Question

...
Jack

Ambiguity Fallacy here?

I am here to ask if this is a fallacy of ambiguity on my part: 

Not entirely. The latter part of your post, which 'other party' failed to notice, discussed how religious beliefs have evolved over many centuries. The initial part focused on the lack of substantial empirical evidence for many claims in the Bible, which we might expect to find by now. However, this doesn't mean that the Bible or any other religious scripture lacks historical or archaeological studies that support some of its historical claims. My comments primarily address the supernatural claims, discussing them in general terms regarding their substantiation through empirical evidence as understood within the scientific context.

But, yes claims in the Bible are not unique to Christianity. After a historical examination, it seems many religious texts share common themes and/or have influenced each other historically.

 

I asked ChatGPT4 and that responded with this (an excerpt from the summary): 

Overall, the passage provides a thoughtful, albeit brief, examination of the challenges in discussing religious claims within a scientific framework. The potential for fallacies lies more in the assumptions and implications rather than overt logical errors in the argument presented.

 

What are your views? Thanks 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

asked on Friday, Mar 08, 2024 08:18:12 PM by Jack

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
2

Hi Jack, your answer in isolation isn't enough to make this judgement. We need context as to what the claim you are addressing actually is.

answered on Saturday, Mar 09, 2024 07:19:33 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Jack writes:

Hi Bo, 

 

Sorry for late response. Not been very active online for a while. And yes, it was quite a long winded debate. I will make sure to add more context next time though. :)  

posted on Wednesday, Mar 20, 2024 11:58:06 AM
...
AI Fallacy Master
0
Well, it seems that you've got a pot of metaphysical soup here with a dash of fallacy hunting, and an intriguing sprinkle of logic twistings. But is there a fallacy of ambiguity lurking in the depths? Let's investigate!

Alright, so looking at your argument, it's like going into grandma's attic - there's an awful lot going on there, but you're not quite sure what's relevant. In your case, you've got a two-fold focus - the evolution of religious beliefs and the empirical (or lack thereof) evidence for biblical claims. Not to forget the side order of inter-religion influence, which is an archaeologist's dream debate. So, are these ambiguities?

No, my friend, you've just got a handful of "topics galore", not an ambiguity fallacy. An ambiguity fallacy would be more along the lines of saying, "The Bible accurately reports the creation of the world in seven days because it's in the Bible."

As for your chat with the sophisticatedly verbose ChatGPT4, it seems like it pretty much hit the nail on the head. Your argument is more of a Himalaya of assumptions and implications than a desert of overt logical errors.

So, fear not, Sherlock of Logicsville, there's no ambiguity fallacy lurking in your argument's shadows. But there might be an overuse of the enter key in your post. Might want to look into that.
answered on Friday, Mar 08, 2024 08:18:27 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Mr. Wednesday
0

Admittedly, without the context of whatever posts preceded this, I find this to be a bit difficult to follow. But, if I'm understanding correctly, the main point of contention is whether claims made in the Bible are supported by evidence, and whether you used the idea of claims made in the Bible ambiguously to refer to either historical claims or supernatural claims.

The issue that I see in this case is that there are a lot of people, devout Christians and staunch atheists in particular, who have strong opinions about the Bible but a weak understanding of it. They want to put the entire content into a single silo that they can accept or reject full cloth. To someone like that, it may seem like you're being ambiguous or dodgy in your use of the term. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the academic study of the Bible, however, knows it was written over the span of hundreds of years, and a lot of people with different intentions and experiences have had inputs, so to someone like that "claims made in the Bible" would be a generic term to describe a lot of individual topics. Like how "science" could be used to refer to the study of black holes, carbon nanotubes, or hamsters.

