• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is a concept being put forth by the 'wrong' group or belief system enough to invalidate it's truth?

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
An example of folks doing this is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching and arguing that hell is a pagan concept.

Is hell being a pagan concept indicative of it's truth or falsehood? I'm not sure what saying hell is a pagan concept is supposed to prove about it's being true or false- unless we're to accept that pagans can't say anything true.

This raises the question of rather a concept or belief being held by a specific group or ideology is enough to make it wrong. Is something in fact wrong simply because a pagan said it? A Muslim said it? A Christian said it? An atheist said it?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Lots of groups put forth the same ideas who are opposed to each other. I'm sure not that many religions existing in modern time would oppose something like the golden rule for instance, a "pagan" concept.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
An example of folks doing this is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching and arguing that hell is a pagan concept.

Is hell being a pagan concept indicative of it's truth or falsehood? I'm not sure what saying hell is a pagan concept is supposed to prove about it's being true or false- unless we're to accept that pagans can't say anything true.

This raises the question of rather a concept or belief being held by a specific group or ideology is enough to make it wrong. Is something in fact wrong simply because a pagan said it? A Muslim said it? A Christian said it? An atheist said it?

A question similar to the one you're asking is, "Is it logical to take into account the authority of someone in evaluating the truth or falsity of a statement made by them?"

Put differently, is it logically permissible to reason that "because Jones is a physicist Jones knows whether or not electrons are fundamental units of matter."

Almost all logicians agree that an appeal to authority is sometimes logically permissible in inductive logic, but never in deductive logic.

So, for instance:

  • Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "Sunstone is an expert on fly poop, Sunstone says fly poop is flammable, therefore fly poop is most likely flammable."
  • Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "Sunstone is always or almost always wrong about math, Sunstone says 7 is the product of 3 and 10, therefore 7 most likely is NOT the product of 3 and 10.
  • Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "Sunstone's AM Radio rants are always or almost always factually wrong, Sunstone ranted last week that all women secretly want to live in his harem, therefore it is most likely wrong that all women secretly want to live in Sunstone's harem.
  • Inductively speaking, it would be logically permissible to reason, "All of Sunstone's closest friends are always or almost always wrong about physics, Jones is a close friend of Sunstone's, Jones says electrons are made of fly poop, Jones is probably wrong about electrons being made of fly poop.
So, yes, there are times when it is inductively permissible to reason that "Jones belongs to group x, people who belong to group x are usually wrong about y, therefore Jones is most likely wrong about y."

But it is never deductively permissible to reason that way.

For the reasons why it is sometimes permissible in inductive logic, but never in deductive, to make an appeal to authority, see this guest post by the renown logician, Boyd Stace-Walters, on my blog: When Logic Breaks Bad: Three Shocking Errors that Turn an Appeal to Authority into a Depraved Fallacy! (The article starts off slowly -- if you don't share my sense of humor, skip down a few paragraphs and begin there).https://cafephilos.blog/2017/03/19/...-appeal-to-authority-into-a-depraved-fallacy/
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Wrong? No. Negligible and noise? Maybe. There is so much information that there must be criteria for deciding what to listen to.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
An example of folks doing this is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching and arguing that hell is a pagan concept.

Is hell being a pagan concept indicative of it's truth or falsehood? I'm not sure what saying hell is a pagan concept is supposed to prove about it's being true or false- unless we're to accept that pagans can't say anything true.

This raises the question of rather a concept or belief being held by a specific group or ideology is enough to make it wrong. Is something in fact wrong simply because a pagan said it? A Muslim said it? A Christian said it? An atheist said it?
Let's put it this way: calling something "a pagan concept " is simply saying that it doesn't come from the God of the Bible.... Jehovah is not the source. That's all.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
An example of folks doing this is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching and arguing that hell is a pagan concept.

Is hell being a pagan concept indicative of it's truth or falsehood? I'm not sure what saying hell is a pagan concept is supposed to prove about it's being true or false- unless we're to accept that pagans can't say anything true.

This raises the question of rather a concept or belief being held by a specific group or ideology is enough to make it wrong. Is something in fact wrong simply because a pagan said it? A Muslim said it? A Christian said it? An atheist said it?

The day we see all good comes from our source of life, will be the day mankind has come of age.

"Strain every nerve to acquire both inner and outer perfections, for the fruit of the human tree hath ever been and will ever be perfections both within and without. It is not desirable that a man be left without knowledge or skills, for he is then but a barren tree. Then, so much as capacity and capability allow, ye needs must deck the tree of being with fruits such as knowledge, wisdom, spiritual perception and eloquent speech."

That is a good tree, no matter what name of Faith we put to it.

Regards Tony
 
This raises the question of rather a concept or belief being held by a specific group or ideology is enough to make it wrong. Is something in fact wrong simply because a pagan said it? A Muslim said it? A Christian said it? An atheist said it?

Depends if you are talking objectively, or real life responses to information.

Ethos, source credibility, is the most important part of persuasion. Someone would probably be prudent to consider stories on Infowars to be false, unless proved otherwise. This doesn't mean it can't be true, just that your working assumption is that it is false.

Additionally, when it comes to followers of exclusivist religions, if something is said that relates to ideas/concepts within that religion's purview and draws from a source outside of your religion's acceptable range of hermeneutics, then it could be considered false off the bat. This would be due to either the belief or the justification for that belief being false according to your worldview.
 
Top