I don’t like it. What’s the point?!!!…

From some the credibility floods in. But others use the obvious daftness of the added opinions as reason to reject the belief which is otherwise taken seriously, which thereby loses credibility. This applies both to Christians rejecting Darwinism because of the social aspects and the half-baked philosophy sometimes added to it, and to atheists who reject Christianity and theism because of the sometimes ridiculous inferences falsely derived from the Bible. The result of this is that the daft extremists manage to discredit the moderate and mediating positions which at least Henry and I try to take on both issues.

In any case, I’m pretty quick about approving . . .

I think one could argue that there are no such secular books, if only because we have no qualms about holding human writers to a human standard of evidence. When their work doesn’t hold up, we feel justified in assuming that it’s wrong.

The only counterexample I can think of is when people don’t expect to be able to replicate another person’s thinking. For example, quacks often pose as scientists because ordinary people have got used to not comprehending scientific concepts.

Social darwinism can probably be seen as an example here – the fact that it referenced an Important Scientific Work undoubtedly gave it credibility with the masses. Another example would be the woo surrounding quantum mechanics.

Fortunately, this issue can only ever afflict people who aren’t confident in a field; pretty much by definition, there will always be experts who are qualified to take the quacks on.

* I am, of course, using the term “belief” in a very broad sense here.

The only counterexample I can think of is when people don’t expect to be able to replicate another person’s thinking. For example, it’s quite common for ordinary people to be misled by quacks posing as scientists, because said people have got used to the idea that scientific ideas take a lot of effort to comprehend.

The whole “social darwinism” phenomenon can probably be seen as an example of the breed. Take a belief* that’s treated very seriously, claim that your own daft opinions are somehow part of that belief, and watch as the credibility floods in. Fortunately, this can only ever afflict people who aren’t confident of their own mental abilities; pretty much by definition, there will always be experts who are qualified to take the quacks on.

On a related note, I’ve just had a thought: you could argue that creationists are playing the same game with science as a whole as they do with the Bible. They’re not just equating “faith” with their specific interpretation of the Good Book, they’re trying to equate “science” with it too, just as social darwinists did with their dogmas.

But this raises the question: doesn’t this criticism also apply to many forms of debate? The whole idea of debating is that you convince the audience that your ideas are a necessary consequence of rationality. The only difference seems to be how much effort goes into justifying this conclusion. At what point does it become a rhetorical ploy rather than a structural necessity?

And on that note I think that the issue of rambling is mutual. But it’s such fun!

* I am, of course, using the term “belief” in a very broad sense here.

Is there anything to stop dishonest or desperate preachers applying it at will?

Well, nothing has stopped preachers from doing so thus far. A great deal of “Biblical” preaching simply consists of forcing the association of some set of words from the Bible with some dogma favored by the preacher. Even if one eliminates the many potential approaches to interpretation quite a bit is just random words, but if you associate certain words (for example words from the Torah [Pentateuch] or words from Jesus) with a dogma it’s easier to make it unquestioned.

But that is kind of a sideline. The rest of your questions have set me to thinking and I will respond later. I’m still working on editing a publishable version of a book “When People Speak for God” which relates to what you’re saying.

One question I have to work on is this: Are there books which perform a similar function in a secular context to what the Bible or another sacred text does in a religious one? Are there “canonical” sources that are used to cut off thinking irrespective of their validity. I seem to recall Einstein and Darwin being used in such a way, with some set of their words being associated with a concept which they would have been unlikely to support.

Hmmm. I’m rambling, but your questions interest me a great deal.

So what this amounts to is equating “faith” with their specific interpretation of a small portion of the Bible. And that, in itself, is a distortion. This is not faith versus science. It’s not the Bible versus science. It is a contest between a bad interpretation of scripture and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence.

I’m curious as to whether it’s an inevitable distortion. From where I’m standing, it seems that this is an effective technique to encourage belief in a particular dogma: just equate it with some far broader and much-loved concept. Is there anything to stop dishonest or desperate preachers applying it at will?

More interestingly:
1) is there any way of generalising this form of distortion? If so, what examples are there for it outside of religion?
2) How do we recognise this tactic? How do we help others to recognise this tactic?
3) Are there any circumstances under which it could be valid and/or a good thing?