Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • As an immigrant, I found one thing about America that is fascinating.

    身為移民,我發現美國有一件令人著迷的事。

  • Americans are so serious about their religious belief, or non-beliefs, and a big portion

    美國人對自己的宗教信仰或無信仰非常認真,

  • of American public debate and discussion are centered around religious issues.

    美國公共辯論和討論的很大一部分都圍繞著宗教問題。

  • I am especially fascinated by the fact that there are so many YouTube channels focused

    我特別著迷的是,有這麼多 YouTube 頻道

  • on just Christian apologism, and atheism, and they seem to have a very good symbiotic

    只關注基督教的護教和無神論,而且它們似乎有很好的

  • relationship because a huge portion of their content is based on reacting to or quote-to-on-quote

    共生關係,因為它們的內容很大一部分是基於對另一方論點的回應

  • debunkingthe other side's videos, which I find particularly enjoyable.

    或“揭穿”對方的視頻,我覺得特別有趣。

  • I recently began binge-watching these contents and noticed that both sides seem to frequently

    最近開始狂看這些內容,發現雙方的論點

  • employ logical fallacies in their arguments.

    似乎都常出現邏輯謬誤。

  • So today, I compiled 8 logical fallacies frequently used by both atheists and Christian apologists.

    所以今天,我整理了8個無神論者和基督教辯護者常用的邏輯謬誤。

  • So let's talk about it with PAA:

    那麼讓我們來和 PAA 談談:

  • Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to What People Also ask where I compiled some fun facts to

    嗨,我是 Shao Chieh Lo,歡迎來到 What People Also

  • share with you, usually by conducting a lot of Googling.

    我在這裡分享通常是透過進行大量的 Google 搜尋所得的冷知識。

  • Today I want to talk about 8 logical fallacies frequently used by both atheists and Christian

    今天我想談談無神論者和基督教辯護者經常使用的8個邏輯謬誤

  • apologists, if you are an atheist or Christian apologist, I want to let you know I am not

    如果你是無神論者或基督教辯護者,我想讓你知道我不是想攻擊你

  • trying to attack you, I simply just want to compile some logical fallacy that is frequently

    ,我只是想整理一些邏輯謬誤這是

  • used by both sides.

    雙方經常使用的。

  • The examples I used in this video are just some examples I heard from some atheists and

    我在這個影片中使用的例子只是我從一些無神論者和

  • Christian apologists, it does not represent all apologists or atheists, so I am not strawmaning

    基督教辯護者那裡聽到的一些例子,它並不代表所有的辯護者或無神論者,所以我不是在「稻草人」你

  • you.

  • Oh wait, what is strawmaning?

    喔等等,什麼是稻草人?

  • Let's talk about our first fallacy: 1.What is Strawman Fallacy?

    我們來談談第一個謬誤: 1.什麼是稻草人謬誤?

  • The Strawman Fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to

    當有人扭曲對手的論點以使其更容易攻擊

  • attack or refute, rather than addressing the actual argument.

    或反駁時,而不是解決實際的論點,就會出現稻草人謬誤。

  • This involves exaggerating, oversimplifying, or completely fabricating aspects of the argument.

    這涉及誇大、過度簡化或完全捏造論點的各個方面。

  • It's a common technique in debates and discussions, used to undermine the opponent's position

    這是辯論和討論中的常見技巧,用於

  • by attacking this weaker "strawman" representation, rather than engaging with the real issues

    透過攻擊較弱的「稻草人」代表來破壞對手的立場

  • or points being made.

    ,而不是討論真正的問題或觀點。

  • Everyday Example:

    日常範例:

  • Imagine a conversation about environmental policy.

    想像一下關於環境政策的對話。

  • Person A says, "I think we need stricter regulations to protect the environment."

    A說:“我認為我們需要更嚴格的法規來保護環境。”

  • Person B responds, "So, you want to shut down all factories and put everyone out of work?"

    B 回答:“所以,你想關閉所有工廠,讓所有人失業?”

  • Here, Person B is misrepresenting Person A's argument.

