A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

Jar,
You seem to be saying that you would believe a Christian could be a scientist and honest as long as he admitted he was self-deluded, is that right? How can an admittedly self-deluded person be considered honest?Under the standard cosmology of the big bang, the universe cannot have had a natural cause because the universe did not exist to cause itself. The theory of evolution is not the only model to explain the diversity of life we see. In fact, neo-Darwinism is crumbling due to genetics (but I am giving away a future thread).Back to the subject at hand, logic and logical fallacies.

That was certainly a substantive comment. I do not remember seeing anything like that in the previous thread. Perhaps it was there and I just missed it.I am in the middle of something at the moment but I do want to research some of your claims a little more closely.In the meantime, here is another quote for you attributed to Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics:"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.What do you think of this quote? Is it accurate and honest?

Thank you for providing another fine example of the logical fallacy known as the ad hominem attack.

They don't use exactly those words. See Jar's comment in Message 120 on this thread for the most recent example.

If we were talking about one scientist, it would be an appeal to authority. Because we are talking about many scientists (again, i recommend Jastrow's book to you), it is an appeal to the history of science.I haven't read anything by Tipler, so I just wanted to know if there was anything controversial about this quote. Thanks.

I want to thank you again for a substantive comment that made me research and learn. We still have disagreements, but I also see that you have some reasonable evidence to consider. Arthur Eddington — First, thank you for making me read more about this interesting man. It is true he was raised a Quaker. This is new information for me. I have found comments online describing him both as a lifelong Quaker and an atheist. Obviously, these cannot both be true. It is not unknown for someone raised in a religious home to turn their back on that religion. In the same way, it is not unknown for such a person to return to the faith he learned at home later in life. Pacifist tendencies can be held by atheists, so his actions during WWI are no help to us. However, by the time Eddington published The Nature of the Physical World he seems to be a Quaker (again?). So was Eddington a life-long Quaker or a prodigal who returned to the Quaker fold? At this point, I am uncertain but will no longer use the quote in the same way as I had used it before unless or until this issue is resolved. Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Allan Sandage — This is a man who underwent a conversion experience so you have to be careful with your quotes. The date of the quote becomes very important. Was he speaking before his conversion or after it? Sandage was born in 1926 and converted to Christianity at age 50, so about 1976. We don’t know the exact date because Sandage was generally pretty private about his conversion experience. He once told a reporter that the scientific community is so scornful of faith that there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe. However, Sandage did take part in a 1985 conference on science and religion. It is described in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator on pages 69-70. Strobel writes: The Big Bang, he told the rapt audience, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science has taken us to the First Event, but it can’t take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. Clearly Sandage was referring to the Big Bang when he mentioned the mystery of existence to a reporter: "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science," he says. "It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." See http://www.washingtonpost.com/...nce_of_god/scienceofgod.htm Sandage did find confirmation of God’s existence in other scientific disciplines, but according to his own words it was his science as a cosmologist and the mystery of existence which drove him to the supernatural. Robert Jastrow and his book God and the Astronomers. You seem to think Jastrow was the only scientist who had his worldview changed by the big bang. Not true. Please read his book. I gave my copy away so I don’t have it in front of me and cannot pull out some of the other names he mentions or quote directly from the book. Jastrow was not the only astronomer or cosmologist who was shocked and swayed by the discovery of CMB radiation. This was an important episode in the history of science.Again, thank you for challenging my views with some real evidence. The only quote which I cannot use in the same way (at the moment) is the Eddington quote. The other quotes have stood up to your challenge.

You ask if the source describing Eddington as an atheist might be creationist. Yes, but that doesn't mean the source is wrong. In a discussion of logical fallacies, the issue is whether the quotes represent the logical fallacy known as quoting out of context or quote-mining. A quote is out of its historical context if it is credited to a person described as an atheist but who in reality is a theist. In such a case the quote is both out of context and wrong. We have discussed the argument from authority quite a bit. In my opinion, this is different. This is not an argument from one authority but from a number of scientists who have reached this decision independently. I prefer to call it an argument from the history of science. Such an argument only has weight as supplementary evidence and supports the point that it is reasonable to see the big bang as analogous to the biblical account of creation in Genesis as many of these scientists have done. The evidence is not limited to mathematical calculations, which can only take us back as far as the singularity. The math breaks down when it hits infinity. The rest of the evidence is in the form of logic and has been presented in the previous thread "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God."Edited by designtheorist, : typo!

Yes, but you completely miss the point. I have no problem with models and learning from what if scenarios. The problem is in thinking the models are equivalent to reality. When modelers describe their computer runs as "experiments," then you know they have lost it. Experiments are only done in nature or the laboratory. You cannot call a computer run an experiment. First, I have explained how I see that as an example of reification. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. Second, I saw very little in the way of an investigation at all. In my summary of the last threat, I mentioned the things I learned from the debate. How many things did you learn? In this thread, Granny Magda made a substantive comment here which I have responded to. I will not be using one quote in the same way until a point raised has been settled. And you have raised a point on this thread which I have granted. Have I made minor mistakes? Yes, but the overall thrust of the previous thread holds up. And this thread is progressing nicely.

Dr. Adequate,
You are not quoting Tipler and you do not identify who you are quoting. Perhaps you are trying to avoid the appeal to authority? (Sorry, I just have to laugh at how ridiculous some of the claims here about appeal to authority. A quote is meaningless unless we know who said it and something about the person's background.)I really don't know anything about Tipler. I have not read his book. I have only read reviews and not all of them were favorable.

Attacking intent is a personal attack. In doing it, you are claiming to see my motives and you can tell my motives are different from my stated motives. This is a personal attack on me and my ethics.In Message #123 you write: Here you attack my intelligence (my "inability to debate scientifically" - by which I think you mean my ability to debate science). Then you claim my motivation for this thread is to excuse my "blatant fallacies" rather than my stated goal of improving the level of discourse here.If I was trying to hide from logical fallacies or bad logic, I would have not have started this thread. If you will note, I have been quoting from sources (yes, that darn appeal to authority again!) about the definitions of these fallacies.You are most welcome to debate me on the substance, Larni. If you don't like a definition or example of a logical fallacy, then provide another source you think is better. But your constant personal attacks are not furthering the discussion.

You wrote a long comment but very little substance. I will address your statement here: Who would you turn to for information about the early moments of the big bang? A Nobel Prize winner in physics or someone who had visited a library? If you have a problem with a particular quote I cited, show evidence why the quote was out of context or the speaker was in error. If you have nothing, say nothing.Your question "to what degree have you noticed the Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who write these books themselves engage in what you continue to do to the degree which you do it?" confuses me. Are you talking about quoting other experts? If so, everyone quotes other experts, even experts. However, experts will quote less often because they ARE the experts. I am not a mathematical physicist. Tell me, why are you so determined not to learn from the experts? Lots of people pay lots of money to go to college and learn from these guys. Why do you seem to think they should not be quoted?

Perhaps this is true, perhaps not. Holding dogmatically to a belief so that when confronted with information contrary to the belief causes one to not think straight - well, that is problem. Perhaps logical fallacy is not the right term. Perhaps it should be called a logical roadblock.Whatever it is called, it happens here way too often.

The Durbin quote you cite conflicts with Sandage's own description of his conversion. I have to side with Sandage over Durbin.You claim that Sandage contradicts himself and therefore his views are valueless, but this muddleheaded thinking. By such reasoning every convert to Christianity or any other religion or nonreligion would be written off as worthless.Sandage converted to Christianity. In his own words, his own science played a key role in his conversion. Speaking as a cosmologist he says "It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." He is most definitely referring to the big bang.
My quote of Sandage accurately reflects the historically context and is valid.

I finally read through the Durbin paper and found this: Perhaps this will help you. In 1974, Sandage (according to Durbin) came to a central realization about the big bang. It happened once and only once. His conversion to Christianity happened within two years of this realization. Do you see the connection now? Conversion sometimes take a little time. I am surprised it only took two years.Regarding the 1985 conference Durbin writes:
"Sandage observed that the notion of a one-shot universe comes close to saying that this universe was created. It is unique. His tone, again, was both cautious and matter-of-fact -- as if he would like to avoid announcing the implications, but has no choice in the matter. Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural event. There is no way to predict this in physics as we know it. It is truly supernatural, that is, outside our understanding of the natural order of things, and by this definition a miracle (Durbin 1985)."Again, he is talking about the big bang and the fact it only happened once. Sandage says it is the work of the supernatural. There can be no question that the big bang played a central role in Sandage's conversion experience. It started him down the journey.Durbin again "Sandage asserts that the scientist cannot, thereby, affirm religious belief. Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator, he said in a published interview that same year." There is nothing odd about Sandage's statement. Knowledge of the creation does not tell you much about the creator or designer. In the previous thread I showed that logic tells us the designer/creator has to be immaterial and timeless. But that is all it tells us, certainly not enough to form any type of religious conviction or conversion.Durbin does not discuss the fact Sandage was ethnically Jewish. Why doesn't he mention that? Why doesn't he discuss how difficult it is for a Jewish person to convert to Christianity and turn from his family?Durbin does not discuss the fact Sandage described himself as a "practicing atheist" or "practical atheist" or words to that effect? Why not?Durbin appears to have an agenda. He wants to present one view of Sandage's conversion apart from all of the other facts.Durbin does quote Sandage liberally from an unpublished interview he did with him in 1990: I don’t think you’ll find God unless you seek God; and for me seeking God involved the question of why rather than simply how, what and when, which is all that science is about (Sandage 1990)." This is an important quote. Sandage would not have been forced to ask "why" had the big bang not already provided the how, what and when.Durbin also quotes Sandage saying the laws of physics themselves are mysteries (Sandage 1990). This quote and similar quotes by other scientists deserve their own thread.It is clear I used the Sandage quotes in their proper historical context. I now consider the matter closed. It is time to return to the issue of this thread - logical fallacies.

This is another bald and unsupported assertion. Granny Magda is the only one, as far as I know, to have provided any evidence that a quote was out of historical context. I missed it in the first thread, but have responded in depth here. In one case, it appears Granny Magda may be correct. In another, I stand my ground. We may have to agree to disagree on the issue but it seems very clear to me that the big bang played a central role in the conversion of Allan Sandage.I have seen zero evidence from you.