Example of Logical Fallacy

[StJoseph8]

This came up in a textbook that I read for a logic class. It was talking about the fallacy of begging the question. I will quote it here:
“The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics to justify conclusions about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Example: ‘The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.’ This argument begs the question, ‘how do you know that the organization in the would could only have come from an intelligent creator?’ Of course the claim that it did come from an intelligent creator may well be true, but the burden in on the arguer to prove it. Without supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing.”

It seems like the example argument given is shallow and simplistic. What should be done to correct this argument? I would like to hear opinions about this as well. Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

What do you mean by “correct the argument”?

Which argument? The argument “for the existence of God” or the argument “this is an example of a fallacy”?

 

[porthos11]

This came up in a textbook that I read for a logic class. It was talking about the fallacy of begging the question. I will quote it here:
“The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics to justify conclusions about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Example: ‘The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.’ This argument begs the question, ‘how do you know that the organization in the would could only have come from an intelligent creator?’ Of course the claim that it did come from an intelligent creator may well be true, but the burden in on the arguer to prove it. Without supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing.”

It seems like the example argument given is shallow and simplistic. What should be done to correct this argument? I would like to hear opinions about this as well. Thank you.

It doesn’t sound like a begging the question fallacy to me, since the conclusion “the world was created by an intelligent God” is not used to prove itself, rather the obvious organization of creation is the premise.

A clearer example of begging the question would be: Honey is good for you because it’s a health food.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I actually think that “conversational” arguments against contraception frequently beg the question. The reasoning (roughly) goes like this:

1. Sex organs are designed to allow reproduction.
2. It is wrong to frustrate our design.
3. Contraception is wrong

I think this sort of argument is popular because it is easy to hide the fact that a question is being begged by equivocating on “designed.”

In a casual conversation, the other person will probably understand “designed to allow” to mean something like “has the function” or “is the means by which.” But in reality, a question is being begged.

Specifically, “designed” actually means something closer to “exists as part/consequence of a divine command.”

Any other reading of the term “designed” doesn’t let you get to the conclusion. For example, nature’s “designs” are not morally compelling in the same way that divine commands are. Alternatively, if you take the “has the function” reading, then you run into the is-ought problem.

 

[Rhubarb]

This came up in a textbook that I read for a logic class. It was talking about the fallacy of begging the question. I will quote it here:
“The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics to justify conclusions about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Example: ‘The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.’ This argument begs the question, ‘how do you know that the organization in the would could only have come from an intelligent creator?’ Of course the claim that it did come from an intelligent creator may well be true, but the burden in on the arguer to prove it. Without supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing.”

It seems like the example argument given is shallow and simplistic. What should be done to correct this argument? I would like to hear opinions about this as well. Thank you.

I don’t recognize that definition of question begging. When you beg the question, you are using the cinclusion of the argument as a granted premise.

The argument begs the question because the existence of God is assumed as a premise to get to the conclusion that God exists. Though I admit I don’t think the example argument is a very good example of it.

 

[StJoseph8]

What do you mean by “correct the argument”?

Which argument? The argument “for the existence of God” or the argument “this is an example of a fallacy”?

The argument “this is an example of a fallacy”.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t think you’re textbook is very good either. The “fallacy” is twisted back on itself which renders it into nonsense.

 

[StJoseph8]

I don’t think you’re textbook is very good either. The “fallacy” is twisted back on itself which renders it into nonsense.

What do you mean? I do not understand the “twisted back” part?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What do you mean? I do not understand the “twisted back” part?

‘The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.’ This argument begs the question, ‘how do you know that the organization in the world could only have come from an intelligent creator?’

The fallacy is in the first two statements. The conclusion was reached before the question was begged.

And the question, because of how it is worded, is only there to back up the fallacy.

If the question was worded differently the textbook’s argument falls apart. So that “begging the question” could become something else, like a segway or a logic leap. But begging the question, in and of itself, is not a fallacy.

 

[Rhubarb]

There are definitely good arguments about religion, God, the soul, etc. that are not fallacious.

 

[FrDavid96]

The argument “this is an example of a fallacy”.

It is a fallacy because one must first ask the question: who is God? or what is God? or what does/can God do?

One must first ask the question “what can God do?” Then answers it by saying that God can create the universe.

Alternately:

One must first ask the question “who is able to create the universe?” then answer it by saying “God can create the universe.”

The reason why it is a fallacy is because that very question “who is God?” or “what can He do?” are not accepted as a “given” by the other party. Remember that the point of the argument is to prove that God does exist. That means that the statement “God created the universe” is the philosophical equivalent of saying “because I say so” (in this particular context)

Let’s take a different example to illustrate the point:

Let’s say 2 people visit a garden store. They see a birds nest on display for sale.

One says “that must be a real nest, not a fake.”
2nd asks “why do you say that?”
1st “because it looks so real. Only real birds could have done that.”
2nd “yes, I agree, you’ve convinced me.”

Now, this is a very simple example, but I’m trying to illustrate the point.

The argument here begs the question “do birds make nests?”
Now, both parties take it as a given that birds do in fact make nests.
So the argument begs the question, however it is not a fallacy because the question “do birds make nests?” is simply omitted because all parties agree.

