Question

...
Dan

Swallowing the red herring?

A friend says apologists Like William LaneCraig have no choice but to use probability calculus and Bayesian theory in defense of human resurrection from the dead because hostile debate opponents are also using science which is also beyond the intellectual grasp of most laypersons (here’s a link to a thorough debunking of Craig’s method brane-space.blogspot.com/. . .

What kind of fallacy is happening when people swallow the red herring?

It seems that this is something different from argument from authority, perhaps not, but the position being argued is that Craig has no choice but to respond with such grand hypotheses. I see this as sophist gibberish.
asked on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2014 10:42:35 AM by Dan

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."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

There are a couple of different issues here we can address: 1) Your friend's assumption and 2) WLC's use of Bayesian theory as a way to defend a alleged miracle. Let's start with #1.

I would question how your friend knows this—unless he prefaced the statement with an opinion qualifier such as "probably." It is possible that WLC admitted to this kind of "sophist gibberish" as you so eloquently put it, but unless he did, his reasoning for using Bayesian theory would be unknown.

If WLC really did admit to saying that, he is basically admitting to an Argument by Gibberish or perhaps the more specific form, argument by prestigious jargon. WLC would be right that much of science that is used to debunk supernatural claims is generally beyond the intellectual grasp of the layperson. This sounds kinda elitist, but it is more likely than not factually accurate based on the scientific literacy of US. The problem with WLC's line of "reasoning" would be that his opponents who use science are using it correctly—his use of it is not.
answered on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2014 11:04:41 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments