Appeal to Authority and the Chriatian Bible.

[Upchurch]

In another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20757&perpage=40), there was the following exchange:
Originally posted by ehbowen
Originally posted by Upchurch

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist?

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. To which I replied:
Originally posted by Upchurch

This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) and it is a logical fallacy. It occurs when a debater can't make an argument stand by its own merits and is reduced to saying their argument is correct because an authority says it is correct. By appealing to the Christian Bible as the ultimate authority on the nature of reality, by saying that angels exist because the Bible tells you that they do, you are commiting this logical fallacy.
In the link I posted above, there are six criteria required to validate an appeal to authority. Those criteria are: The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.
Which got me to thinking. Is there anyway to validate the Christian Bible as an authority on the existance of angels? I don't think think there are, but I'd be willing to entertain anyone's ideas on how it could be done.

First of all, however, let's establish that the Christian Bible is not a person and, as such, cannot be an authority by itself. (Feel free to argue this point if you disagree with me) Instead, we must look at the person/people behind the Bible and try to establish whether or not they are authorities on the existance of angels.

Any ideas?

[evildave]

Well, like any work of historically based fiction, there are angels because they're part of the story.

It's like a time machine fiction where someone goes back in time and interfears with history. You just take it as writ that there is a time machine, and that it "just works", and don't bother with the details where the hero goes to France, yet everyone speaks English.

[Frostbite]

Angels aren't only referred to in the Bible, but also in the oldest records ever written. They take various shape but they're all messengers of the gods. Almost all of the world's old mythologies have them, and the Bible is nothing but a badly translated and interpreted bunch of tales from earlier times. So, personally I believe that angels could once have existed but they probably weren't supernatural in nature at all. Perhaps just some enlightened bunch of guys who told wacky tales and spread their messages around, leaving people in awe.

[Pahansiri]

If I may comment about both Upchurch and ehbowen statements just to as mythoughts on this.


My friend wrote Upchurch Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist?

I believe it is fully logical to assume there is in some form “aliens” or alien life. If we look at the vastness of the cosmos the countless planets it is I believe logical to believe there are other forms of life. These life forms would not be from earth and so would be aliens. If the causes and conditions were correct for life to arise here it is logical and statistically possible or almost certain there is life else where.


Have there been aliens that have traveled here, I do not know but believe it is possible and is a logical possibility. We are a young planet and have already entered space so it is possible an older form of life if it can do better then we seem to do as far as killing ourselves, could be travel through space far better.



Ehbowen wrote You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels.


With respect you would have to first prove to Upchurch
1-There is a God.
2- If that could be done you would need to prove this God is the one you follow.
3 – you would need to prove that this God or the Bible is his word and do so from cover to cover as there would be a possibility that if true perhaps parts were not or have has history shows changed over time.

Please know I do not attack your beliefs here.


But I am attacking
Upchurch:p LOL kidding

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Frostbite
So, personally I believe that angels could once have existed but they probably weren't supernatural in nature at all. Perhaps just some enlightened bunch of guys who told wacky tales and spread their messages around, leaving people in awe. Just to clarify, I'm not really talking about the existence of angels. I could have just as easily chosen creationism or the historical occurence of Noah's flood. What I'm really trying to get at here is the validity of using the Bible as an authority.
<hr>
BTW, Pahansiri, I would love to see you try to show the validity of using the Bible as an authority for the existence of aliens. Go on. I dare ya! :p

I laugh at you and your feeble alien beliefs! Kneel before my authority! :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Just to clarify, I'm not really talking about the existence of angels. I could have just as easily chosen creationism or the historical occurence of Noah's flood. What I'm really trying to get at here is the validity of using the Bible as an authority.
<hr>
BTW, Pahansiri, I would love to see you try to show the validity of using the Bible as an authority for the existence of aliens. Go on. I dare ya! :p

I laugh at you and your feeble alien beliefs! Kneel before my authority! :D

LOL now you know, I know the Christian Bible very very well but as a Buddhist I am sure you know I will not seek to prove aliens using the Bible...lo:rolleyes: :p

[Martin]

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. God is an expert on everything
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. See above
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. God is the only true expert
The person in question is not significantly biased. God is always right - therefore, any question of bias is irrelevant
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. God has spoken on the matter, therefore it is a legitimate discipline
The authority in question must be identified. God isWelcome to fundie-world.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What I'm really trying to get at here is the validity of using the Bible as an authority.

I think the Old Testament offers a window into ancient history, and that the New Testament offers a good set of moral values. That's about it. If someone wants to use it as a reference tool, he/she must be aware that it is very old, that it has been translated many times by different people from different parts of the world, that it has been interpreted and re-interpreted, some of it has been removed or added later, etc. To ignore all of that - and its implications - would be foolish.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Martinm
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. God is an expert on everything
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. See above
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. God is the only true expert
The person in question is not significantly biased. God is always right - therefore, any question of bias is irrelevant
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. God has spoken on the matter, therefore it is a legitimate discipline
The authority in question must be identified. God isWelcome to fundie-world. Ah, but God didn't actually write the Bible, did he? Even in fundie-world, humans wrote it for him. Even if it was inspired by God, an anecdotal interpretation of an event is still an anecdotal interpretation of an event, subject to human error.

[Pahansiri]

Kalama Sutra


Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

[Pahansiri]

Pahansiri Sutra
Don't believe anything Upchurch says for anyy reason..:D

[BobK]

A personally autographed copy of the bible would sure be an aid in making me question my skepticism. ;)

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by BobK
A personally autographed copy of the bible would sure be an aid in making me question my skepticism. ;)

But then again, an autographed book about Dianetics doesn't make it more credible heh. It just makes it creepier.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Even if it was inspired by God, an anecdotal interpretation of an event is still an anecdotal interpretation of an event, subject to human errorTell it to the fundies.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Kalama Sutra


Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

That's very wise. The problem with that is, if each generation questions its cultural beliefs each time, isn't each generation reinventing the wheel? I guess this is why each generation is somewhat different from the one before, they fetch old values from a couple generations before. They search for new values. Others will simply accept whatever they've been spoonfed since they were born, out of laziness or plain satisfatcion with it. I guess we can blame it all on human imperfections. Sometimes I wish the Borg came and assimilated us.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Frostbite


That's very wise. The problem with that is, if each generation questions its cultural beliefs each time, isn't each generation reinventing the wheel? I guess this is why each generation is somewhat different from the one before, they fetch old values from a couple generations before. They search for new values. Others will simply accept whatever they've been spoonfed since they were born, out of laziness or plain satisfatcion with it. I guess we can blame it all on human imperfections. Sometimes I wish the Borg came and assimilated us.
Not at all, it is using the wheel analogy getting out of the car and checking the tires/wheels to make sure they are there, have good treads etc not just taking the car salesman’s word they are there and in good working shape.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Not at all, it is using the wheel analogy getting out of the car and checking the tires/wheels to make sure they are there, have good treads etc not just taking the car salesman’s word they are there and in good working shape.

Yeah, but what happens when your car is heading for a precipice and there's not steering wheel? Hehe, I mean, sometimes you feel like the principles and values you live in are somewhat questionable. Sometimes even, you accept these values because you simply don't know of any alternatives. The people we read about in our history books are the ones who dared generate and discover new values and teach other people about it.

I was lucky enough to be born in a place where I can reject all of it and search for my own values, but there are countries where you simply don't have that choice, where you truly are a slave of the system, and that's sad.

Anyway, I don't know what's my point. Just rambling I guess.

[Pahansiri]

[i]Originally posted by Frostbite

[quote]I mean, sometimes you feel like the principles and values you live in are somewhat questionable.

Then question them, do they bring harm to you do they do harm to others if so abandon them. Do the seem logical with a mind free from fear or other emotions? If not abandon them.


Sometimes even, you accept these values because you simply don't know of any alternatives.

There are always alternatives, no one can truly make you do or feel or believe anything only you have that power.

The people we read about in our history books are the ones who dared generate and discover new values and teach other people about it.

Right by doing what is said in the Kalama Sutra, they questioned.. It is said but sadly I forgot by who’ philosophy is questions that may never be answered religion ( many not all) are answers that may not be questioned


I was lucky enough to be born in a place where I can reject all of it and search for my own values, but there are countries where you simply don't have that choice, where you truly are a slave of the system, and that's sad.

In part true but in reality one always has the choice history shows us many who would not give up what they believed is right.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Hehe, I mean, sometimes you feel like the principles and values you live in are somewhat questionable. Sometimes even, you accept these values because you simply don't know of any alternatives. The people we read about in our history books are the ones who dared generate and discover new values and teach other people about it.That is the paradox, really. While science literally takes everything in question, sometimes you have to take some things for granted so that you can move forward.

But always, always, always, you understand that something new may come up that will take all those things you took for granted and throw them right out the window. When that happens, you figure out how that effects your model and start over. It's a b!tch, but that's the way it goes. Ya know?

[Pahansiri]

LOL I made my friend Upchurch's quotes..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
LOL I made my friend Upchurch's quotes.. Well, I believe that fundamental truths, when identified, should be shared with the masses. :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, I believe that fundamental truths, when identified, should be shared with the masses. :D http://rr-bb.com/images/smilies/kiss.gif

[Dancing David]

To get back to the bible, I think that the buddha's words can be applied to it, but the 'be ye lamps unto yourselfs' goes againt the authoritarian doctrine of infalabilty and fundamentalism.

Can lead a horse to the light but you can't make him read the news paper.

Peace

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Upchurch
In another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20757&perpage=40), there was the following exchange:


You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. To which I replied:

In the link I posted above, there are six criteria required to validate an appeal to authority. Those criteria are: The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.
Which got me to thinking. Is there anyway to validate the Christian Bible as an authority on the existance of angels? I don't think think there are, but I'd be willing to entertain anyone's ideas on how it could be done.

First of all, however, let's establish that the Christian Bible is not a person and, as such, cannot be an authority by itself. (Feel free to argue this point if you disagree with me) Instead, we must look at the person/people behind the Bible and try to establish whether or not they are authorities on the existance of angels.

Any ideas? [/QUOTE]

As an experiment, use DeCartes 7 meditations and apply it to this problem. Then determine what weaknesses there are in DeCartes' meditations as applied to this problem. I think this process has helped me understand how people with faith can come to the conclusions they do.

Note though I can not speak with any accuracy if people of faith do/do not (or to what degree if any) use this process or a similiar process. I think an experiment using DeCartes' method can give insight into the process of taking claims on faith. Also, it may give us insight on what criteria need to be taken for granted to validate claims.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Frostbite


I think the Old Testament offers a window into ancient history, and that the New Testament offers a good set of moral values. That's about it.

The OT's a stained glass window at best so far as archeology has been able to determine.
The NT morality is no more than a borrowing of older philosophies.
Perhaps it's the predecessor of all the 'new age' publications that have come since.
None are based on new scientific discoveries, they all draw their wisdom form 'ancient esoteric sources'.

[ImpyTimpy]

I don't think it's an appeal to authority fallacy that is being used here Upchurch. I would say the conclusion is given without supporting premise (not sure what fallacy that is - I should've listened better during my logic classes)

I also want to point out your understanding of "appeal to authority" seems a little off. It is acceptable to refer your argument to someone who is an expert in the area, but you commit an appeal to authority when you refer your argument to someone who is an authority but not on the subject of the argument.

Originally posted by Upchurch

In another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20757&perpage=40), there was the following exchange:

**snipped**

To which I replied:

This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority and it is a logical fallacy. It occurs when a debater can't make an argument stand by its own merits and is reduced to saying their argument is correct because an authority says it is correct. By appealing to the Christian Bible as the ultimate authority on the nature of reality, by saying that angels exist because the Bible tells you that they do, you are commiting this logical fallacy.

In the link I posted above, there are six criteria required to validate an appeal to authority. Those criteria are: The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.
Which got me to thinking. Is there anyway to validate the Christian Bible as an authority on the existance of angels? I don't think think there are, but I'd be willing to entertain anyone's ideas on how it could be done.

First of all, however, let's establish that the Christian Bible is not a person and, as such, cannot be an authority by itself. (Feel free to argue this point if you disagree with me) Instead, we must look at the person/people behind the Bible and try to establish whether or not they are authorities on the existance of angels.

Any ideas?

[ImpyTimpy]

I don't think it's an appeal to authority fallacy that is being used here Upchurch. I would say the conclusion is given without supporting premise (not sure what fallacy that is - I should've listened better during my logic classes)

I also want to point out your understanding of "appeal to authority" seems a little off. It is acceptable to refer your argument to someone who is an expert in the area, but you commit an appeal to authority when you refer your argument to someone who is an authority but not on the subject of the argument.