Now look at the same scenario this way:

2nd party starts by saying “I don’t believe there are any such thing as birds.”

1st “I’ll prove it to you. Look at this nest. This nest is so well made that only a bird could have done it.”

2nd “that doesn’t prove anything.”

And that’s right. It does not prove anything. The 2nd party first has to believe that birds do exist, then has to believe that birds do make nests; only then can the party be convinced that a bird made that nest.

Same thing with that argument for the existence of God. It does not prove that God exists. In order for it to work, one must first prove that only God could create the universe.

From a purely philosophical perspective (certainly not one of Christian theology!) just to make the point:

What if God created the angels, then the angels created the universe? (please, set aside theology here, and just look at the sentence itself).

If that happened, then the premise “only God could have done it” no longer works.
**
Again: the argument is a fallacy exactly because it is missing some steps (premises).**

One must first prove (philosophically) the point “only God could have created the universe.” Then, and only then, can one advance to say “therefore God exists.”

By the way:
The Gnostics did believe that a lesser god (one created by the greater God) created the universe.

So, for a Gnostic, the premise “only God could have created the universe” would be dismissed straightaway as untrue. The Gnostics outright denied that God created the universe. Therefore, if the argument (which is supposed to prove the existence of God) would never convince one who already does believe in God, then it is surely not going to convince one who does not believe in God.

 

[Lucretius]

The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.

I would think that this arguement is more of a non sequitur, since there is an unstated assumption along the lines of of “degrees of organization require intellegence,” which an atheist would disbute, of course. Without that hidden assumption the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. The argument could be stated to beg the question so far as such an implicit premise is actually what is in disbute between contemporary theists and atheists, and that it is assumed without defence.

Most of the arguments for the existence of God by the ancients, medievals, and early moderns, do not beg the question, because most of the time, contemporary philosophers present a strawman version of these arguments (this is not to say that a Pastor Bob might make question begging arguments, but very few trained in philosophy actaully made such an error): edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

I actually think that “conversational” arguments against contraception frequently beg the question. The reasoning (roughly) goes like this:

1. Sex organs are designed to allow reproduction.
2. It is wrong to frustrate our design.
3. Contraception is wrong

I think this sort of argument is popular because it is easy to hide the fact that a question is being begged by equivocating on “designed.”

In a casual conversation, the other person will probably understand “designed to allow” to mean something like “has the function” or “is the means by which.” But in reality, acl question is being begged.

Specifically, “designed” actually means something closer to “exists as part/consequence of a divine command.”

Any other reading of the term “designed” doesn’t let you get to the conclusion. For example, nature’s “designs” are not morally compelling in the same way that divine commands are. Alternatively, if you take the “has the function” reading, then you run into the is-ought problem.

Classical natural law theory doesn’t make such a mistake, because designed is understood as the teleology of the human nature, and that what is good for men just is ordering his ends to fulfillment.

I agree though that the argument you present above might seem like it is making assumptions that not everyone grants (like the ones I mentioned above), and might beg the question when defined in non-natural law terms, but not so for Thomist metaphysics: the argument is defended in the context of a different metaphysics than the Cartesian one we take (often blindly) for granted.

The is-ought problem is a problem for Hume’s metaphysics (yes, despite his protest, he has a metaphysics), and not for classical kinds of metaphysics (Plato and Aristotle’s).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Vico]

This came up in a textbook that I read for a logic class. It was talking about the fallacy of begging the question. I will quote it here:
“The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments concerning religious topics to justify conclusions about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Example: ‘The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.’ This argument begs the question, ‘how do you know that the organization in the would could only have come from an intelligent creator?’ Of course the claim that it did come from an intelligent creator may well be true, but the burden in on the arguer to prove it. Without supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing.”

It seems like the example argument given is shallow and simplistic. What should be done to correct this argument? I would like to hear opinions about this as well. Thank you.

Begging the Question is assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. In the example what is to be proved is: “this world was created by an intelligent God”. The author states that what is assumed is that: “the organization in the would could only have come from an intelligent creator.”

1. Organization can only come from an intelligence.
2. The world displays organization.
   Conclusion: The world comes from an intelligence.

 

[inocente]

I don’t recognize that definition of question begging. When you beg the question, you are using the cinclusion of the argument as a granted premise.

The argument begs the question because the existence of God is assumed as a premise to get to the conclusion that God exists. Though I admit I don’t think the example argument is a very good example of it.

I googled the OP text, it’s from A Concise Introduction To Logic, 12th edition, by PJ Hurley who defines begging the question as the fallacy “committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.”

books.google.es/books?id=BTMaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA161

 

[Rhubarb]

I googled the OP text, it’s from A Concise Introduction To Logic, 12th edition, by PJ Hurley who defines begging the question as the fallacy “committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.”

books.google.es/books?id=BTMaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA161

philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html

It must be the wording. The link I provided is what I remember more. Usually when I see examples of question begging regarding God, it’s when the premises implicitly state God’s existence - which is what the argument is trying to demonstrate.