Appeal to authority?

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2006-03-23 09:47pm

This must be some sort of joke, or maybe I'm just not understanding him right, but a member of my forum seems to be implying validity to the notion that atheists are indeed most untrustworthy based on this supposed adherence to some teaching by John Locke. The thread in question is based on an article recently posted here as well that atheists are the most distrusted of all according to a poll. Here's the thread starting with his post, and my response is second to next after: http://www.brad-johnson.com/forum/viewt ... 0977#30977

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-23 09:59pm

Monk wrote:Andrew Jackson, the forefather, subscribed to the philosophic teachings of John Locke, pretty much making him his hero. Locke said that Atheists where the only people who could never be fully trusted, because they don't believe in anything higher than themselves and couldn't be made to sware an oath on something they valued above all.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Locke isn't relevant at all to the trustworthiness of atheists as a group, and neither is Jefferson; there is thus no more reason to take his word than there is to take Joe Blow Public's word.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2006-03-23 10:01pm

That's right. With that out of the way, the jump from 'most unstrusted' to 'most untrustworthy' is an appeal to popularity, if someone were to take this as evidence.

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2006-03-23 10:04pm

Yeah, I should make it clear I meant to use Jefferson as an example to say "see, look, and here's another forefather, but this one thought differently, but so what?" I should revise my post there.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-03-24 01:17am

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2006-03-24 01:22am

Yeah, that was part of my reply.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-24 01:49am

I suppose it never occurred to John Locke that a Christian who swears an oath on the Bible has a standing guarantee that his sins will be forgiven. Including perjury.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2006-03-24 02:03am

Locke said that Atheists where the only people who could never be fully trusted, because they don't believe in anything higher than themselves

Sure we can, but it's just that what we will believe in isn't supernatural boogedy-boo.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-24 02:07am

Baron Scarpia wrote:
Locke said that Atheists where the only people who could never be fully trusted, because they don't believe in anything higher than themselves
Sure we can, but it's just that what we will believe in isn't supernatural boogedy-boo.

That's exactly what Locke is getting at. There is a certain logic to his reasoning; he figures that someone who truly believes in a supernatural omniscient judge will know he can't possibly escape this judgment, therefore he will be so afraid that he won't dare do anything wrong. Of course, this assumption requires a certain absolute perfection of belief and action in the human subject, which is an utterly laughable premise even before you consider the reams of evidence disproving this conjecture, not to mention the "get out of jail free" clause which is built into Christianity.

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2006-03-24 01:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Baron Scarpia wrote:
Locke said that Atheists where the only people who could never be fully trusted, because they don't believe in anything higher than themselves
Sure we can, but it's just that what we will believe in isn't supernatural boogedy-boo.
That's exactly what Locke is getting at. There is a certain logic to his reasoning; he figures that someone who truly believes in a supernatural omniscient judge will know he can't possibly escape this judgment, therefore he will be so afraid that he won't dare do anything wrong. Of course, this assumption requires a certain absolute perfection of belief and action in the human subject, which is an utterly laughable premise even before you consider the reams of evidence disproving this conjecture, not to mention the "get out of jail free" clause which is built into Christianity.

Certainly. As your own signature shows, religious folk can be perfectly willing to believe any atrocity is acceptable so long as the right people are committing it. This is why the poll referencing mistrust of atheists only proves one thing: that people are, by and large, bigoted against atheists.

Personally, I see more validity in placing trust in someone who has arrived at his morality through reason than one who simply obeys an ostensibly arbitrary code fo conduct out of a slavish devotion to dogma and fear of divine retribution. The former has already proven himself a conscientious thinker, while the latter appears craven.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-03-24 01:29pm

You have to remember, when Locke was around, despite his starting of modern empiricism among other things, he had to go with the rebirth of Protestantism after Mary, a Catholic, left the throne. So to appeal, it wouldn't have helped to say those heathen atheists were just as righteous.

Quoting Locke on that subject today is really not that relevant.