascertain whether George is an adult or not", we are trying to ascertain whether a specific argument for George being an adult is logically valid.
These are two very different questions.
And, as I have stated repeatedly and without contradiction, the fact that an argument’s conclusion can be independently ascertained does not make a fallacious argument logically valid.
This interaction has proven as unproductive as I had feared. I am therefore going to press the reset button, and take things back to my original statement:
What is your understanding of what is a fallacy?
What is your understanding of what is an Appeal to Consequences?
What are your reasons for considering that the statement quoted above is not an Appeal to Consequences?
As I have stated before, neither the truth of “a historical Adam and Eve” nor the existence of logically valid arguments for the truth of this conclusion, have any bearing on these questions. Therefore invocation of these matters will be rejected out of hand.
Those aren’t the same thing. Not everything is evidence, because not all E affect the conditional probability of every H. Is the probability that the earth is round different from the probability that the earth is round given that carbon has six protons?
Your charming credence for astrology is, I hope, insincere, I hope. Is the probability that you will meet a tall, dark stranger affected by your horoscope saying that you will meet a tall, dark stranger? Incidentally, astrology is, for historical reasons, currently off by many degrees on the positions of the planets in the night sky.
Are the Ramayana and the Elder Edda also evidence regarding Adam and Eve? Are Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons evidence? Where do we draw the line, if in fact there even is a line?
It’s not just that there are gaps. There’s also a discrepancy in the order and nature of events and in the description of the structure of the world. But I see you interpret Genesis 1 as teaching a very simple message, that God created everything, and the details of the text are not to be taken literally. But in that case, why bother talking about gaps?
I agree here…the response regarding gaps was to me. My comment about gaps was not that the gaps need to be filled by the opposite school of thought, science fills theology gaps and the converse…my comment was that time is the consistent issue that creates the gaps in the first place…understanding that time is not literal and in fact not even relative to God removes the gaps and science is free to define life as we understand it. I don’t think we need to fill the gaps, scripture stands on truth not fact. Science stands on fact, not truth. They are mutually exclusive.
No one is disputing that point. It seems to be irrelevant. I have not seen anyone arguing that a logically-valid argument for a conclusion validates a logically fallacious argument for that conclusion.
You’ve repeatedly referred to this:
Let’s start with what the argument from consequences is.
Appeal to consequences , also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for “argument to the consequence”), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.[1] This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise’s consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is desirable.
Therefore, P is true.
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
That is not the form of reasoning here. Rather, we are saying:
Some people reasoned:
We know P
It was thought that if P, then not Q
Therefore not Q
At the same time, others reasoned:
We know Q
It was thought that if P, then not Q
Therefore not P
But we found that that the second premise was wrong. So, now…
We know P
P does not tell us about Q
Maybe Q
From the point of view of many Christians, P is Adam & Eve and Q is evolution. I do not see any “argument from consequences” here, except perhaps a desire to avoid the undesirable consequence of direct logical contradiction.
The sentence you quoted saying “necessary” just means it is necessary for some Christians because they believe to know Adam and Eve are real from theology. Perhaps you just want clearer wording on that sentence?
I was taking P to be “Adam and Eve are historical”, and Q to be the “other theological concerns”, i.e. that human beings are unique and made in the image of God, that humans are a unity, that the historical Fall occurred, and that Original Sin is a correct doctrine.
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is desirable.
Therefore, P is true.
It can also be articulated in the negative, taking ~ to be the negation operator:
If ~P, then ~Q will occur.
~Q is undesirable.
Therefore, ~P is false.
Just because something is an allegory does not say whether it’s a valid source of truth or not a way of knowing. Sometimes literary devices are the best ways of knowing. Jesus used parables often to illustrate deeper truths.
I didn’t check all the linked words, but I just had a picky point - because the numbers in brackets are in green like the linked words, I expected them to be linked to the references below, and then the numbers in the references to be linked to an article. Otherwise I’d prefer them to be black. Just a style choice opinion, if you care or intend to write another article using the same style.
I am confused as to how Q can be “evolution” in this, as the statement I quoted, and suggested was an Appeal to Consequences, made no mention of evolution.
(This was meant to be an addendum to my previous comment – but the ‘Reply Timer’ won’t allow for this. I would note with some displeasure that this timer does not seem to also apply to you – it makes the playing field less than even.)
If so, then it was very poorly worded.
Also, as the Adam and Eve story would appear to be the basis of much of this theology (hence my viewing the theology as a consequence of P), the claim that “Theology seems to indicate P” seems more than a little circular.