Atheism
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
in: Logical fallacies

Changes: Non sequitur

Back to page
Sign in to edit
No edit summary
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Non sequitur''' ("it does not follow") is a Latin term that simply means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
  
'''Non sequitur''' ("it does not follow") is a Latin term that simply means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
   
  +
Below are examples of this logical fallacy. They are also examples of the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity Argument from incredulity].
⚫
==Example of a non sequitur==
  
−
====Premises====
  
⚫
#Science can’t explain the origin of life
  
⚫
#There are gaps in the fossil record
  
   
  ⚫
==1st example of a non sequitur==
−
====Conclusions====
  
  +
====1st premises====
⚫
Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions:-
  
  ⚫
#[[Science]] can’t explain the origin of life
  ⚫
#There are gaps in the [[fossil]] record
  +
  +
====1st conclusions====
  ⚫
Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions based largely on [[wishful thinking]]:-
 
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and [[God]] created us as shown in the [[Genesis creation stories|1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis]] and further [[Jesus]] is God’s son.
  
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and [[God]] created us as shown in the [[Genesis creation stories|1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis]] and further [[Jesus]] is God’s son.
−
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and [[Allah]] created us as shown in the [[Koran]].
 +
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and [[Allah]] created us as shown in the [[Qu'ran]].
−
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and the gods/goddesses of our [[polytheistic]] religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.
 +
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and the gods/goddesses of our [[Polytheism|polytheistic]] religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.
   
−
====Analysis====
 +
====1st analysis====
−
#The first premise is correct, science can’t explain '''yet''' the origin of life but see [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ Articles on the Origin of Life].
+
#The first premise is correct, science can’t explain '''yet''' [[Abiogenesis|the origin of life]] but see [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ Articles on the Origin of Life].
−
#The second premise is is correct but unimportant, see talk origins on [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html Transitional fossils]. Fossilization is a rare process and we will never get a complete record from generation to generation, but evolution is clear without a totally complete record.
+
#The second premise is is correct but unimportant, see TalkOrigins on [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html Transitional fossils]. Fossilization is a rare process and we will never get a complete record from generation to generation, still evolution is clear without a totally complete record.
−
#This in no way shows that any one [[religion]] or [[sect]] has the true explanation for life.
+
#This in no way shows that any one [[religion]] or [[Sects and denominations|sect]] has the true explanation for life.
 
#Further natural explanations for life and its origin are in no way ruled out, science has not found the whole story yet.
  
#Further natural explanations for life and its origin are in no way ruled out, science has not found the whole story yet.
  +
  +
==2nd example of a non sequitur==
  +
====2nd premises====
  +
#I personally can’t understand quantum mechanics, other complex material that [[atheist]]ic [[scientist]]s write.
  +
#I personally can understand what my priest/pastor/mullah tells me about [[God]].
  +
  +
====2nd conclusions====
  +
Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions again based largely on wishful thinking:-
  +
#Therefore what the most [[Big bang|respected astronomers in the world say]] is false and [[God]] created the [[Universe]] as shown in the [[Genesis creation stories|1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis]] and further [[Jesus]] is God’s son.
  +
#Therefore what the most [[Big bang|respected astronomers in the world say]] is false and [[Allah]] created the universe as shown in the [[Qu'ran]].
  +
#Therefore what the most [[Big bang|respected astronomers in the world say]] is false and the gods/goddesses of our [[polytheistic]] religion created the universe as shown in our sacred texts.
  +
  +
====2nd analysis====
  +
Both premises are correct, a lay believer with possibly limited intelligence and education may find religious accounts easier to understand than complex science. None of that disproves science.
   
 
==External links==
  
==External links==
 
*[http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/nonseqterm.htm non sequitur]
  
*[http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/nonseqterm.htm non sequitur]
  +
  +
===Videos===
  +
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8P2OPjWD3Q God of the Non Sequitur]
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]
  
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Latest revision as of 09:30, 13 November 2020

Non sequitur ("it does not follow") is a Latin term that simply means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Below are examples of this logical fallacy. They are also examples of the Argument from incredulity.

1st example of a non sequitur

1st premises

  1. Science can’t explain the origin of life
  2. There are gaps in the fossil record

1st conclusions

Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions based largely on wishful thinking:-

  1. Therefore evolution is false and God created us as shown in the 1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis and further Jesus is God’s son.
  2. Therefore evolution is false and Allah created us as shown in the Qu'ran.
  3. Therefore evolution is false and the gods/goddesses of our polytheistic religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.

1st analysis

  1. The first premise is correct, science can’t explain yet the origin of life but see Articles on the Origin of Life.
  2. The second premise is is correct but unimportant, see TalkOrigins on Transitional fossils. Fossilization is a rare process and we will never get a complete record from generation to generation, still evolution is clear without a totally complete record.
  3. This in no way shows that any one religion or sect has the true explanation for life.
  4. Further natural explanations for life and its origin are in no way ruled out, science has not found the whole story yet.

2nd example of a non sequitur

2nd premises

  1. I personally can’t understand quantum mechanics, other complex material that atheistic scientists write.
  2. I personally can understand what my priest/pastor/mullah tells me about God.

2nd conclusions

Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions again based largely on wishful thinking:-

  1. Therefore what the most respected astronomers in the world say is false and God created the Universe as shown in the 1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis and further Jesus is God’s son.
  2. Therefore what the most respected astronomers in the world say is false and Allah created the universe as shown in the Qu'ran.
  3. Therefore what the most respected astronomers in the world say is false and the gods/goddesses of our polytheistic religion created the universe as shown in our sacred texts.

2nd analysis

Both premises are correct, a lay believer with possibly limited intelligence and education may find religious accounts easier to understand than complex science. None of that disproves science.

External links

Videos

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.