Argumentum ad populum

Stochastic eschatologies?

Originally posted by Agerg
Oh jaywill!...jaywill, jaywill, jaywill 😵
So more people discuss Bible god than they discuss Thor. Well no s**t Sherlock! More people being Christians makes for more discussions about Christian concepts!!!...does this greater number of discussions render Bible god more plausible than Thor?

No!

Similarly, that more people here in the UK discuss the "X-F ...[text shortened]... more useful to society than the education of soon-to-be adults and future decision makers.

Originally posted by Agerg
Just want to point out (more for Penguin's benefit) that in both the cases you would use that argument you are simply refuting some universal theist claim by showing it doesn't hold for special cases (of which there are many).

This is a wholly different type of argument than the one penguin is using.

Originally posted by Penguin
Well yes I would certainly use it in response to a theists 'Argumentum ad populum' but I think it also holds water on its own. Surely the one true faith would be self-evident and therefore command the majority view? The fact that no faith holds the majority view is, I think, a good indication that there is no one [b]true faith.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Originally posted by Penguin
The fact that no faith holds the majority view is, I think, a good indication that there is no one [b]true faith.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Originally posted by Agerg
Monkey see monkey do works well when you're forced to make a life or death choice with no further data. :]

I think the main issue in this discussion is that jaywill and agerg are discussing two different claims.
Agerg is asserting that the deity of Christ is as likely as the deity of Thor. Jaywill is asserting that a random person is more likely to consider the deity of Christ.
I believe Agerg made the assertion first and thus it is jaywill that misinterpreted the claim.

Also Jaywills claim only holds true if we are talking about this day and age and certain populations. It would not have held true in Thor believing societies.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Agerg is asserting that the deity of Christ is as likely as the deity of Thor.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Can this probability be assessed?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only when used in conjunction with the assumption that the one true faith will be held by a majority of people. If you can substantiate that assumption then you might have an argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would guess that from Agergs point of view the probability for both is near zero.

Logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum are concerned with the fallacies of proofs in debates. Most announcing of the Gospel has accompanying evidence to persuade. They are not proofs usually but evidence that one is on the right track to believe the Gospel.

Preaching the Gospel of Christ to the unbeliever or even the defense of it is not the debating of a proof. It is a preaching that Christ may make His home in people's heart "by faith".

It tells you right up front, candidly, frankly, that Christ coming into your heart is by faith.

"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith" (Ephesians 3:17)

John concludes his Gospel by telling his audience that he has written all that he has so that they may believe that Jesus is the Christ. He does not say that these things are written so that you may have proof.

"But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)

John the Apostle is frankly saying in essence " I wrote these things down so that you may believe, and believing you may receive Jesus as the divine life of God."

The emphasis I think, is on persuasion and not proof. Proof is not persuasion. Persuasion certainly involves evidence - persuasive evidence. It may not be proof in a mathematical certainty sense.


Now to be fair, the word "proofs" is not altogether absent from the New Testament. Luke writes that Jesus presented Himself alive after His resurrection with "irrefutable proofs" (Acts 1:3) over a period of 40 days:

"To whom [apostles] He [Christ] presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, appearing to them through a period of forty days and speaking to the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3)

So it does say that Christ offered irrefutable proofs of His having been raised from the dead. But proof is not persuasion. The latter involves a willingness of the will to believe.

For instance, when Jesus presented the empirical proof of His having resurrected to the doubting and skeptical Thomas, He added the exhortation for Thomas to "be believing".

The impact of the passage is that even though Thomas was presented with irrefutable and scientific proof of Christ having resurrected, it was still up to Thomas's decision to move his own human will, to "be believing", ie. be persuaded.

Thomas's skepticism - "The other disciples therefore said to him [Thomas], We have seen the Lord ! But he said to them, Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails and put mu finger into the mark of the nails and put my hand into His side, I will by no means believe." (John 20:25)

Thomas was a strong skeptic demanding scientific and empirical proof that his Teacher had been brought back to life. Then we have Jesus fulfilling his request a few days latter.

"Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; AND DO NOT BE UNBELIEVING, BUT BELIEVING." (20:27 my emphasis)

The result is that Thomas decides to be believing and confesses that Jesus is his Lord and his God.

"Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!"

Thomas the "scientific" skeptic demanded proof. No matter how wonderful Jesus was, Thomas would not be carried away by crazy idealism. "He was killed on the cross. It was OVER. Let's get over it. Unless I can put my hands in his wounds I will not believe you other disciples that you have now seen Jesus alive."

Evidence and proof were given to Thomas. But there are two things of interest to the rest of us in this passage:

1.) Jesus told Thomas, to be believing. The implication is that given this proof, it was still an option for Thomas to set his will power simply to NOT believe still. Proof is not persuasion.

"Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

God will not coerce anyone against his will. At any stage you can decide to "be ... believing" or not.

2.) Jesus states that not all people down through the ages will have the same opportunity as Thomas to witness the imperical and scientific evidence of His resurrection. Nevertheless, they will experience a blessedness, a happiness of coming to know Christ personally, simply because of believing the account of the apostles and the word of God.

"Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (20:29)

I do not take an approach that great numbers of believers in Christ is PROOF that Jesus is God incarnate. Argumentum ad populum is not a charge that could be leveled at most announcers of the Christian Gospel that I know of.

John is a good example. He says " I wrote these things that you may believe and believing you may have life in His name." He didn't say " I wrote these things so that you may have proof and having proof you may have life in His name." He certainly did not say great numbers of believers was proof.

The goal is having divine life. Divine life is Jesus in an available spiritual form in which this living Person may enter into your innermost being. You may have life in His name.

Many with proof may not receive His Person.
Many with proof may still decide to be unbelieving.
And many with proof may still refuse to open their hearts to receive Him as Lord.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name ... who were born ... of God." (See John 1:12,13)

God will not usurp the human will. God will respect the human will. If you really do not want forgiveness of sins and you do not want the Savior, the Son of God, God will not usurp your will. And He will not pile on infinite numbers of real proofs of Christ's Lordship so as to force you against your will to receive Him.

I may have wondered a little. But we gospel spreaders do not expect anyone to be forced by peer preasure of huge numbers to accept Christ. Such a thing is impossible anyway.

The larger numbers are on the side of those oblivious to the concern who for the most part just want to be left alone in thier sins and apathy. That's where your real "populum" is.


One other thing. If a person has trouble deciding to be believing, the Bible offers the example of the man who said "I believe, help my unbelief !"

There is no harm in confessing to God that one is weak in faith and needs help. In fact it is pretty wise to do so, and at every stage of the Christian experience.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So would I, but what is the probability of Agerg being correct?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So would I, but what is the probability of Agerg being correct?

Originally posted by Agerg
So many times I have heard the argument that since so many people believe in God (or Christian god) it must be true.

Are there any believers on this forum who feel even slightly embarrased when your faith is championed by people using this argument?? Do you not feel your faith somewhat cheapened that it is made to stand upon a blatant logical fallacy?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum