Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. Stenger, Has Science Found God? One strength of the Communist system I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.
- Appeal to Faith?
- 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame Nominees: The Case For 37 Men.
- An Analysis of the Field of Spirituality, Religion, and Health, by David J. Hufford.
- Relationship between religion and science.
- Learning to Forget: US Army Counterinsurgency Doctrine and Practice from Vietnam to Iraq.
I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. Albert Einstein, The Human Side. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.
I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility. The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. It is very difficult to elucidate this [cosmic religious] feeling to anyone who is entirely without it.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. Geoff - I think Einstein is referring to the limitations of mathematical physics and his failed attempt of a continuous field theory of matter i. However, with a wave structure of matter in space we have further knowledge that Space is a substance with properties of a wave medium. But we are still imagining space based upon our own limited minds and imagination, so in a sense the solution is always incomplete. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source.
They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. Geoff - It is interesting that Einstein refers to the 'music of the spheres', a perfect description of the the spherical standing wave structure of matter in Space! In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.
But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. Einstein observed that specialization is invariably damaging to Science as a whole;. The area of scientific knowledge has been enormously extended, and theoretical knowledge has become vastly more profound in every department of science. But the assimilative power of the human intellect is and remains strictly limited.
Hence it was inevitable that the activity of the individual investigator should be confined to a smaller and smaller section of human knowledge. Worse still, this specialization makes it increasingly difficult to keep even our general understanding of science as a whole, without which the true spirit of research is inevitably handicapped, in step with scientific progress. Every serious scientific worker is painfully conscious of this involuntary relegation to an ever-narrowing sphere of knowledge, which threatens to deprive the investigator of his broad horizon and degrades him to the level of a mechanic It is just as important to make knowledge live and to keep it alive as to solve specific problems.
Albert Einstein, The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. Buddhism answers this description.. In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. Albert Einstein, For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere.
Yet is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is , and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.
And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man.
Science & Religion 101
And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual.
Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger. In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.
Einstein, But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
An Analysis of the Field of Spirituality, Religion, and Health, by David J. Hufford | Metanexus
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion.
These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.
I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions.
This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world.
Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind.
But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.
In their labours they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.
Science vs. Religion Essay
After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they well surely recognise with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim.
It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man.
This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences". While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach. Religion is concerned with man's attitude towards nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with human mutual relationship.
These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives epics and myths which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of accepted ideals. It is this mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. Science is not the only source of information. Historical information, for example, comes from witnesses. Which completely evades the question.
Bo didn't claim you said that, he was responding to what you said… He said "Whomever presupposed a supernatural creator was free to do so as a theological belief, not a scientific claim. So yes, I do know how discussions work. Bo: You claimed that science only uses methodological naturalism by "modern, anti-theistic" definitions. This is blatantly wrong, even if early natural philosophers believed that God created nature, they were also the ones who set the rules of science and been abiding by it for years. I notice that you only quoted half my sentence. I fail to see how.
Bo was quoting what they supposedly thought by the founding scientists; so was I. Well, that just ruled out goo-to-you evolution, as it's not able to be observed or repeated. But of course that's considered science. How is that relevant to my legitimate question? I was asking a question , not "complaining". Beyond that, this might be about your first legitimate point. I'll explain. When he says that science can never make any claims of the supernatural, I want to know if he is talking about science studying the supernatural itself which I agree it can't do , or studying natural events that are claimed to be the result of supernatural causes which it can do.
There is a difference that is not clear from his comment. How so? My question was in the context of the evidence better fitting the supernatural explanation. If you have evidence, how can it be an argument from ignorance? Okay, so two hypotheses are 1 that amphibians evolved into reptiles and 2 that God created reptiles separately to amphibians. How do you falsify the first in a way that you can't do with the second? Further, claims involving the supernatural are falsifiable, and some scientists have claimed that they have been falsified. How can they be falified if they are not falsifiable?
You keep talking about supernatural evidence… No, I've mentioned evidence for supernatural causes. Maybe it was just sloppy wording on your part, but it's not the same thing. Bo's response to Joe Walker's question. If you'd actually read the whole conversation you should realise that. I have no idea. But even if your wild speculation is correct, Bo answered with an assertion that amounted to ID not being science because scientists have defined science in a way that excludes ID. Rayment: You are correct. Just like I am happy to claim that the earth is NOT flat, and I would never waste my time "defending" that claim.
So I am hereby officially acknowledging that I choose not to defend my claim that creationism is religious nonsense and ID is pseudoscience, at best. Rayment: Can I quote you on that? No, I said no such thing, I said the method has a required assumption, people are free to believe in whatever they like but having beliefs which cannot be measured and quantified aren't useful in the scientific method so to apply the method correctly they need to be set aside. You can quote me all you like but I think that would qualify as an argument from authority as, even though I'm not an authority on the subject, the principle that it's not who said it but what they said still applies.
So Bo is right and you're wrong and that isn't going to change here, is it?
In This Article
You're not going to change the views of the science community here, and I'm neutral non scientists are going to accept the views of scientists on what is considered a science over the views of science deniers. And yet almost every point you make is predicated on this "supernatural evidence" which doesn't exist, so when you say you don't have any that negates almost everything you said.
You mean there's plenty of quote mining. Some of that may simply be ignorance of the topic and a real belief that what is being quoted says what you think it is, but when the people quoted state that they are being misrepresented and still the claims are made, that's called dishonesty. So Bo and now you keep repeating.
Actually I said it once, and even blatantly didn't repeat it, but even if I did repeat it, so what? If you keep making false claims I'm going to repeat it; as I said, I don't have to come up with a new response every time you're wrong until I run out of new responses.
Instead of taking my advice of "You should really investigate how things can be observed "if you weren't there" instead of making such ignorant comments. Wasn't it you that objects to repeating things? How do you know that your parents had sex resulting in meiotic recombination resulted in you?
Were you there? How do police determine that a suspect covered in blood, with fingerprints on a knife, might have murdered the person with stab wounds consistent with the knife found at the scene? Were they there? How do you "know" that Jesus had a sermon on the mount? How do you determine something had a supernatural cause? At the risk of repeating myself and doing no harm to my point, this is exactly what I was talking about, you make claims about the supernatural, but you said you have no evidence of the supernatural.
That was Bo. Fair enough. If you think it's allegedly why don't you demonstrate otherwise? Yes, there are some scientists who fail to follow the process correctly and their work is rejected. I recall the story of a scientist who produced a paper on lucid dreaming but he didn't follow the scientific method correctly and his paper was rejected. Instead of crying about how unfair it was he went off and did it properly, then had his paper published. That's how science works. And we can see that it does indeed work.
Intelligent design begins with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing things. By observing human intelligent agents, there is actually quite a bit we can learn know and understand about the actions of intelligent designers. Design is not inferred by looking at something and seeing complexity, simplicity is the hallmark of design, it's inferred by looking at something and using examples of things which we know were designed and contrasting them with nature.
A puddle is complex, the shape of the hole is so specific and yet the puddle fits it exactly. It must have been designed First, the motives of some of the founders does not mean that the science is invalid. That's not an ad hominem fallacy, I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to you. That aside, part of what makes an ad hominem is "when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making".
You can't say that having a goal of "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" isn't relevant to your claim that "ID doesn't base its claims on the existence of god". So it's no ad hominem, and it's not irrelevant in any way. Guilty of what? What does the wedge strategy have to do with atheist scientists? I didn't say that ID is invalid because of the goals. That's a straw-man. It's ironic that you choose a logical fallacy website as your soapbox and commit so many logical fallacies.
I guess that might depend on who "all of the people" actually are. In his book Michael Denton proposes that there is a supernatural intelligence that started the cosmos which has directed evolution, and he works at the Discovery Institute. He may be an agnostic in the sense that he doesn't claim to know for sure, but he clearly believes. What does that have to do with my point? Putting something in brackets isn't "a second point" and I said "as far as I know".
If it was an important point I was making I'd have easily found out, but it wasn't. Anyway if my point was important, the unification church is a branch of christianity. Wells is known for his quote mining, what a recommendation. Scientists don't propose evolution because they are atheists, they propose it because that's where the mountains of evidence lead them. I was responding to your claim that the ID movement doesn't base it's claims on the existence of god, which I've demonstrated to be false, and which your reply has done nothing to counter. Again, you don't understand what ad hominem means; I wasn't talking to these people and what I said was absolutely relevant.
