Massimo Watch 060811

Massimo discusses a debate video between Dawkins, Craig, and others:

”The first segment of the video shows Dawkins addressing someone in the audience who had just told him that his belief in god is no delusion, to which Dawkins replies: “If you had been born in India, I dare say you would be saying the same thing about Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva; if you had been born in Afghanistan I dare say you would be saying the same thing about Allah.” And so on, you get the gist. (The “I dare say” is just as annoying as Craig’s “Surely,” but we’ll let it pass.)

Forward to time stamp 0:37 and you see Craig appearing on the screen, eloquently explaining to us that Dawkins just committed the genetic fallacy, dismissing belief in god because of the way it comes about (i.e., because of its origin). Of course, Dawkins does no such thing, and Craig lands himself straight in the mud of really really bad reasoning.”

Let's be clear. What Dawkins has said is that the person's assertion of the existence of God is due to where the person comes from, that the origin of the hypothesis is due to his heritage. If the person had different heritage, then he would have posed different religious hypotheses due to that difference in his heritage. This is an attack not on the validity of the hypothesis, but on the source / origin.

Massimo continues,

”First, let’s see what the genetic fallacy actually is. The Fallacy Files, an excellent resource on all matters fallacious, classifies it under “informal fallacies” (bear this in mind, it’s important), and particularly as a sub-class of Red Herring, related to the Straw Man and Bandwagon fallacies. The site defines the genetic fallacy as “the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past — rather than on its present — merits or demerits.”

Craig is therefore claiming that Dawkins is dismissing the idea of god just because the guy in the audience believes in a particular god as a result of happenstance (i.e., the fact that he was born at a particular time in a particular place). But a first rule in philosophy (as opposed to sophistry) is that one always interprets an opponent’s argument in the most charitable way, to avoid setting up straw men. Had Craig followed this basic rule of intellectually honest discourse he would have acknowledged that Dawkins’ point was simply to show the arbitrariness of specific religious beliefs. Even if gods exist, it should give one pause that people fervently believe in their own “true” god simply because of an historical accident.”

The “charity rule” invocation is merely an attempt to redefine what it is that Dawkins said and meant, in order to salvage the statement from its obvious fallacy failure. Dawkins did not mean to imply, “if gods exist”. Nor did he mean the “arbitrariness of specific religions”, Dawkins meant that all religions are arbitrary by association. Dawkins was using the other religions in an attempt to sully the original God being discussed: Fallacy of Guilt By Association, and the Genetic Fallacy are both in play.

Now even if Dawkins actually had meant to attack the arbitrariness of specific religions, that would have been way off topic and not addressing the issue at hand: whether the person is justified in his belief. To be charitable to Dawkins we should assume that he at least was discussing the issue at hand; otherwise his reply is absurd, rather than merely false.

But Massimo makes the following amazing statement:

”But in fact, this isn’t all there is to the genetic fallacy. The Fallacy Files adds an important caveat to the definition, often neglected by sophists: “unless its past in some way affects its present value.” In other words, there are situations where invoking the origin of an idea or belief is actually pertinent to the discussion, and does not constitute a fallacy at all. This sort of qualification is what makes the genetic (and many, many other fallacies) an informal fallacy, as opposed to formal ones, where there are no qualifications and the reasoning is always bad (an example is affirming the consequent: If p then q. q. Therefore, p — there ain’t no saving this one).”

And how does this revelation pertain to the question at hand? Massimo does not even claim that it does; the entire paragraph has no value or meaning to Craig’s claim.

“unless its past in some way affects its present value.”

Exactly why is this caveat to the Genetic Fallacy pertinent here? How does it relate? It is not, and it does not. The entire paragraph is a Red Herring, expressed by Massimo here:

” In other words, there are situations where invoking the origin of an idea or belief is actually pertinent to the discussion, and does not constitute a fallacy at all.”

But of course this is not one of those situations.

Finally, Pigliucci makes the following claim:

” But in that case he [Craig] would run straight into a contradiction, because he is now saying that it’s okay for him to be “inclined” to believe that the (actually non existent) hardwired belief in god is the result of god’s will, but is denying Dawkins’ the complementary move of dismissing a belief on the grounds of its (cultural) origin.”

The idea of a possible “God Spot” in the brain has resulted from several studies, which Pigliucci either is not aware of, or is denying out of disingenuousness. The contradiction which he claims that Craig has encountered is that Craig claims an inclination to believe that the source of the possible God Spot is God, yet he denies that Dawkins can refute the God hypothesis based on its origin alone.

Let's take a look at these two arguments:

Craig: inclined to believe that a possible God Spot as being sourced by God.

If P then Q
P;
Q.
P> God Spot might exist;
Q> possibly God.

Full statement:
If the God Spot might exist, then possibly God exists;
The God Spot might exist;
Therefore possibly God exists.

This is not a statement with a truth value, it is a statement of possible truth values, not definite.

Dawkins: denies the God hypothesis based on its source.
Interpretation A:

If L then M;
L;
M.
L> Your claim depends entirely upon your origin in a certain location;
M> it is false.

Full Statement:
If your claim depends entirely upon your origin in a certain location, Then it is false; (this is the Genetic Fallacy)
Your claim does depend entirely upon your origin in a certain location;
Therefore, it is false.

Interpretation B:

If L then M;
L;
M.

L> if there are competing religions,
M> all religions are false and there is no God.

Full statement:
If there are competing religions, then all religions are false and there is no God; (this is the Guilt by Association Fallacy)
There are competing religions;
Therefore there is no God.

Dawkins statement is fallacious either way, so it cannot contradict any other statement.

Another way to demonstrate the Guilt By Association Fallacy is this:
“If there are ideas competing with your idea, then some must be false; there are ideas competing with your idea; therefore your idea is false.”

What has happened here is that Pigliucci has ridden roughshod over the actual statements made by both Craig and Dawkins, failing to extend the courtesy of charitable interpretation to Craig, while misusing it to extend an advantageous but false interpretation to Dawkins. That’s what seems to happen in the world of intellectuals possessed of a dogma which doesn’t contain absolutes.

Pigliucci brags that he “wiped the floor with Craig’s ass, repeatedly,” in a second debate. And later on he criticizes Craig’s choice of ties. I don’t think I’ll be needing his judgment on any of these issues.