Originally posted by Upchurch

In another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20757&perpage=40), there was the following exchange:

**snipped**

To which I replied:

This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority and it is a logical fallacy. It occurs when a debater can't make an argument stand by its own merits and is reduced to saying their argument is correct because an authority says it is correct. By appealing to the Christian Bible as the ultimate authority on the nature of reality, by saying that angels exist because the Bible tells you that they do, you are commiting this logical fallacy.

In the link I posted above, there are six criteria required to validate an appeal to authority. Those criteria are: The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.
Which got me to thinking. Is there anyway to validate the Christian Bible as an authority on the existance of angels? I don't think think there are, but I'd be willing to entertain anyone's ideas on how it could be done.

First of all, however, let's establish that the Christian Bible is not a person and, as such, cannot be an authority by itself. (Feel free to argue this point if you disagree with me) Instead, we must look at the person/people behind the Bible and try to establish whether or not they are authorities on the existance of angels.

Any ideas?

[Ladewig]

Ah, but God didn't actually write the Bible, did he? Even in fundie-world, humans wrote it for him. Even if it was inspired by God, an anecdotal interpretation of an event is still an anecdotal interpretation of an event, subject to human error.

I have talked to some fundies about this idea. They disagree. Fundie argument: God inspired King James to hire the very best interpreters to translate the Bible to English. God watched over these men and ensured that they got the story right. Other translations were not truly God's work, so those have errors, e.g. The Living Bible (or as they like to call it: The Living Bible for dead souls.)

I suppose you could use the Bible as an authority on Christianity, but not much beyond that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ladewig

I suppose you could use the Bible as an authority on Christianity, but not much beyond that. Excellent point.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I also want to point out your understanding of "appeal to authority" seems a little off. It is acceptable to refer your argument to someone who is an expert in the area, but you commit an appeal to authority when you refer your argument to someone who is an authority but not on the subject of the argument.Well, that's the point of the entire thread, isn't it? Trying to figure out if the Christian Bible can be an authority in a topic, angels in this case.

I realize that it is acceptable to appeal to an authority if that authority is an expert in the area, but does the Bible meet the criteria for being an authority?

[Ossai]

Pahansiri
There are always alternatives, no one can truly make you do or feel or believe anything only you have that power. Not quiet. If someone were to be raised in a closed society where they were never exposed to outside ideas, the party line touted as TRUTH, and even a hint of questioning punished by death or exile, then it what other option would there be but to follow the party line.

In part true but in reality one always has the choice history shows us many who would not give up what they believed is right. and died.

Upchurch
I see it more an appeal to popularity instead of an appeal to authority.

I realize that it is acceptable to appeal to an authority if that authority is an expert in the area, but does the Bible meet the criteria for being an authority? No, the bible is a collection of many different authors works. Each author of a chapter should be examined individually instead of declaring the whole book an authority because one or two items matched reality. The type of people that cite the bible as an authority are usually the same ones that refuse to see the contradictions within the bible itself no matter how much they are pointed out.

Ossai

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Ossai
Pahansiri
Not quiet. If someone were to be raised in a closed society where they were never exposed to outside ideas, the party line touted as TRUTH, and even a hint of questioning punished by death or exile, then it what other option would there be but to follow the party line.

and died.



Not quiet. If someone were to be raised in a closed society where they were never exposed to outside ideas, the party line touted as TRUTH,

Many have lived in such situations and from that come beings that thought freely and brought about truths. If your point were universal fact virtually no advances would have ever been made.

and even a hint of questioning punished by death or exile, then it what other option would there be but to follow the party line.

Still no one as I said can MAKE you think anything or believe anything, can you be killed yes but still no one can MAKE you think or believe anything if you do not allow it.


I wrote In part true but in reality one always has the choice history shows us many who would not give up what they believed is right.

You responded and died.

How does the fact they are dead disprove my point? It only proves it to be true.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ossai
Upchurch
I see it more an appeal to popularity instead of an appeal to authority.
How so?
No, the bible is a collection of many different authors works. Each author of a chapter should be examined individually instead of declaring the whole book an authority because one or two items matched reality.
That was the conclusion I would have reached too. I just didn't want to slant the question for anyone who wanted to try to defend the position that the Bible should be taken as an authority.