If you think that there are double standards then perhaps you can produce the document that atheists produced outlining their intent to push a religion as a science in order to have it taught in classrooms, or something else analogous with what the wedge strategy outlines. Propose means to put forward for consideration, that encompasses "it could be". Right, you don't believe it was an alien, and neither do the founders of ID, they are using subterfuge by pretending this.
I generally take people on their word but I don't believe you. Asserted and supported by the fact that the scientific community use the scientific method, which uses methodological naturalism. As I said when we talk about science in relation to scientific disciplines, using a different definition of science is equivocation. You seem to dislike things being repeated, but they need to be repeated because you don't appear to join the dots between different things which are said and how they relate to each other.
And while you're claiming that something was asserted, what you did was make a baseless assertion. Why don't you just demonstrate that you're correct by citing an example of a scientific paper which has been published in a scientific journal, which didn't follow the scientific method?
Are you serious? You just tried to quibble over the correct usage of propose and you're now again quibbling about my valid response. Changing the word to correct doesn't change the point, science doesn't make claims of things being true or correct, it provides models that explain facts to the best understanding based on the available evidence. It seems like you're the one who argues semantics incorrectly instead of focusing on the point, which in this case is that it was not a non-sequitur.
I don't need you thinking for me, I meant exactly what I asked and your response makes my point for me. By saying that it "might mean that it's unknown to science," you're implying that someone has knowledge of things. Until someone produces that knowledge it remains an unknown. And importantly there is a difference between knowing something and believing something, which is where the scientific method is useful because you can measure, quantify and evaluate them.
Lots of people claim to know things, but when pressed with a few simple questions it quickly becomes evident that they don't. No it doesn't, this all goes back to ID not being scientific, which by definition means dealing with natural causes. Scientists can only deal with things which they can measure and quantify, which is things which are natural, if you can demonstrate that it is currently possible to measure and quantify the supernatural, or to provide a way to so, then scientists can change how they operate.
He said "Whomever presupposed a supernatural creator was free to do so as a theological belief, not a scientific claim. I know what he said, he was referring to the scientists of old, not you. You may understand how a discussion works but then you don't appear to be able to follow one. I'd imagine Bo was referring to Robert Grosseteste who introduced the rudimentals of the scientific method.
Well you're not very observant are you? I quoted the entire paragraph, and then used a few words, not in a quote, to indicate which bit I was addressing specifically, and by not quoting the whole thing again my response was no less valid. Okay, I understand the confusion, I was referring specifically to this: "to study the unobservable, unmeasurable, unrepeatable past, that those early scientists understood by means of revelation. I'll try to be more clear. If I was a betting man I'd put a large stake on you not having a clue what evolution proposes.
And you certainly don't understand how things are observed and instead have this childish "were you there" take on it. And again you wrote this after I pointed out that you should really investigate how things can be observed, which makes it not just ignorance, but wilful ignorance. It's not considered science, it is science. Just because you don't understand it doesn't change that, and I really don't understand this idea that people who don't understand something are in any way qualified to say that it's wrong. It's relevant because you didn't understand what he said and rattled off a load of nonsense.
I was asking a question, not "complaining". My first legitimate point? At least you made me laugh, that's always good. I really don't know how any of this pertains to the use of the word "of". I can't speak for Bo but I think that's a false dichotomy and he was talking about something else, that science can't deal with things which cannot be measured or quantified, which ties in with the scientific method and everything he or I have said.
If they can't then they don't make any conclusions, they don't guess aka claim it's supernatural. Because science makes predictions about what will be observed and then runs the data through a series of tests. It's not possible to test for things which cannot be measured or quantified, which relegates attributing things to "the supernatural" to guessing, which is an argument from ignorance. Again you're talking about "evidence for the supernatural" having started out with "I don't claim to have direct scientific evidence of the supernatural".
Until such a thing is demonstrated to exist there's no place for it in science. I don't understand what's difficult about this. You can make a series of tests where "this is was we expect to see", and which not seeing that will falsify the test. So in your example 1 the phylogeny would conclude that amphibians did not evolve into reptiles, and genetic sequencing would independently confirm this. For 2 you tell me how it's falsifiable, I'm not the one making the claim. It's an appeal to magic, how can you falsify magic when magic can do anything?
