top of page

Group

Public·252 members

Or, To Put Harriss Fallacy In A Form That He Would Definitely Recognize: Religion Cant Be A Ca [VERIFIED]


Click Here --->>> https://blltly.com/2tvZ8e



Or, To Put Harriss Fallacy In A Form That He Would Definitely Recognize: Religion Cant Be A Ca [VERIFIED]


Religion and Terrorism: A Critique of Sam Harris's Argument


Sam Harris is a well-known atheist and author of several books, including The End of Faith, in which he argues that religion is the root cause of terrorism and violence in the world. He claims that religious beliefs are irrational and dangerous, and that we should abandon them in favor of reason and science. However, Harris's argument is based on a logical fallacy that undermines his whole thesis. In this article, I will explain what this fallacy is and why it invalidates Harris's claim.


The fallacy that Harris commits is called denying the antecedent. This is a form of deductive reasoning that has the following structure:


If P, then Q.


Not P.


Therefore, not Q.


This reasoning is invalid because it does not follow that if the antecedent (P) is false, then the consequent (Q) must also be false. There may be other reasons or causes for Q to be true, even if P is not. For example:


If it rains, then the ground is wet.


It does not rain.


Therefore, the ground is not wet.


This argument is clearly fallacious because there may be other sources of water that make the ground wet, such as sprinklers, hoses, or dew. The absence of rain does not guarantee the absence of wetness.


Now let's see how Harris uses this fallacy in his argument about religion and terrorism. He writes:


"We can ignore all of these things [political, economic, and social factors]âor treat them only to place them safely on the shelfâbecause the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited peoples who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit terrorism of the sort that has become so commonplace among Muslims."


Harris's reasoning here can be summarized as follows:


If political, economic, and social factors cause terrorism, then all people who suffer from these factors should commit terrorism.


Not all people who suffer from these factors commit terrorism.


Therefore, political, economic, and social factors do not cause terrorism.


This argument is invalid for the same reason as the previous example. There may be other factors that influence whether someone commits terrorism or not, such as personal psychology, moral values, cultural norms, or ideological beliefs. The absence of terrorism among some people who suffer from political, economic, and social factors does not guarantee the absence of causation.


Or, to put Harrisâs fallacy in a form that he would definitely recognize: Religion canât be a cause of terrorism, because the world is full of religious people who arenât terrorists. This statement is obviously false because there may be other factors that moderate or prevent religious people from becoming terrorists, such as tolerance, compassion, moderation, or secularism. The presence of religion among some people who are not terrorists does not guarantee the absence of causation.


Therefore, Harris's argument that religion is the root cause of terrorism is based on a logical fallacy that renders it invalid. He has not ruled out other possible causes or influences on terrorism by simply pointing out that some people who share them do not become terrorists. He has also not proven that religion is a necessary or sufficient condition for terrorism by simply pointing out that some terrorists are religious. He has merely assumed what he needs to prove: that religion is the only or main factor that drives people to commit acts of violence in the name of God. aa16f39245






About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page