One thing I'd point out, though, is that trying to use science to evaluate supernatural claims can be a bit sticky as supernatural events are, by definition, unexplainable by science. If you reject the idea that anything supernatural can occur, then you can attempt to come up with a scientifically plausible event that would lead to the claim in question being made. But, in that case, you would also need to have a historian filter it through their own lens, as missing historical context may lead to incorrect conclusions.

answered on Saturday, Mar 09, 2024 12:41:58 AM by Mr. Wednesday

Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Mchasewalker
0

It is challenging to make sense of this. It's not just the ALL CAPS format either, but it certainly contributes to it.

From what I can make of it the heart of the argument is not so much a Fallacy of Ambiguity (?) but an equivocation fallacy between the usage of the words historical and historic.

To which I would simplify as: 

The Bible is historic but not historical.

In other words the composition, compilation, origins, legends, allegories, fictional events, and religious ideas are important to history, but the events and characters themselves are not historically accurate.  (And not just the supernatural claims either). 

No doubt this would bring you into conflict with fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews, but then again, they are fond of fabricating, interpolating and introducing supernatural events to suggest a fabulistic hyper reality that just does not exist. The first thing any true historian would do is dismiss the supernatural events off hand. 

 

 

 

answered on Wednesday, Mar 13, 2024 12:39:11 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Mr. Wednesday writes:

The bit about how religious views evolved over centuries could speak to the historic nature of the Bible, but it seems like more of a side note.

With regard to the Bible being historical, though: Depending on what you mean by certain things, your assessment might not be accurate. I've spent a lot of time listening to Biblical historians, primarily non-religious ones, describe their work. Basically what it entails is critically examining the text of the Bible, interrogating the historical record, and trying to develop theories of how and why the text got in there. With that in mind, there are some events described in the Bible which have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be entirely fabricated. One example is the story where Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" didn't appear in manuscripts until a couple hundred years after the gospels were first written.

Other events, while they likely didn't happen exactly as described, there is evidence to support the idea that they are retellings of events that did occur. For instance, there's evidence showing that Pontius Pilate was a real Roman government official, but the idea that he could have been pressured into executing someone by Jewish authorities is inconsistent with what is known about him. 

With regards to supernatural events: Not sure whether you would consider these to be "true" historians, but there are some Biblical historians who will do some critical analysis, but in accordance with their religious views will promote the idea of supernatural events. Other historians, rather than simply assuming a supernatural claim is entirely fabricated, may consider the possibility that the people recounting the story just falsely attributed supernatural causes to an actual event. The go to example that a lot of people use is that Biblical accounts of people who are possessed by evil spirits are to some degree consistent with symptoms of epilepsy.

posted on Thursday, Mar 14, 2024 12:55:55 PM
...
0
Mchasewalker writes:

I was saying the Bible as an artifact is historic (i.e. pertinent to history) and that by following the chronology of the JEDP texts from ca 1,200 - 900 BCE to the time they were compiled by the Babylonian scribe Ezra in 400 BCE and proclaimed by the Persian Emperor Artaxerxes as The (first and only) Book of the Law of the Jewish People,  we can glean much about the psychology, beliefs, and culture of the emerging Jewish people even though the various books of the Ta'anakh were clearly adapted and borrowed from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, Arab, and Assyrian religious cultures. 

I was focused mainly on the Torah and not the NT as you are. Furthermore, what is deeply pertinent to history is that most of the religious elements, events, characters, and symbols of Genesis can clearly be traced back to Ancient Sumeria and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The events of Moses and The Exodus are entirely adapted from King Sargon and the Babylonian Lawgiver Hammurabi with some allusions to the Greek God Museus. ( See Stephen Herbert Langdon's Sumerian Mythology: The Myths of Races).

As for the Gospels it is clear that they, too, were adapted by Greek theologians and hired scribes from earlier Jewish Soteriological mysteries with the intent of writing the previously celestial character of Jesus/Isho into  history. While the Gospel events are religious aretalogy, they did use actual characters and locations ( mostly  inaccurately) to further their authors' commissions to surround the mythical Jesus with historical detail.

 

posted on Thursday, Mar 14, 2024 01:41:54 PM