In other words you assume will accept YOUR source of authority as MY source of authority.
Type
of Fallacy:
Argument
from authority
Definition:
This
type of argument relies on the identity of an authority rather than
the components of the argument itself.
Example;
“Lastly,
young earth Creationists believe that the Book of Genesis is
historical in nature and that Bible exegesis warrants a six day
creation with each day being 24 hours long.”
The
argument cites and relies on implied authority. God (Zeus, Thor, the
FSM) said so and it says so right here. So it must be true. Right?
Ranks right down there with the credulous supplements customers on
the infomercials. “They said it worked on TV, so it must be true.”
Yeah, and the Man in the Moon winked at me last night.
And
in the case of the young earth Creationists the implication is that
everyone interprets the story the same way. John Crossan, a former
priest, interprets the story not as the creation of the earth. Since
the much of what is created is created out of order, but as the story
behind the creation of the Sabbath. On that day God rested. And saw
that sabbath as so important it's one of the commandments. Number
four I believe. One of the several commandments that gets ignored
regularly in our 24/7 world.
1 comment:
The problem is, they have been brought up with the belief--and have chosen to investigate no further-- that their "God" is the ultimate authority. End of discussion. I honestly do not believe that the Creator's intention was for us to pick a story that quasi-explains everything we need explained and hang on to it as if our lives depended on it. In reality, our lives depend on this: We are to question and seek and evolve. If we stop evolving, we will disappear from the earth. Nature has demonstrated this over and over. If we don't get that, we WILL follow the dinosaurs into the tar pits.
Post a Comment