Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
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.
|
The only violation of logic that I see here is in your reasoning. Your conclusion doesn't follow the premises, which is a Non Sequitur Fallacy. "On the other hand, few if any people living on earth likely believe that the spaghetti monster has created much of anything." This is a Appeal To Common Belief Fallacy. Whether many people believe in the Spaghetti Monster, God or not has no barring on its logical accuracy. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is an analogy used to show certain logical fallacies committed by some religious groups. #3 is Poisoning The Well Fallacy, and Ad Hominem Abusive fallacies. |
answered on Sunday, Mar 29, 2020 11:14:24 AM by Jason Mathias | |
Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Not a False Equivalence nor an Appeal to Extremes on Dawkins' part since "God" and the FSM both exist as non falsifiable premises, therefore both have equal weight to either exist or not. |
|||||||||
answered on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 12:58:30 AM by Scott A. Shepler | ||||||||||
Scott A. Shepler Suggested These Categories |
||||||||||
Comments |
||||||||||
|
|
There can be no illogicality here because The Flying Spaghetti Monster is itself a god: the god of the Pastafarians, whose deeply held beliefs must be treated with respect and sensitivity. The FSM is not to be compared to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which atheists claim can substitute the word "God" in any context and make as much sense, eg "I swear by almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn" or "So help me Invisible Pink Unicorn."
|
||||||||||||||
answered on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 08:58:34 PM by Kenny | |||||||||||||||
Kenny Suggested These Categories |
|||||||||||||||
Comments |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
This would be the simplest possible definition, which very few people subscribe. My searches of "God" resulted in far more detailed definitions that align with Christianity. For example, the source you referenced (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god) has a primary definition of the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe.
This is an analogy. What you are doing are choosing ways in which God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are different; analogies look at the similarities between two things. One can compare apples and oranges, in that they alike because they are both fruits. Dawkins, and many other philosophers, use the FMS to compare to the Christian God that comes with a laundry list of supposed properties that are unfalsifiable and have no evidence... just like the noodly appendages of the FSM. In short, if you Strawman Fallacy one's analogy, you are the one committing a fallacy. If you have any evidence of Dawkins or anyone saying something similar to "a creator of the universe is just as outrageous to believe in as the FSM" then they would be guilty of a Weak Analogy . |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
answered on Monday, Feb 10, 2020 04:53:33 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|