Another Exampe of Athiests Re-Writting Rules of Logic: Special Pleading

I did a previous post on this topic. I showed two examples of atheists sites where they try to re-write rules of logic. Here's are two examples from CARM where they employ this tactic. It insoles a tacit definition. Up front they say that Special Pleading is exampting your own argument from rules of logic previously accepted. what it really turns out to be is a tacit definition such that: claim to the truth of Christianity is special pleading.

Back up argues that all arguments for Christianity are special pleading. I think he doesn't understand what special pleading is he has it confused with holding a preference or relivant difference.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html

I quoted he Nizkor article on the meaning of special pleading.

"Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S."



In that article it says if there is a valid difference bewteen two options then it's not special pleading. So in other words if Jesus really is the son of God then it's not special pleading to say he is. that is what is calls something like "relevant difference."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html

read it:[/B]
[B]"It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill. "


I think this principal unseats the very reasoning that Backup uses to make his claim. Thus it disproves his argument a prori.

If he has another reason why arguments for Christianity are special pleading (aside from the mistake that expressing a preference is a fallacy) then he needs to explain it.

in doing so he must also explain what he mans by special pleading. If he doesn't mean by that term something like what is in the paragraph at the top then he had the wrong idea about the fallacy means.

If he does except Idea then he must explain how his argument is still valid light of relevant difference.


Spacemonkey Jumps in and supplies a quote from Backup from another thread that parrots the definition I use: "When a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking himself (or those he has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption." The Irony is we had gone well over 50 posts with him refusing to give a definition but tacitly employing the notion that SP means supporting a view as right and others as wrong, particularly Christianity.for those 50+ posts he just said "I know what speical pleading means" and refused to define it.

Another issue was that he simply stated "all Christian arguments arguments for Christianity as true are special pleading." All of them are, blanket statement. Then he challenges Christians to prove it's not the case.So they spend hundreds of posts deamnding that we supply the examples to disrpove the allogation and they never seek to prove it with any exampels of their own. I had chagned that this is violating his obligation as the one advances the argument. He sloughs that off with the refrain that "it's a challenge."

I offer two examples that prove his tacit definition of special pleading.


proof of tacit definition

exhibit A: G2U's example:

Originally Posted by Grace2U View Post

"It is a fact that there is allot of evidence for the Christian God consisting of billions of witness testimony to His existence over 1000's of years, in addition to 1000's of books that testify to the same thing."

Backup

This is special pleading because there is witness testimony over books about any number of religions. Christianity is exclusive. You need to plead that your evidence is somehow special.

I can't believe you would be the only one so far to even try.

I really can't believe you would use this same argument that has been pointed out as special pleading to you so many times.

that is not special pleading. it doesn't do anything to introduce a special privilege that would let the argument out of ordinary rules. Yet it does makes sense if we go by the tacit view that SP = claiming that your thing is right.

claiming that there is evidence in experience of God is not special pleading unless you define special pleading thinking your view is right.

Exhibit B

a statement by Backup from the challenge thread implying that the same arguments would not be special pleading if used by other groups but would be if it's used to claim a specific one is right.

Backup

"It's not special pleading if you accept that it is an argument for a lot of different religions and belief systems systems. But it's not an argument for Christianity either. "

If SP is just about the logic and now about exclusivity (in Backup's mind) then how could it be that the argument is not SP if it's for a lot of groups but is if it's for one group? That implies that what makes it special pleading is exclusivity.

Spacemonkey who I had previous respected for his knowledge of modal logic, and thought to be one of the more intelligent atheists on CARM disappoints me by supporting this garbage.

Backup is perfectly correct. It is special pleading to claim that the existence of witness testimony and books is compelling evidence only for Christianity, while denying that the same evidence for other religions is not. The general rule would be that the mere existence of witnesses and books alone is not compelling evidence for the truth of a religion, and a special exemption to that rule is being made for Christianity.

He is also right that it would not be special pleading if one were to accept that the existence of witnesses and books is compelling evidence for all religions, but that the argument being made would then no longer be specific to Christianity. A specific argument would have to make reference to the actual content of said witness testimony and books to show that a case is being made that is not equally available for the other religions that one rejects.

Metacrock:


even if you were right, which you re not you are merely nixing out the strongest evidence against your world view, it wold not be special pleading. special pleading is not just making a weak argument. Assume the arguemnt is weak for the sake of argument, it's not special pleading just because it's a weak argument. I grant that you would have to show the specifics to make it a valid argument. That's not an issue.Not showing them doesn't make it special pleading.


I see you actually have that tacit definition too. Special pleading is saying Christianity is true. I see how it works. That's ludicrous nonsense and you know it!

(if I say) Jesus came down an appeared to me I saw him, he said "I am it." that is not special pleading. Are you actually trying to contend that a person can't have a special revelation without special pleading even if it is really true? that's' ridiculous and you know it is..

Is it special pleading if you say you have the answer to a Math problem and no one else found it?

spacemonkey

He is also right that it would not be special pleading if one were to accept that the existence of witnesses and books is compelling evidence for all religions, but that the argument being made would then no longer be specific to Christianity. A specific argument would have to make reference to the actual content of said witness testimony and books to show that a case is being made that is not equally available for the other religions that one rejects.

nothing about that is special pleading. it's clearly and obviously not. you are just doing a bait and switch you are going "O this is a bad argument that doesn't prove it's case so therefore that's special pleading."

so you are using that term as an arbitrary catch phrase.


Nothing about that evokes a different rule of logic or excuses the potion form having to maintain logical rules. Nothing about eye witness testimony that makes special allowance for the violation of logical rules. Moreover G2U's original example said nothing about denying evidence of books and witnesses to other traditions.

He claims he answered the tacit definition quotes but he did not. HE said nothing bout it. see post 28 on this thread.

spacemoneky tries to come back and answer A and B by linking them to G2u's example:


Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The post you just quoted explains EXACTLY why it is special pleading. It directly addresses your A and B.


He doesn't have to. If he denies it to others then he is special pleading, and if he doesn't then his argument is no longer specific to Christianity. So either way, G2U fails.

here's the lynch Penn

In fact that little dilemma is easily disproved. It's not true. it is not the case that you have to deny truth of other traditions to affirm that of Christianity. you can still hold out the possibility that others have truth in their books and their experiences but you have to take it on a case by case basis. so then it's up to the other groups to show their turth.

the dilemma and the statement 'either way it falls" is really frank admission that it may not special pleading but it's still false. In other words Christianity just has to be false he doesn't care how it's demonstrated.

Merely claiming that there are books and testimony whose content specifically and compellingly supports Christianity is not to make an argument. It is only to hint at the possibility of one.

I said i acknowledged they have to be presented and demonstrated as good evidence. they are.



Spacemoneky

An actual argument from the specific contents of these books and testimonials could well avoid special pleading in principle, but no-one has made such an argument.

that is a lie! you know it's a lie! My 8 level verification thing is most certainly dose this. that is nothing else but a bold faced lie!

G2U's argument was merely that books and testimonials for Christianity exist, therefore Christianity is true. This is blatant textbook special pleading, because the mere existence of books and testimonials for other religions is not considered good grounds for those other religions. The books and testimony for Christianity is being treated differently without establishing any relevant difference for doing so.

Meta:

see the red? that's your warrant for saying it's wrong, it is not grounds for special pleading. I admitted it might be a bad argument, it would have to be made specific, but that doesn't make it special pleading. you are just calling any argument wrong "special pleading." you don't really care what the classification is as long as we reject Christianity.

Spacemoneky

the only definition either Backup or I have employed has been the correct one.

Meta:

you just demonstrated that you use the tacit one.