Swallowing the red herring?

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."

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 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