"Evolution is something that you do."

[Piscivore]

Thanks for clarifying your position. So, if someone professes the inerrancy of the Bible, and is shown examples where the Bible is in conflict with factual knowledge, or in contradiction with itself, and they still maintain that the Bible is inerrant, you would consider that delusional?

Of course.

I understand your point about generalization, but those two statements are qualitatively very different. "Christians are delusional" asserts a general claim which may or may not be defensible. My statement, however, was prefaced with the clause "to me", viz.: "To me, an adult believing in magic has stepped a bit beyond merely 'incorrect'." In full context, that is merely a statement of opinion. My opinion may possibly be demonstrated to be factually incorrect, but that doesn't necessarily make it a logical fallacy.

Fair enough. Still, doesn't that seem to be the default position for humans? We have to learn logic, science and skepticism. Making stuff up and believing it comes naturally, even to children.

Technically, that is true. However, you seem to be pushing that argument perilously close to a claim that all generalizations are meaningless. They are not. A careful speaker would, of course, carefully qualify any statement which might be questionable in that regard.

I did: "no valid conclusions can be drawn about any particular Christian based on this [generalisation]."

If I've seen 500 cats in my life, and all of them have beem black, it would be a false generalization for me to state "All cats are black." But it would not be false for me to state, "to me, all cats are black," because to me, at that point in time, they are.

Right, and that just makes you incorrect, not delusional.

You see? If my statement re "magic" were a generalization, than this statement of yours would be one as well. On what do you base the contention that "most" believers have never been taught logic and reason?

Fortunately, since you preface the statement with "my contention," I can assume that you are not trying to make a false generalization, but simply expressing an opinion based on whatever data you have personally encountered. Then we can move on to the question of whether your evidence for that contention is any better than my evidence for the contention that adults who believe in magic might be exhibiting something more than simple incorrectness.

And your contention may well be true -- I lean toward thinking that it is -- but that's neither here nor there as far as identifying whether it constitutes a logical fallacy.

My contention is that there is a sufficient quantity and variety of evidence showing that magic does not work, as to be available and accessible to the vast majority of people (in the culture I inhabit, at least), regardless of their level of formal training in logic and reason.

Is this the same culture that includes Sylvia Browne and a thousand other psychics, "The Secret", daily horoscopes, "If you believe, you will acheive", and Wicca? Confirmation Bias and Wishful Thinking are pervasive and very powerful, even in our "scientific" culture.

A generalization is not the same thing as an absolute claim. If most -- or even "many" -- Christians appear to manifest a particular quality, it is not strictly wrong to say that "Christians [manifest whatever]," so long as one hasn't said "all Christians [manifest whatever]." It would probably be more productive to quibble over "how many is 'many'", in that case.

Because of the demonstrable widespread and highly divergent variation in doctrine and dogma among Christians, it is safe to say enough probably don't share common qualities to make any conclusion that comes after "Christians [manifest whatever]" suspect at best, and completely useless as anything but emotional appeal.

Thus, the assertion "Christians in general insinuate that atheists are missing something due to not having the bible to back their positions" is so very likely to be untrue of any particular Christian it is meaningless. And beyond that, it is entirely irrelevant to the (un)factuality of the hypothetical Christian's assertion "That [atheists] are essentially picking and choosing our morals at random."

That's why sadhatter's argument is flawed, and that's all I'm saying.

 

[Dr H]

Fair enough. Still, doesn't that seem to be the default position for humans? We have to learn logic, science and skepticism. Making stuff up and believing it comes naturally, even to children.

I see your point. I would note, however, that making logical connections also seems to come naturally. Wild flights of fancy for primarily entertainment purposes aside, even when someone invents a magical rationale for something, they are usually making an attempt to formulate some sort of causal connection, for purposes of explaining something which they feel needs to be explained. That seems to be fundamental to the way the human mind works.

"Logic" is taking that natural propensity and codifying it into a formal system; doing so enhances replicability, and I would agree that for most people that is something that has to be learned. But the propensity for making such connections doesn't seem to be a product of learning; it seems to be a result of the way our brains are wired.

I did: "no valid conclusions can be drawn about any particular Christian based on this [generalisation]."

I see that you did. I must have de-emphisized that word "particular" when I read your statement. Sorry.

Is this the same culture that includes Sylvia Browne and a thousand other psychics, "The Secret", daily horoscopes, "If you believe, you will acheive", and Wicca? Confirmation Bias and Wishful Thinking are pervasive and very powerful, even in our "scientific" culture.

True.

But I consider wishful thinking which is taken to somehow define reality to be a form of delusion.

IOW, it's one thing to want to believe that the wonderful things predicted for me in my daily horoscope will come true. It's quite another thing to actually believe that my daily horoscope is giving me true information about what will actually happen to me during the day.

Because of the demonstrable widespread and highly divergent variation in doctrine and dogma among Christians, it is safe to say enough probably don't share common qualities to make any conclusion that comes after "Christians [manifest whatever]" suspect at best, and completely useless as anything but emotional appeal.

Yes, but that too is a generalization -- a whole lot of Christians do share a whole lot of common qualities. If they did not, there would be no rational justification for lumping them together under a single label "Christian." Every label is a form of generalization.

My point is that generalizations are not always fallacious. Provided that their scope is sufficiently limited for the context at hand they can, in fact, be quite useful.

You seemed to be implying that they were always fallacious. If I misread you, and all you were pointing out is that generalizations asserted as universal -- in this case, as stereotypes -- are usually invalid, then with that I agree, and I appologize for any misunderstanding.

Thus, the assertion "Christians in general insinuate that atheists are missing something due to not having the bible to back their positions" is so very likely to be untrue of any particular Christian it is meaningless. And beyond that, it is entirely irrelevant to the (un)factuality of the hypothetical Christian's assertion "That [atheists] are essentially picking and choosing our morals at random."

That's why sadhatter's argument is flawed, and that's all I'm saying.

Understood.