Does Ken Ham commit logical fallacies?

More Answers in Genesis newsletter fun! Today, we are posed with the question, "Does Ken Ham commit logical fallacies?" And the answer is, "of course he does!" But we already knew that. We've known it for a long time. We've always known it about all modern creationists. Here's the quote in question.

. . . in Ken Ham's lectures I question some of his logic. . . . Ken says,

"If there was a global flood, we would expect to find dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth, and we do find dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. The evidence is crying out to us that there was a global flood."

. . . doesn't Ken's reasoning represent examples of the logical fallacies: affirming the consequent and reification?

Sometimes it's easier save your breath when fighting a losing battle and simply start moving the goalposts.

It is important to consider the fact that Ken Ham was not debating but lecturing.

Ooooooh, got it. It's ok to commit logical fallacies if you're lecturing. I mean, we wouldn't want those pastors to lose their jobs either!

When lecturing, people tend to use various methods of communication to get their points across and make the audience think about what is being said.

Various methods like logical fallacies, obviously.

In an official debate, the debaters make formal statements, but in a lecture-type setting, we can expect communication devices like rhetorical questions, allegories, and even reification.

And affirming the consequent. And appeals to authority. And appeals to popularity. And on, and on.

The key item we need to recognize when applying these logical fallacies in the real world is that they are mainly applied in formal debates and formal writing. Moreover, if we applied these fallacies like reification to everyday language, we would see people making many “logical fallacies,” and communication would become boring and dull.

It's funny how you focus so much on reification in place of the more glaring affirming the consequent Instead of simply waving away the logical fallacies espoused, perhaps you could actually put forth evidence for things like a global flood. Explain how creationism predicts finding animals at specific rock layers that correspond to ages of the earth that coincidentally match stages in evolutionary development. Explain how your global flood hypothesis is immune to geochemistry, paleontology, or geochronology. Explain where all the water came from and where it went, because you haven't done one of these things yet.

Nonetheless, we should still avoid allegorical or poetic language when making concluding statements about debatable topics—just to make sure we are clearly explaining our point.

Tell that to your god.

Some Common Misconceptions About Atheists

Because I often have conversations with Christians who either explicitly or implicitly accuse me of believing something or holding some position that I don't, I'd like to say a few brief words. I mean, the words themselves will be brief. I make no claims about the length of my blog post itself. (Though if I can legitimately work pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis into a relevant paragraph, I probably deserve to violate my previous statements.)

1. "Atheists have no morals"

I hear this the most often so it gets the first spot. So I feel like I've definitely already addressed this in previous posts, but I'll reiterate the major point here. I can't speak for all atheists, but the majority of them, like myself, still agree that the concepts of right and wrong are important and relevant without the concept of a god. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was around long before Jesus and will continue to be applicable long into the foreseeable future. We humans are empathetic creatures and we know what it feels like for others to be hurt, sad, sick, happy, and healthy. We realize that we have largely the same goals and that none of us can be the best we can be without other people in our lives. I find murder morally wrong because I value human life and the right to a person to his or her own. I find stealing to be wrong because I value ownership and the right of a person to be secure in his home and property. And I don't find homosexuality wrong because it involves two consentual people and doesn't hurt anyone outside the relationship in any kind meaningful way (outside the "I'm offended!" crowd).

2. "It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a <religion>ist"

Atheism is really a lack of faith in a god or gods. I don't have faith that Yahweh doesn't exist any more than you have faith that Zeus doesn't. Our explanations of the world around us work perfectly well without the need to invoke a supernatural deity pulling the strings of the universe behind our backs. They also don't require beliefs in demonstrably false claims such as "the universe is <6000 years old" and "all modern languages were created at the tower of Babel." This claim is most likely just an attempt to make it seem like the statements "my god exists" and "your god doesn't exist" are on equal footing because they both require faith. Sorry, but to posit the existence of a deity, you need evidence. I don't need to provide you evidence of the non-existence of leprechauns to justify my non-belief; you must show me why they do. (See: null hypothesis)

3. "If you would just read the Bible/Koran, you would know the truth."

Many of us have read these books and find them to be disturbingly void of morals and evidence for their extraordinary claims. I've heard it said by some that "the quickest way to atheism is to read a bible." While I wouldn't say it leads to atheism itself, it is true that if one starts from the beginning and critically reads with an open mind, there's a slim chance that they'll suddenly convert. It would probably lead them to the opposite conclusion: that their god is mentally challenged, did a particularly poor job of planning ahead, or is losing a bet and needs to step up his game. In any case, I have like five physical bibles laying around and three more electronic searchable ones and I'm not a Christian.

4. "Atheists are angry at God"

This would mean that we actually believe in him but just don't like the guy. Many of us dislike the character portrayed in the bible but realize we don't actually hate a real thing. Would you accuse someone who gets angry at Darth Vader while watching Star Wars of actually being angry at a real Vader? Please.

5. "Atheists worship the devil"

Um, no. The devil doesn't exist either. Most satanists don't even worship the devil. Although to be fair, he does seem like a nicer guy than Yahweh.

6. "Some tyrannical dictators in the past were atheists and therefore you're both bad people."

Depends who you're talking about. While it's true that some genocidal maniacs were atheists, many were also religious. Even Hitler. I mean, take a look at this quote:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

I'm not saying he was a "true Christian" (often as that phrase is thrown around), but combining this with other quotes, it's pretty clear that he believed in some concept of a god. And I can condone his actions no more as a theist than atheist. However, it would be extremely difficult to say that the non-belief in god was the cause of their actions. And even if it was, it would have no bearing on whether a deity exists or whether any other atheist is immoral.

7. "Atheists think life is meaningless"

Imagine you walk up to a stand at a carnival and ask for an ice cream. It's the middle of July in Texas, 103° in the shade, and you've been walking around all day. The pudgy man behind the booth hands you your double-dip and tells you that this is the last ice cream cone in the world. Would your response be one of disgust, causing you to throw your cone on the ground and storm away? Or would you eat it all the more slowly, savoring every lick? My response is the latter in the context of my only life in this world. I only get one. Why waste it? That's why it is meaningful. No second chances or eternal life once I'm dead. I should make the most of what I have before it's over. Atheism does not inevitably lead one to nihilism, regardless of what your church leaders may have told you. I know plenty of non-believers and not a single person who thinks their life is fully devoid of meaning.

8. "Atheists claim that no god exists"

Close. We only lack a belief. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that a god doesn't exist. We're just pretty sure he doesn't. (To be fair, some actually do take the hard-line position and are called "strong atheists," but I'm not one of them nor do they represent all of us.) Like the aforementioned leprechauns, I can't disprove their existence or any gods'. I am, however, justified in non-belief until positive evidence has been brought forth.

9. "Atheists wouldn't believe even if verifiable proof was shown to them."

Again, I can't speak for all atheists, but that's not true for me. I'm open to the idea that one could exist and I would publicly acknowledge it if the time ever came. That does not mean, however, that I would worship it. Any being that asks for or requires worship probably doesn't deserve it in the first place. I would judge that deity on its own merits, in the same way I judge other people. Probably more harshly if it is wiser or more knowledgeable than us.

10. "Atheists eat babies."

Aw, come on now, that's just wrong.

Proof of the existence of Santa Claus!

In the merry spirit of Christmas, I hereby provide you multiple irrefutable proofs of Santa's existence. Now it just seems so obvious! (Courtesy of Richard Carrier.)

The Santalogical Argument

1. Santa Claus is by definition the greatest gift giver conceivable.
2. An actual gift giver is by definition greater than an imaginary gift giver.
3. If an actual gift giver is greater than an imaginary one, then the greatest gift giver must be an actual one and not imaginary.
4. But (per premise 1) no gift giver can be conceptually greater than Santa Claus.
   
5. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

The Christmasological Argument

1. Either the universe had a beginning or has always existed.
2. Both science and logic entail the universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a beginning.
4. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
5. Therefore the universe had a cause.
6. Every cause must be either personal or mechanical.
7. But every mechanical cause is by definition a part of the universe, and therefore no mechanical cause can have preceded the universe to cause it.
8. Therefore the universe must have had a personal cause.
9. Creating the universe is the greatest gift conceivable.
10. The greatest gift conceivable can only have been given by the greatest gift giver conceivable.
11. Santa Claus is by definition the greatest gift giver conceivable.
12. Therefore, Santa Claus caused the universe to exist.
13. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

The Fine Gifting Argument

1. The laws and constants of the universe are finely tuned to require the installation of vents, chimneys, and shafts in all households in which people live (due to the laws of thermodynamics and chemical respiration).
2. It is extraordinarily improbable that those laws and constants would be arranged in precisely the way that would require exactly what Santa Claus needs to enter our homes and deliver His gifts or coals.
3. It is very probable that if Santa Claus arranged the laws and constants of the universe that He would arrange them in exactly that way, which (lo and behold) is the way they actually are.
4. Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus arranged the laws and constants of the universe than that random chance did.
5. Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus exists.
6. Therefore Santa Claus exists.

Argument from Christmas Miracles

1. Miraculous events have been documented to occur at and around Christmas (by multiple eyewitnesses and even mechanical recording devices that never lie, like TV cameras).
2. It is extraordinarily improbable that those miracles occur just by chance.
3. It is very probable that they would occur if Santa Claus caused them.
4. Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus caused them than that random chance did.
5. Therefore it is very probable that Santa Claus exists.
6. Therefore Santa Claus exists.

Hopefully, if you are familiar with theistic arguments you will understand the humor in the above proofs. Have a Merry Christmas and, don't forget, Santa Claus loves you!

God on Trial: The Verdict

Contradictions in the Bible

I came across this graph of biblical contradictions as I was browsing the internets the other day and though this was interesting enough to share. It's an enormous image plotting a large number of Biblical contradictions (439) with multiple sources for each specific instance. It might not be the best reference in practicality, but it does look pretty cool. Cool enough to make a wall poster, perhaps? It was made by The Reason Project, created by Sam Harris and his wife, of whom I am big fans.

It's pretty astounding that there are still so many people who deny that there are any contradictions in the Bible at all - as if it were some perfectly consistent book that people have continuously tried to poke holes in but somehow never could. To anyone who has actually done research on it, they know the fundamentalist claim is a bunch of crap, but for people who don't know or would just rather believe otherwise, it's a relatively easy claim to make. You don't really have to know anything about what's in the bible or have fully read it, and in the event that a good, sound contradiction is proposed, it can usually be dismissed by a wave of the hand to the tone of, "you're taking it out of context," "you don't understand the full meaning of the passage," or, my favorite, "God works in mysterious ways."

I think the real answer is obvious - it's a collection of writings made by many different men over a long period of time. Most 120-minute long movies don't go without some kind of plot holes; why should we expect any differently from a 788,258 word mega-book? I doubt that the document I have linked above is even an exhaustive list, but it's certainly a good starting point and enough to chew on for those who may think that the bible is the infallible and inerrant word of an all-knowing god.

To be fair, I certainly haven't checked all of these myself (though I did look up a few I wasn't familiar with) and I grant that not all of these may even be contradictions. Some may simply be legitimate misunderstandings or translation issues. However, that begs the question: is a book so poorly written as to be interpreted differently by almost every Christian indicative of the work of an all-powerful god? If so, I think I could do him one better, and if not, why give him the omni-attributes in the first place? Something to think about.

Is God Selfish and Vindictive?

There aren't many people I can count on more to dodge questions or commit fallacies than Answers in Genesis. Their most recent newsletter asks this title question and their full article does little to answer it. They first quote Richard Dawkins as saying,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I agree with pretty much all of this statement. But instead of trying to refute each (or any) of these statements, they merely shift the subject like so:

Since Dawkins is so adamant in his atheism, perhaps he could explain why any of these things are wrong from an evolutionary point of view. After all, if his philosophical naturalistic beliefs are correct, then there is no such thing as right or wrong. Hence, there would be nothing bad about any of these attributes he assigns to the God of the Bible. Only the Bible provides the basis for morality, so it is hypocritical and illogical for Dawkins or other atheists to appeal to morality while attacking Scripture.

First, why does morality have to have anything to do with evolution? Why is there no such thing as right and wrong if there's no god? Why can only a god can provide a basis for morality? None of these questions are answered - just assumed to be true in the text. I don't want to go into too much detail about morality here because I've already done so somewhat before and probably will again soon. Suffice to say that judging God by common morality (agreed upon by pretty much all civilized societies), Yahweh is one of the most evil people in all of fiction for the reasons Dawkins describes. Even if it were true that somehow, we could never discern right and wrong without appealing to a higher power defined as good, Yahweh does not pass his own moral test. One cannot exclaim killing/murder (depending on what translation you read) to be wrong and command genocide. But more on that later.

First, since God is the Creator of all things, He gets to set the rules.

Be a little more clear. It would be true, in some sense, that he sets the rules in what we are and are not capable of, physically and mentally. But he has no power over morality in that he cannot simply define good as being "like his nature" any more than any other god could. Christians, if you found out one day that your God had been defeated by a more powerful super-God that Yahweh forgot to mention and he declared that, because he is in power, it is morally required to kill every one of your family members and drink their blood, would you consider that "good"? After all, the one with the biggest stick makes the rules! What... you don't agree? The obviously you don't consider the ruler to be the definition of morality - you just attribute it to him because you perhaps cannot think of any other reason we should be good or have any definition of morality without him. And that is unfortunate, but doesn't make it true.

Second, God is perfectly just and must judge sin.

How do you know he is just? Surely you must just be taking his word. Because if I told you that I sent everyone who didn't like me into the torture chamber to be beaten and burned until they die - simply for the fact they didn't accept me for who I was - you'd call me anything but just.

Third, all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and deserve death (Romans 6:23). The fact that God allows us to live at all demonstrates His mercy.

Right, because allowing us to live is so merciful, considering that there are all kinds of other merciful things that he could be doing, like: developing a cure for cancer, eradicating AIDS, solving world hunger, getting rid of Satan once and for all, or making Justin Beiber's voice finally change. The only person who thinks we should all die because we've done at least one wrong thing (or been born with a 'sin nature') is God, and it's already obvious to me and most other clear thinkers that he's not that just to begin with.

With that in mind, is it fair to call God selfish, demanding, and vindictive? Absolutely not! God created a perfect world and gave man dominion over it.

There's no way God created a perfect world. A perfect world, by definition, could never become imperfect. Obviously this world is less than perfect and that's a reflection on the thing who made it, if such a maker exists. You don't blame the plumber for faulty pipe manufacturing. And dominion? Explain T. rexes, grizzlies, and mountains.

If there were no eternal consequences for sin, then people would know they could act however they wanted, and the world would become even worse.

People always can act however they want. That isn't the point. The argument being made here is that if there is no eternal punishment, anyone can and should do whatever they want (terrible, evil, selfish things - I infer that this is what most Christians would do upon learning God doesn't exist). Compelling argument. You should try it sometime and tell me what your friends, family, neighbors, the cops, and the media think about your mental state.

God’s laws are not overbearing, but were given to protect us from others and from ourselves.

That's exactly what I think when I remember that the penalty for a child's disobedience to his parents was stoning. It's a shame that we aren't still practicing this today!

In the book of Joshua, God commands the Israelites to conquer several cities throughout the Promised Land and to kill every person in some of these towns. How can anyone possibly think of God as loving in light of these commands?

