You knew the argument didn’t make sense, and now you will know the name for the specific way it doesn’t.
Comments
News:
Pardon, but the way some of the "fallacies" in the chart are labelled and discussed points to a new atheist ideological agenda. (I also don't like the mocking of the triune conception of God communicated by the image.)
I take up the case of "personal incredulity" by inserting comments on points:
Saying that because one ?nds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.
a --> EEP: nope, STRAWMAN: the issue is that claims must meet reasonable criteria of warrant, and that if a claim does not, then it has no right to command our assent
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding of how they work before one is able to properly grasp them;
b --> Rubbish, the basic premise has long been that chance plus necessity working through variations and selection are sufficient to go from microbes to Mozart
c --> the issue is not that one does not UNDERSTAND -- notice the snide insinuation of "your'e too dumb" i.e. a scapegoating caricature and atmosphere-poisoning ad hominem -- but that this is not well warranted on empirical and observational grounds, and is in fact based in the end on philosophical a prioris that cut off facts pointing to design before they are allowed to speak.
d --> In particular, the issue is the origin of complex, functionally specific organisation and associated information. The ONLY empirically warranted source of such FSCO/I is intelligence, and we have abundant reason to see analytically that the atomic resources of the observed cosmos do not come anywhere near close enough to warrant the ideas that highly contingent and complex functionally specific entities can arrange themselves out of chance assemblies of components, by chance and blind mechanical necessity.
e --> Since this issue has been on the table for decades now, to duck it and set up a strawman is frankly dishonest. This fallacy so called is itself a fallacy.
this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
f --> pride laced ideologically loaded ad hominem: if you doubt my "science" you must be too dumb to understand it
Kirk drew a picture of a ?sh and a human and with eff usive disdain asked Richard
g --> Obviously Dawkins, i.e this is coming from the circle of the Dawkins sites. That is also reflected in the pattern of thought.
if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a ?sh somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.
h --> Strawman, laced with ad hominems and set alight through snide insinuations
i --> Notice, it was led up to by way of a red herring distractor from the real issue, evidence of design based on empirically well supported signs of design.
j --> Do we see an explanation backed up by empirical observations on the origin of -- for one instance -- digital, algorithmic coded information and implementing machinery in the so-called simple cell? Of course not.
k --> In short, this is a trifecta fallacy exercise that reeks of self-puffery: we are bright, you are too dumb to understand if you dare object
Having noted this, I should observe that in my experience, far too many online or printed summaries on fallacies are ideologically loaded themselves. In some cases like this one, they actually slip in a few of their favourites as "correctives" to serious objections.
In particular, we now know what the objection that we are indulging in "personal incredulity" REALLY means.
It stinks. Of burning, ad hominem soaked strawmen.
But, worse, it reeks of the new atheist pride and arrogance that lead them to announce themselves as the "brights" and to treat those who beg to differ as though we were trash. That hoggish-spirited [Mt 7:1 - 6] prideful pattern of behaviour is telling us a lot about the underlying animating spirit, and it is not pretty.
Onlookers, if you want a sounder presentation on fallacies, I suggest the IEP fallacy list [207 items], here. (Note: "personal incredulity" is NOT on the page.)
In fact, the Crevo folks' fallacy page here is a lot better.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus