Philosophy Est Mortuus, Fallacy of Bare Assertion in The Grand Design | A Logical Christianity
Subscribe now!

Fill out the form below to signup to our blog newsletter and we'll drop you a line when new articles come up.

Our strict privacy policy keeps your email address 100% safe & secure.

Easy Login!
Connect with Facebook
Recent Comments
Facebook Fan Page
Adsense Content

Bare assertion is the first fallacy asserted in Hawking and Mlodinow’s newest book, A Grand Design.

Philosophy is Dead, A Fallacy of Bare Assertion

Philosophy is Dead, A Fallacy of Bare Assertion

From the Wikipedia list of fallacies:

Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.

“Philosophy is dead.” This is a bare assertion fallacy. How can this be held to be true?

Do philosophers still exist? Of course, they do.

Do people still practice philosophy? Indeed philosophy is still practiced, unless the definition of philosophy has been changed.

The bare assertion fallacy does not support the claim that philosophy is dead.

If the etymology of philosophy has been changed, then another kind of fallacy would naturally follow.

Where did the word philosophy come from?

Wikipedia reveals, “The word ‘philosophy’ comes from the Greek (philosophia), which literally means ‘love of wisdom’.”

Isn’t it safe to say, and even logical to proclaim, that human curiosity is evidence of the human love of wisdom?

It then follows that to proclaim the death of philosophy is to proclaim at least one part of human nature to be dead, which is the curiosity that evinces philosophy?

How do Hawking and Mlodinow justify the claim that philosophy is dead?

“Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics”

It does not follow, when considering the above quote to be valid, that philosophy is necessarily dead. Is philosophy held to the same qualifying standards and speed of advancement as physics?

What is the sense of the last of the three statements? “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

Who handed scientists the torch? Was it a philosopher or a theologian? Was it a Christian or a Hindu? Was it a Muslim or a Buddhist?

Perhaps scientists have simply decided that it belonged to them. Perhaps they decided that they were the only people in educated society that had a right to be the keepers of the light.

Isn’t this strangely familiar territory?

Isa 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

Isa 14:13 For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’

-NKJV

Philosophy is dead is a bare assertion fallacy because the claim is unwarranted and which only serves to exalt scientists to be the determinists of natural law.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Print

Related Posts:

  • Uchitrakar

                                 Philosophy is dead. Is Logic dead also?
    Â
                        How did the scientists come to know that an entire universe could come out of nothing? Or, how did they come to know that anything at all could come out of nothing? Were they present at that moment when the universe was being born? As that was not the case at all, therefore they did not get that idea being present at the creation event. Rather they got this idea being present here on this very earth. They have created a vacuum artificially, and then they have observed that virtual particles (electron-positron pairs) are still appearing spontaneously out of that vacuum and then disappearing again. From that observation they have first speculated, and then ultimately theorized, that an entire universe could also come out of nothing. But here their entire logic is flawed. These scientists are all born and brought up within the Christian tradition. Maybe they have downright rejected the Christian world-view, but they cannot say that they are all ignorant of that world-view. According to that world-view God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So as per Christian belief-system, and not only as per Christian belief-system, but as per other belief-systems also, God is everywhere. So when these scientists are saying that the void is a real void, God is already dead and non-existent for them. But these scientists know very well that non-existence of God will not be finally established until and unless it is shown that the origin of the universe can also be explained without invoking God. Creation event is the ultimate event where God will have to be made redundant, and if that can be done successfully then that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist. So how have they accomplished that job, the job of making God redundant in case of creation event? These were the steps:  Â
    1)        God is non-existent, and so, the void is a real void. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist, it cannot be concluded that the void is a real void.
    2)        As virtual particles can come out of the void, so also the entire universe. Our universe has actually originated from the void due to a quantum fluctuation in it.
    3)        This shows that God was not necessary to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, as because there was no creation event.
    4)        This further shows that God does not exist.
                So here what is to be proved has been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved. Philosophy is already dead for these scientists. Is it that logic is also dead for them?
       

blog comments powered by Disqus
Status Updates