Please, do tell.

Approximately 400 years before these battles, God had given the land to Abraham and his descendants (through Isaac and Jacob). However, God also told Abraham that his descendants would serve the Egyptians for 400 years before taking possession of the land. The reason for this delay is that “the iniquity (sin) of the Amorites [was] not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). God graciously gave the people dwelling in the Promised Land 400 years to turn from their sinful ways. When they did not, He used the Israelites as an instrument of judgment.

Oh, ok. God promised the Israelites land that was already occupied because instead of just giving them an easy passageway to a land uninhabited, he thought it would be more fun to have them fight and kill their way through men, women, children and babies. Make no mistake, they had 400 years to change their ways. But they didn't, and the best, most humane, and most enlightened way to deal with it was to slaughter everyone. Sounds very Christian of them.

Second, in many of these battles, the people were commanded to first make an offer of peace (Deuteronomy 20:10–12). It is only in the cases where the people of the land were exceedingly wicked that the Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy them (Deuteronomy 20:16–18).

Does it really make sense that every nation they come up against to conquer would want to make peace with them, especially when the Israelites are instructed to keep those people as slaves if they agree? What would you do if some Muslim extremists came over here and told us to fight them or become slaves? I feel like I shouldn't even have to spell these things out. No, any nation with an army capable of fighting and enough brains to realize what slavery is would immediately reject such an offer. And in most cases, God instructs his people to wipe out everything that lived in the land. This includes all innocent beings like children and babies, not to mention innocent non-children. Some Christians/Jews will object and say, "There is no one innocent!" or "God has the right to give the death penalty to whomever he chooses!"

Response to #1: If you think you're just as guilty as anyone in one of those nations, perhaps you should consider killing yourself so that you receive just as much pure justice doled out by God as they did.
Response to #2: Power does not equal right. If it's wrong for Hitler to kill a million Jews, it's wrong for God to kill a million Canaanites/Amalekites/Hittites/Perizzites/Jebusites/Hivites.

However, in every single case, God provided the means of salvation for those who would trust Him.

"Convert or we'll kill you!" - Always a convincing argument.

Science Update

So I've been really busy lately and have spent most of my free time doing other things than blogging. I do, however, still read my weekly Answers In Genesis emails which always prove to be interesting for all the wrong reasons. Their latest comic in the After Eden series is pretty baffling, even for them.

They are apparently insinuating that, if you believe in science, you can't have any firm grasp on reality because it is always changing its mind about the basic way the world works. By the second, apparently. Now if you go to the web page where this picture originated, there is no context, no explanation, and no author's note. It simply exists as-is, leaving the reader to infer as he or she wishes. I'm willing to bet that's because there isn't much to explain about an outright lie.

What exactly have we been taught about the origin of life? Not evolution mind you, because that deals with how life changes after it already exists. We're talking about abiogenesis (the study of how life began), and there is not one perfect scientifically accepted consensus on how everything went down. Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to know how something works until they actually do. Scientists don't claim to know for a fact how it all began and they certainly haven't been switching back and forth on this issue like the comic implies. They do have some good ideas, to be sure, but they don't have the mountains of evidence supporting their case like we have for evolution theory, atomic theory, cell theory, etc.

Believe it or not, it takes a lot of time and evidence for science to accept something as fact. This is actually one of its great strengths - it doesn't change its mind at every different idea that comes along, it waits and takes time to evaluate arguments put forth by different parties and isn't really ever happy until it has a theory that accounts for all of the data and explains why other alternative models are wrong or incomplete. We have a high degree of certainty that science can accurately discover the way the world works because of its rigor and demand for evidence - something creationism can't even attempt to offer.

I'm frankly disgusted by the ignorance put on display here. You'd have to already be some kind of indoctrinated and uneducated to think this is any sort of legitimate scientific weakness and, to top it off, in case by some slim chance I have any AiG staff readers, your comic isn't funny either. Sorry.