The Worst Philosophical Propositions: A Critique of Flawed Arguments in Ethics and Logic

Philosophical propositions intended to substantiate creation myths or bolster unfounded beliefs often serve as stumbling blocks in logical and ethical discourse. When these propositions are implemented, they frequently result in reification (the treatment of abstract concepts as real entities) leading to the deification (the act of elevating claims to superior standing, often religious, through a process of abstract thinking and conceiving without empirical evidence) of abstract ideas, which often lack empirical or logical foundation.

Creation Myths and the Limitations of Human Reason

As Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson argues, our species is plagued by tribalism, which is a significant limitation in contemporary society. Forming or justifying group behavior based on particular creation myths instead of focusing on our collective future is seen as a grave issue. Assigning oneself a divine understanding, demanding faith allegiance, or seeking respect based on such beliefs is viewed as unhelpful and even dangerous. By clinging to these narratives, we risk overlooking the bigger picture of human progress and cooperation.

The Equivocation of 'Conceivable' and 'Possible'

A key flaw in many philosophical arguments—especially religious ones—stems from the misappropriation of language, particularly the use of 'conceivable' as equivalent to 'possible'. One glaring example is Anselm’s Ontological Argument, which relies heavily on this subtle yet critical logical fallacy. Let's break it down using a simpler analogy: a most perfect ham sandwich (MPHS).

MPHS: An idea that is conceived as the very best sandwich that can be thought of. By definition, it is perfect and cannot be surpassed. The argument attempts to prove the existence of MPHS based on its conceptual superiority. Here’s a lightweight refutation of Anselm’s argument:

Argument: MPHS is an idea that can be thought. Therefore, it exists.

Conceivable (thought of) ≠ Possible (exists in reality). Just because we can imagine or think of something doesn't mean it has an actual existence. The concept of a perfect sandwich doesn’t exist physically, only in the realm of ideas. Existence as a Requirement for Definition. The nature of MPHS as perfect implies a need for existence to validate the perfection claim. This self-defeating move highlights the fallacy in the argument's structure.

This type of reasoning is further evident when we apply it to the religious realm. The argument works to create a god that is so perfect, it must exist, despite the fact that perfection as an abstract concept lacks a tangible form. This leads to the logical step of deifying an abstract ideal, which is another form of reification.

Flawed Atheistic Arguments: The Anthropic Principle

A common way to dismiss the anthropic principle or fine-tuning argument is to argue that if the universe wasn't fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to observe it, making the question of its nature or cause pointless. This line of reasoning can easily be debunked by a simple real-life analogy:

Analogy: Suppose my wife catches me at 2 am smelling of whiskey and perfume. Instead of asking questions, I could say, "If I hadn't stayed out late, we wouldn't be having this conversation." This does not address the underlying issues but sidesteps them by making an illogical leap.

Using the logic above, one could argue that if the universe wasn't fine-tuned, we wouldn't be observing the universe, thereby invalidating the very questions and discussions of the early universe's conditions. This kind of reasoning is flawed both in scientific and philosophical contexts.

God's Omniscience and Immutability

The idea of an omnipotent entity being constrained by its own nature is perhaps the most straightforwardly illogical. We see examples of such philosophical dynamite in the classic question: Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?

Analysis: If God can lift anything, then he can lift a rock too heavy for him. If he cannot lift this rock, then he is not truly omnipotent. This proposition is inherently contradictory and falls apart under scrutiny.

Similarly, the question "Then who made God?" is a variant of the classic theological paradox. It implies that everything needs a creator, even the creator. This leads to an infinite regress, where each step in the chain of causation requires an explanation, making the original question incoherent.

Archaeological Paradoxes and the Crux of Evidence

Let’s consider another example from the field of archaeology. An archaeologist finds simple stone tools and, upon presenting his findings, is met with skepticism. The doubters argue that he cannot assume the tools were made by people without knowing the identity and origin of the people. This approach is shortsighted because it ignores the logical steps needed to build a coherent hypothesis:

Reasoning: 1. Tools exist. 2. Tools require a maker (whether human or otherwise). 3. If tools are found, they must have been made by someone.

This iterative process of discovery, hypothesis testing, and evidence collection is the backbone of scientific inquiry. Without it, foundational knowledge would remain out of reach.

Conclusion

The worst philosophical propositions often rely on flawed reasoning and circular logic, misleading us away from true understanding. By recognizing the pitfalls of reification, equivocation, and infinite regress, we can enhance our analytical skills and promote more rational discussions. It is crucial to critically examine our beliefs and arguments, ensuring that our conclusions are based on sound logic and empirical evidence rather than abstract conceptions or unverifiable claims.