Question

...
Bruno

Does the following argument beg the question? :"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
asked on Tuesday, Dec 30, 2014 11:57:51 PM by Bruno

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

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
1

Begging the question is when the conclusion is assumed in the premises. If we do consider this an argument, we can say that "The belief in God is universal" is the conclusion and "after all, everyone believes in God" is the premises. Stated another way that is more recognizable,

"Everyone believes in God, therefore, belief in God is universal."

This would be more of a distinction without a difference<> or a generic form of circular reasoning<>. Outside of a fallacies, it is an unjustified claim and an form of exaggeration . When someone sees any statement like this, they should question the claim being made. The premise should justify the conclusion, not simply restate it. For example,

"All 7+ billion people were surveyed on the planet and they all said they believe in God, therefore, belief in God is universal."

Besides being false, this would be a justified claim free from fallacy. Remember, fallacies are only part of the problem. Passing off a claim as fact without justification is common in argumentation.

On a side note, perhaps the term "universal" can be referring to the every culture believing in some form of a god, not every member necessarily believing in a single "God" figure. If this is what is meant by the initial statement, the statement would be problematically ambiguous and imprecise .

answered on Wednesday, Dec 31, 2014 05:52:38 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments