2.25.2008

Christians Rely on Ex Post Facto Arguments

Nathan at Very Special Monkeys has an interesting post on the subject of "rational Christianity" and why it is inherently flawed. The crux of his argument centers on the nature of ex post facto discourse and how Christians are often guilty of using it to defend their beliefs. I thought this was worth highlighting here since it is likely to be a concept with which many people are unfamiliar.

Briefly, an ex post facto argument is a logically flawed claim in which claimant begins by assuming that an unsupported claim is true and then reasons backward from the claim in order to support it. Students of logic will immediately recognize the problems with such an approach. Instead of offering premises which lead to a conclusion, the ex post facto claim begins with the conclusion, assumes it to be true without having demonstrated it as such, and then attempts to manufacture support for the conclusion. The merit, falsifiability or, or veracity of the conclusion is never questioned.

When Christians attempt to use reason to support their claims, they do so in an ex post facto manner. They start by accepting the conclusion that their god exists and then try develop what appear to be reasoned arguments to support this conclusion. This violates the most rudimentary principles of logic, ensuring that the result will be irrational. They are claiming to support the claim that their god exists, but this claim is never actually up for debate; it is the core presupposition from which the argument begins.

Another striking and extremely common example of ex post facto reasoning can be observed whenever a Christian commits a heinous criminal act (e.g., priests molesting children). The unsupported conclusion is something like, "Christians don't do bad things." From this point, you hear them work backward to deny that the perpetrator was a "real Christian." What is never questioned is the claim that Christians don't do bad things.

As Nathan points out, ex post facto arguments should not be accepted. They are irrational on their face and should be identified as such. Beginning with the assumption that some god exists without first proving it is a logical fallacy.

2.18.2008

Defending the Atheist Movement and Recognizing Our Shared Humanity

scenic road

Driving down a scenic stretch of road, I observe two men, both riding Harley-Davidson motorcycles, pass each other while heading in opposite directions. Both extend the well-known "low wave," a one-armed salute one often sees among bikers. There was no reason to suspect that these men knew each other, only that they share a common bond. They belong to no real community and have no organizational structure. Their bond is about a shared identity. And even though they may never meet face-to-face, the connection is palpable.

The atheist movement has been criticized for not being a real movement at all. The sharpest critics are atheists themselves, and some seem to have a general distaste for any attempts to foster a secular community. Time and time again, they point out that atheists need not have anything in common except atheism and that atheism is ill-suited for bringing people together.

2.12.2008

America's Evolution Denial

Charles Darwin portrait
If you have ever used a computer, talked on a cell phone, visited a physician, or operated a motor vehicle, you have benefited from science. Much of the food you eat, the medicines you use, and so many other things you may take for granted have been influenced by the biological sciences in particular. In addition to being the foundation of the modern biological sciences, evolutionary theory has been more rigorously evaluated and received more empirical support than any other theory from any branch of science. And yet, more Americans endorse creationist explanations for human origins than evolutionary ones.

The Importance of America's Evolution Denial

America has a long history of religious fundamentalism, and Americans' distaste for evolution is not exactly a new phenomenon. Despite widespread rejection of evolution in the general population, American science has continued to advance to the benefit of all citizens. Why then should this be a pressing concern now?