My Own Scale for Dumb Theistic Arguments

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has a scale for how he ranks several theistic arguments and asked me how I would rank them. Okay, why not?:

I'll be using the same categories he introduced for comparison. My guess is that the more informed a skeptic is about a particular argument then the less force that argument has in most cases, but not necessarily.

Occasionally give me pause

* Design arguments

No Way, José

* Cosmological arguments
* Epistemological arguments (argument from reason, etc.)

Waaaaaaay Terrible

* Axiological arguments (moral argument, etc.)

Profoundly, Jaw-Droppingly Awful;

* Arguments from religious experience
* Pragmatic arguments (Pascal’s Wager, etc.)
* Argument from the resurrection of Jesus
* Fulfilled prophecy arguments
* Arguments from the reliability of Scripture

Candidates for 'Dumbest Ideas Ever'

* Ontological arguments
* Reformed Epistemology

To see how Luke ranks them check him out.

7 comments:

Luke said...

Cool, thanks.

Rev. Ouabache said...

I am definitely with you on the Ontological arguments. I can't believe that serious philosophers wasted a thousand years on something that is very obviously a bare assertion.

crocoduckhunter said...

Wow. If design "arguments" are really the best theism's got, it's really up shit creek without a paddle, eh?

Now I guess I know not to waste my time with philosophy of religion, though I still consider it to be among the weaker areas of my knowledge.

If stuff like the Banana Analogy can "give [you] pause," I shudder in terror to think of what reformed epistemology must be like.

stamati anagnostou said...

I'm going to definitely agree with you on Reformed Epistemology and nothing makes my face contort like that damned Pascal's Wager. Paraphrased, "I am an intellectually dishonest coward, and I think you ought to be one too."

I hate to say it, but sometimes fulfilled prophecy arguments make me wonder. That and things that touch on the fear instinct. Heheh, I've only been an atheist for about 4 months so I'll blame that on conditioning.

josef said...

I'm not sure how Luke's tiers are supposed to express gradation so I've changed a few of them.

Occasionally give me pause:
- Arguments from religious experience (I would probably never believe an individuals testimony of religious experience, especially for a specific religion, and I think essentially anyone's motivation for making this claim can be amply explained away. And I think it's pretty well covered by my materialist leanings that this wouldn't happened or could be explained in materialist terms if it did. But if there were anything that could make me doubt materialism or any of my assumptions, I think it would be some sort of religious experience, which somehow gives self evidence in the same way green gives self-evidence of its greenness. It would enter the same domain of experiences that leads me to believe in spatiality, time, color, pain, etc.)

Forgiveable:
- Cosmological arguments
- Ontological arguments
- Conceptualist arguments (argument from abstracta, etc.)

Quite Bad:
- Epistemological arguments

Profoundly, Jaw-Droppingly Awful:
- Moral arguments
- Historical evidence arguments
- Pascal's Wager
- Design arguments

Unknown said...

I would really like to see an explanation and a refutation strategy for each of these arguments. Sort of like, an "Atheist's Toolbox" so that people like me who aren't biblical scholars or philosophy majors can be properly armed to tackle these subjects when they come up.

Matt K said...

I've got to agree with you John on ontological arguments and reformed epistemology.