Argument Wrap-Up, Religion Intro.

Just wanted to touch on a couple of the points Ramsey made yesterday. He was discussing common falacies in philosophical argument. Among those fallacies, as I pointed out in at least one of the discussion sections, is a misuse of the modus ponens or modus tollens argument form. If our first premise is a conditional (an "if-then" statement) and the second premise confirms the "then" part (the consequent, if you want to get technical), we cannot deduce anything from the argument. Likewise, if the second premise denies the "if" part (the antecedent), then we cannot deduce anything. Watch out for those two.

Probably the most common fallacy you will run across is begging the question. This occurs in an argument when the conclusion that is to be established is essentially stated as one of the argument's premises. Probably the simplest example of begging the question would be something like the following:

       Nemo is a fish.
       Nemo is a fish.

Note that this argument is perfectly valid [why?]. And if the premise is true, the argument is sound as well. But it still is not considered a good argument. The whole purpose of deductive argument is to use established facts to extend our knowledge to an entirely new conclusion. When we include the conclusion in the premises of our arguments, we are not using the argumentative structure as it was intended. And at the very least, our argument will be completely discounted by anyone who doesn't already agree with us.

(Note also that the phrase "that begs the question..." is often used in everyday language to mean something else. Like, when Notre Dame beats Georgia Tech this weekend, a Notre Dame hater might say, "Well that begs the question of whether Tech is any good or not." No, it doesn't. The next time a friend says this to you, you can respond by saying, "Actually, begging the question has a specific meaning regarding the structure of philosophical argument. What you mean to say is that ND's victory prompts the question of whether or not Tech is any good. Be more careful with your language next time." Your friend will look at you like you're an idiot, but you'll know better...)


On to religion. The first thing to keep in mind during this section of the course is that religious questions have real answers. "Is there a God?" The answer is either yes or no. "God exists for me, but not for you" is a copout, and is probably incoherent. "Was Mohammed a prophet?" He either was or he wasn't. Agreeing to disagree is fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean that one of you isn't wrong.

The second point to consider is the importance of arguing for particular religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with scruitinizing religious beliefs. Since we're talking about actual facts about the world (as opposed to subjective feelings), all the tools of argument are at our disposal. Moreover, philosophical argument has been part and parcel of most religious traditions for a very long time. By taking part in that tradition, hopefully we can come to a better understanding of where some aspects of our own religious faiths come from.

(Now, whether or not the arguments we encounter are completely convincing, or whether it's even possible to establish religious claims through a priori argument, is another question altogether. Hmm....)

On to St. Anselm.