Vlad,
And I'm saying that is on the basis of category error of which you, in the context of the board, are the greatest exponent.
Something you think presumably because you’ve never understood the term. Yet again…to be legitimate, an analogy does
not have to be the same in all its particulars –
but only in the particulars that are relevant to the argument.
Let me spell it out here for you veeeeeery slowly:
Pick a logical fallacy. Any logical fallacy. I know, let’s pick one you’ve been using a lot recently – the
argumentum ad consequentiam. Essentially it says that the truth or otherwise of a proposition is not determined by whether it leads to desirable or to undesirable consequences.
Still with me?
Good.
OK then, now let’s posit a few conjectures: your god, Poseidon, Ra, leprechauns, Thor.
Right, these conjectures are in different categories of characteristics inasmuch as the claims made about them are different.
Agreed?
Good – you’re doing really well. Hang in there.
Now then, what happens when I try the
same bad argument for any of them? Let’s say for example that I said any one of them was true because the people who believed it to be true behaved in ways of which I approve, or for that matter that history would have been different had they not so believed.
Doesn’t work does it? It’s still a bad argument regardless of the different characteristics of the claims. That is, there is
no category error when the force of the argument
is the same for each category.
There you go then – job done. Just think, you’ll never have to make that mistake again now.
You’re welcome!
Yes. My argument is that those denying the historical nature of NT material are more analogous to Moon Landing deniers rather than Jesus believers of course 'The Jesus conspiracy' has features in that there are people joining it over centuries.
If it is a conspiracy then Lewis is right that it would be the biggest con in history.
Ooooh! Do you really want that to be your argument? Really really?
Well, on your head be it. Here’s why it’s wrong:
For that analogy to work some time around 1999 someone (let’s call him “Vlad”) would have to have said something like: "By the way, did you know that 30-odd years ago some 500 people saw a unicorn?"
Me: “Really? How do you know that Vlad?”
Vlad: “Well, I talked to this bloke see, and he knows someone whose uncle told him that his granddad told him about it. There you go then!”
Me: Okaaaaay. And was any of this thought important enough to be written down or recorded in any way at the time?”
Vlad, “Er, no.”
Me: “Okaaaaay. Well OK then, how do you know that this slender chain of folk memory is accurately remembered? Have you spoken to any of the other 499 people for example?”
Vlad: “Er, I don’t know that and no I haven't.”
Me: “Okaaaaay. So, what means have you to know that these people weren’t wrong or fooled in some way?”
Vlad: “Er, no means whatever I’m afraid. Still, this bloke did seem really, really convinced so that must count for something mustn’t it?”
Me: “Er, no.”
Still Vladster, cheer yourself up. Your argument has crashed and burned spectacularly, but at least inadvertently you’ve managed to provide us with something that actually
is a category error.
Bravo!