Just because some claims are falsifiable does not mean that all claims are falsifiable or vice versa. The ones which were falsifiable were falsified, that means they were shown to be false. Please explain how that has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not other claims are falsifiable. Would it not be reasonable to say that each claim is assessed on it's own merits? I'm guessing that this won't be considered a legitimate point just like everything else I say, because reasons No, I've mentioned evidence for supernatural causes.
Please remind me of what you said about semantics. If it's not the same thing demonstrate that it isn't. And also, remember earlier when you objected to me not quoting the whole sentence when I quoted the whole paragraph and then made a non quote reference? You didn't even object on the grounds that it was out of context, but apparently just for the sake of it. And here you are actually quoting part of a sentence and you leave off the part that asks you to provide some.
How about instead of worry about whether I described the evidence correctly we just focus on you actually providing some? You've referred to it often enough that I have confidence that you'll have no problem doing so. Joe Walker's question wasn't about an appeal to faith, it was about whether an appeal to faith is similar to a concocted scenario.
Well it seems to be correct given nobody is talking about the appeal to faith fallacy. Cry me a river that science excludes ID. Get over it. And it's funny that after all that you finally admit that ID is excluded by science. You could have saved a lot of time and effort by admitting this at the very start, but at least we got there in the end, even if it was by mistake. Thursday, July 26, - PM After further thought I don't think that would qualify as Tu quoque as what you said was incorrect, so there's no "too" about it. Friday, May 17, - AM BJ: My examples point out fallacies in theism, atheism, conservatism, liberalism, social justice, etc.
I will, unapologetically, argue for science and reason over faith and superstition. If you see this as a chink in my "philosophical armor," please do address any specific argument I made where you think my logic and reason is flawed and tell me why. Happy to address it. Richard Tufts. Wednesday, September 05, - PM Stepping back from the religious, capital F faith parts of the discussion about this fallacy, could this also be extended to just the words of people in general?
Like, for example, if I ask you not to cut the bushes on my property line, and you say "No problem, I won't touch it. In this example, am I taking what you're saying on faith? Because while you've given me your word that you won't cut up my bushes, I'm just assuming you won't because you said you wouldn't: you could be a serial bush destroyer, and I'm just taking what you're saying on faith. Thanks in advance, Professor! Thursday, September 06, - AM If you put that in argument form, then yes, it would be fallacious. For example: "My neighbor won't cut my bushes because I have faith that he won't.
I asked because I really began wondering how much of what we do, say, and agree to in everyday life is based on taking things on faith. Thursday, July 20, - PM Would citing religious sources for a religious debate or a debate on the moral grounds of something be considered an Appeal to Faith, or is it only an Appeal to Faith when it's something completely unrelated? Thanks, Professor. Friday, July 21, - AM Hi Richard, this is a good question because it raises the question, what if both parties accept the same premise on faith? So if two Christians are arguing about the morality of an act, and both accept on faith that a God exists, b God is the authority of morality, and c the Bible is the word of God, they citing the Bible in the argument would not be fallacious one could argue that their acceptance of the premises is, however.
But often in argumentation, premises are accepted either hypothetically or provisionally for the sake of the argument. Having said that, what if a theist is arguing with an atheist? If the theist cites the Bible, the atheist cannot assume an appeal to faith, because one has yet to be established.
The atheist should question, "how do you know that this god exists? Hope that helps! Michael Chase Walker. Tuesday, September 04, - PM Citing 'religious sources for a religious debate or a debate on the moral grounds of something' would not necessarily constitute an appeal to faith fallacy. It could simply be a religious discussion, a debate on morality, or, in essence, a theological, canonical, or even historical review of a particular dogma, denomination or religious tradition. In these instances, it would be perfectly acceptable to argue within the context of a specific scriptural tradition, text, or scholarly review.
The appeal to faith fallacy circular would mostly occur if and when there is an assumption that these references and assertions are absolutely true and universally objective because they are of supernatural origin: "I know this to be true because Jesus said it", or, "the Bible is the infallible word of the Supreme Creator of the universe. Historically, and arguably there is only a 1 in 3 chance there was an actual historical Jesus.
The fact that there are as many denominations and interpretations of what Jesus might have said as there are sentences in the Bible approximately 37, would certainly undermine the veracity of any statement attributed to him as being verbatim or true.