Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Arguments from popularity are logical fallacies. Just because everyone holds a particular belief, that does not mean that the belief is correct. But I am intrigued by the idea that we may be biologically wired to ground belief in popularity. Children are so naive and trusting of adult authority. They tend to accept everything they are told, and they must learn to grow out of their gullibility. This makes perfect sense in that children have to assimilate a vast amount of information as quickly as possible. Acceptance and trust are quicker than skepticism and critical analysis.
As we reach adulthood, we become more and more skeptical. We rebel against authority and challenge it. Gullibility becomes a liability and can even be a fatal one, if we meet the wrong people. Critical thinking seems to become a more valuable strategy for survival than trust and acceptance as we age, but we can never completely abandon trust.
Although the arc of life may move us from trust to skepticism, children are never completely trusting and adults never completely skeptical. Although I am advanced in years, I still trust what a great many people tell me. I am certainly inclined to believe historians about historical events and physicists about the properties of matter even though I have never personally verified most of the things I believe. I tend not to believe what other experts tell me--for example, experts in religious doctrine. I trust that they know about their own doctrine, but I still do not trust their claims about the nature and existence of deities. In my life, I have gone from strong acceptance of Christian beliefs in childhood to strong rejection of them in adulthood. It seems to me that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian God.
So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.
As we reach adulthood, we become more and more skeptical. We rebel against authority and challenge it. Gullibility becomes a liability and can even be a fatal one, if we meet the wrong people. Critical thinking seems to become a more valuable strategy for survival than trust and acceptance as we age, but we can never completely abandon trust.
Although the arc of life may move us from trust to skepticism, children are never completely trusting and adults never completely skeptical. Although I am advanced in years, I still trust what a great many people tell me. I am certainly inclined to believe historians about historical events and physicists about the properties of matter even though I have never personally verified most of the things I believe. I tend not to believe what other experts tell me--for example, experts in religious doctrine. I trust that they know about their own doctrine, but I still do not trust their claims about the nature and existence of deities. In my life, I have gone from strong acceptance of Christian beliefs in childhood to strong rejection of them in adulthood. It seems to me that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian God.
So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.
Last edited: