False Equivalencies

I hear the same old mistakes over and over in this grand conversation, people on both sides repeating debunked fallacies, repeating logical errors. Sometimes insignificant, other times they are the basis of a belief.

The most common though, is from creationists, who start with the presupposition that their holy book is true and try to form their "science" around it. For example, by attempting to disprove natural selection and evolution, the intelligent design movement believes the only other option would then be a deity.

This sets up both a false dichotomy and offers no competing explanation for the workings of nature. The old "God did it" argument from ignorance does no favor to those trying to understand more about the universe. It simply defers the question. So, for the sake of argument if evolution is wrong, how do you explain observable nature?

This is repeated ad infinitum as religious try to cast doubt on physics, cosmology, biology, and just about everything science related. Even the hardened cosmologist will base multiverse hypotheses, and everything they know on doubt and skepticism as they know how often our understanding needs to be adjusted by new evidence coming to light.

Not creationists, who simply keep changing terminology and strategy to reaffirm their beliefs as true, every time someone comes along and shows them why their entire hypothesis was wrong.

The other mistake I feel obligated to mention is idea that if one aspect of their belief is true, then all of it is. If I say that Napoleon Bonaparte was a Chinese princess who conquered Brazil, I can point out that there was a Napoleon Bonaparte and he did conquer something. It does not imply the entire thing is true, however.

Someone will point out that we know for certain there was a King David in history and this demonstrates the Bible is true. OK, and then what?

Getting into this discussion recently, let me be very clear. We can not know if there was a historical Jesus Christ, or if he was simply fictional, based on available evidence. For my opinion, I am convinced there was a historical character, perhaps a wandering rabbi who inspired some of it, but at most. Scholars have a diverse range of beliefs about this, but as for the non believer, the existence is not even an important issue, a red herring.

Even supposing the Jesus figure existed, a believer still needs to demonstrate there were super-human feats performed, or miracles happened, or a virgin gave birth. Even if you could demonstrate those things, it would still not imply Jesus was divine, nor would it demonstrate a god exists.

Let's flip the idea on it's head. Lets pretend there was sufficient evidence for a god. Then I would believe a god existed. It would never even cross my mind at that point that any of the currently existing religions were correct. That would still have to be demonstrated.

So I laugh when I hear theologians argue for the general existence of a creator, and then casually say, 'well, of course I am talking about the christian god!'

Come on, people, let's take this one step at a time, and let's be humble about it, shall we?