Critiquing: Anyone Worthy of Worship Wouldn’t Want It

June 12, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Content Evaluation — Logical Coherence — Substantiation of Claims — Evidence-Based Beliefs — Testing Promises

---

Introduction

The content from June 12, 2023, titled “Anyone Worthy of Worship Wouldn’t Want It”, presented by #STRask – Stand to Reason, engages with questions about worship and the appropriateness of seeking rewards for good deeds. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, identify any logical inconsistencies, highlight logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and discuss the need for substantiating claims. Additionally, methods for testing alleged promises will be outlined, stressing the importance of aligning one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence.

Logical Coherence

Claim and Support Structure

The content attempts to justify the notion that a being worthy of worship would expect and deserve it. For example, Greg Cokle’s analogy of applauding excellence in sports is used to build up the argument that worshipping a supreme being follows the same logic. He states, “So, do you think it is a good thing for people to think it’s appropriate to applaud excellency? Yeah, I mean, what if somebody was really good…and people just totally dist all of that.”

This argument appears logically structured but suffers from a false analogy fallacy. Applauding a human’s temporary excellence is significantly different from worshipping a supreme being for intrinsic and eternal qualities. The extrapolation from one scenario to another lacks the necessary bridge to logically connect the two disparate contexts.

Virtue and Deserving Worship

The argument also posits that if a being is supremely virtuous, it is right and good to worship that being. The content suggests that the most virtuous being would promote worship of itself. This claim is problematic because it assumes the intrinsic goodness of self-promotion without critically examining whether such behavior is compatible with ultimate virtue. For instance, the content states, “Then why would it be inappropriate for the most virtuous one to receive and expect to receive the applause that is properly due to him?”

Here, the begging the question fallacy is evident, as the argument assumes what it tries to prove: that expecting worship is inherently virtuous.

Logical Inconsistencies

Inconsistent Standards

One glaring inconsistency is the different standards applied to humans and a supreme being. The content criticizes human dictators for demanding worship, yet it argues that a supreme being’s demand for worship is justified by its nature. For example, it mentions, “But that’s not who God is. God actually does deserve it. He actually does deserve it.”

This inconsistency hinges on the assertion of the supreme being’s inherent worthiness without providing independent substantiation. If the same moral critique applies to humans, it should consistently apply to any being, unless a clear, logical distinction is provided.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Numerous claims are made without sufficient evidence or reasoning. For instance, the content states, “God shown us who he is. And what he wants to do, I mean, within the Trinity, the fellowship you have there and the love and the joy that you have in that fellowship, he wants to share that with us.”

Such statements assume the existence and characteristics of a supreme being without providing empirical evidence or a rational basis. This leads to the unsubstantiated assertion fallacy, weakening the argument’s credibility.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Appeal to Authority and Tradition

The content frequently appeals to religious texts and authority figures to substantiate its points. For example, it references John Piper and CS Lewis to support its views on worship and joy. This reliance on authority without critical examination constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy.

Confirmation Bias

The arguments presented are steeped in confirmation bias, selectively using examples and analogies that reinforce pre-existing beliefs while ignoring counterarguments or evidence to the contrary. This bias is evident in the content’s dismissal of alternative moral frameworks without due consideration.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Need for Evidence

The content makes several bold claims about the nature and expectations of a supreme being, the appropriateness of worship, and the rewards for good deeds. For instance, “He could do as he wishes. So, I don’t think it’s inappropriate.”

Such statements require robust substantiation. Without empirical evidence or sound reasoning, these claims remain dubious and fail to meet the obligation to substantiate assertions, leading to a weakened argument.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises

To test the alleged promises of a supreme being, one could:

1. Empirical Verification: Look for empirical evidence supporting the existence and actions of the supreme being.
2. Predictive Power: Evaluate the predictive power of religious claims and their alignment with observed reality.
3. Consistency: Assess the internal consistency of religious texts and doctrines.
4. Comparative Analysis: Compare the claims with those of other belief systems to identify unique and verifiable elements.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

Mapping Belief to Evidence

One’s degree of belief should correspond to the degree of available evidence. The content’s arguments often present beliefs as certainties without proportional evidence. For example, “We know about these reports because Paul talks about it afterwards. You do this, then you will receive.”

Such certainty is unwarranted without substantial evidence. A rational approach requires scaling belief to evidence, maintaining a skeptical and open-minded stance until sufficient proof is provided.

Conclusion

In critiquing the content titled “Anyone Worthy of Worship Wouldn’t Want It”, several logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and cognitive biases have been identified. The arguments presented often lack substantiation, rely on false analogies, and exhibit confirmation bias. To strengthen such discussions, it’s crucial to provide empirical evidence, avoid logical fallacies, and map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.

---

Feel free to discuss the arguments further in the comments section!