    在這裡,B 扭曲了 A 的論點。

  • Person A suggested stricter regulations, not the extreme measure of shutting down all factories,

    A建議更嚴格的監管,而不是關閉所有工廠的極端措施,

  • which is a strawman that Person B created to attack the argument more easily.

    這是B人為了更容易攻擊論點而製造的稻草人。

  • Example of Atheist Use of Strawman Fallacy

    無神論者利用稻草人謬誤的例子

  • In a debate on the existence of God, an atheist's claim that "Christians believe in God merely

    在關於上帝存在的辯論中,無神論者聲稱“基督徒相信上帝僅僅是

  • because they cannot handle the reality of death and seek solace in the concept of an

    因為他們無法處理死亡的現實並在來世的概念中尋求安慰

  • afterlife" represents a strawman fallacy.

    ”,這代表了稻草人謬誤。

  • This fallacy arises from the oversimplification and misrepresentation of the complex reasons

    這種謬論源自於對

  • behind Christian belief in God.

    基督教信仰上帝背後的複雜原因的過於簡單化和扭曲。

  • The atheist's argument does not acknowledge the array of philosophical, theological, and

    無神論者的論點並不承認基督徒經常引用的一系列哲學、神學和

  • personal motivations that Christians often cite as the foundation of their faith.

    個人動機作為其信仰的基礎。

  • Instead, it reduces their belief to a simplistic and not universally applicable explanation

    相反,它將他們的信念簡化為一種簡單化且不普遍適用的解釋,

  • centered around fear of death and the need for afterlife assurance.

    其中心是對死亡的恐懼和對來世保證的需要。

  • This approach effectively creates a distorted version of Christian beliefs, which is easier

    這種方法有效地創造了基督教信仰的扭曲版本,這更容易

  • to discredit, but fails to engage with the actual, nuanced reasons that many Christians

    被懷疑,但未能涉及許多基督徒為其

  • offer for their faith.

    信仰提供的實際的、微妙的理由。

  • Example of Christian Apologists Use Strawman Fallacy:

    基督教辯護者使用稻草人謬誤的例子:

  • When a Christian apologist says, "Atheists believe solely in science to explain everything

    當基督教辯護者說「無神論者只相信科學可以解釋

  • in the universe and reject any notion of non-physical entities," they are committing a strawman

    宇宙中的一切並拒絕任何非物質實體的概念」時,他們就犯了稻草人

  • fallacy.

    謬誤。

  • This oversimplified depiction does not accurately reflect the diverse perspectives of atheists.

    這種過度簡化的描述並不能準確反映無神論者的不同觀點。

  • Many atheists do not assert that science has answers to all questions, nor do they all

    許多無神論者並不斷言科學可以回答所有問題,也不否認

  • discount the possibility of phenomena beyond the reach of current scientific understanding.

    出現超出當前科學理解範圍的現象的可能性。

  • Their lack of belief in a god is often grounded in a lack of compelling evidence, rather than

    他們對神的缺乏信仰往往是因為缺乏令人信服的證據,

  • an absolute reliance on scientific explanation for all aspects of existence.

    而不是對存在的各個方面的科學解釋的絕對依賴。

  • By portraying atheists as strict materialists who deny anything beyond the physical, the

    透過將無神論者描繪成嚴格的唯物主義者,他們否認物質以外的任何事物,

  • apologist overlooks the complex and varied views many atheists hold regarding the limits

    辯護者忽略了許多無神論者對科學知識的限制

  • of scientific knowledge and the unknown.

    和未知事物所持有的複雜而多樣的觀點。

  • This generalization fails to address the real and multifaceted views of atheism.

    這種概括未能解決無神論的真實和多方面的觀點。

  • 2.What is Ad Hominem

    2.什麼是人身

  • The Ad Hominem Fallacy occurs when someone attacks their opponent's character or personal

    攻擊 當某人攻擊對手的性格或個人

  • traits instead of engaging with the actual argument being presented.

    特徵而不是參與所提出的實際論點時,就會出現人身攻擊謬誤。

  • This tactic is used to undermine the opponent's position by discrediting them personally,

    這種策略是透過抹黑對手的個人聲譽來破壞對手的立場,

  • rather than addressing the substance of their argument.

    而不是解決他們論點的實質內容。

  • The aim is to divert attention from the argument to the individual, making their argument seem

    目的是將注意力從論證轉移到個人身上,使他們的論點顯得

  • less credible or convincing.

    不那麼可信或令人信服。

  • Everyday Example: In a discussion about health policy, Person

    日常範例:在有關衛生政策的討論中,

  • A argues, "We should have universal healthcare because it leads to better overall health

    A 認為,“我們應該擁有全民醫療保健,因為它會帶來更好的整體健康

  • outcomes."

    結果。”

  • Person B responds, "You just support universal healthcare because you're a socialist who

    B 回答說:“你只是支持全民醫療保健,因為你是一個討厭自由企業的社會主義者

  • hates free enterprise."

    。”

  • Here, Person B is committing an ad hominem fallacy by attacking Person A's political

    在這裡,B 犯了人身攻擊謬誤,攻擊 A 的政治

  • ideology rather than presenting the actual argument against universal healthcare to support

    意識形態,而不是提出反對全民健保的實際論點來支持

  • his refutation.

    他的反駁。

  • Example of Atheist Use of Ad Hominem Fallacy: In a religious debate, when an atheist states,

    無神論者使用人身攻擊謬誤的例子:在宗教辯論中,當無神論者說

  • "You only believe in God because you're not educated enough to understand science," it

    “你只相信上帝,因為你沒有受過足夠的教育來理解科學”,這就

  • constitutes an ad hominem attack.

    構成了人身攻擊。

  • This approach unfairly targets the believer's intelligence and level of education, rather

    這種方法不公平地針對信徒的智力和教育水平,而不是

  • than engaging constructively with the philosophical or theological bases of their belief in God.

    建設性地參與他們對上帝信仰的哲學或神學基礎。

  • Such a statement implies that the believer's faith is a result of a lack of understanding,

    這樣的說法意味著信徒的信仰是缺乏理解的結果, 忽略了

  • overlooking the myriad of reasons, including personal experiences and existential reflections,

    可能支撐他們信仰的無數原因,包括個人經驗

  • that might underpin their belief.

    和存在反思。

  • By focusing on the believer's perceived personal shortcomings, the atheist diverts the discussion

    透過關注信徒所感知的個人缺點,無神論者將討論

  • away from the substantive arguments about faith and religion.

    從有關信仰和宗教的實質爭論上轉移開。

  • This tactic not only dismisses the believer's perspective but also evades a genuine exploration

    這種策略不僅忽略了信徒的觀點,也迴避了

  • of the complex reasons behind religious beliefs.

    對宗教信仰背後複雜原因的真正探索。

  • Example of Christian Apologist Use of Ad Hominem Fallacy:

    基督教護教家使用人身攻擊謬誤的例子:

  • In a discourse on faith, a Christian apologist's claim, "Atheists are just bitter people who

    在關於信仰的論述中,一位基督教護教者聲稱,「無神論者只是一些痛苦的人,他們

  • reject God because they want to live sinful lives without guilt," serves as an ad hominem

    拒絕上帝,因為他們想要毫無愧疚地過有罪的生活”,這是一種人身

  • attack.

    攻擊。

  • This statement criticizes atheists' moral character and personal motivations, rather

    這項聲明批評了無神論者的道德品質和個人動機,而不是

  • than constructively addressing the philosophical or rational arguments behind their disbelief

    建設性地解決他們不相信 上帝 背後的哲學或理性論點

  • in God.

  • By attributing their lack of belief to a desire for an unaccountable lifestyle, the apologist

    透過將他們缺乏信仰歸因於對不負責任的生活方式的渴望,護教者

  • shifts the focus from a substantive debate on the existence of God to a judgment of atheists'

    將焦點從對上帝存在的實質辯論轉移到對無神論者

  • character.

    性格的判斷。

  • This approach not only disrespects the genuine intellectual positions held by many atheists

    這種方法不僅不尊重許多無神論者所持有的真正的知識立場

  • but also sidesteps the opportunity for an honest discussion about the complexities and

    ,而且還迴避了誠實討論 信仰和不信仰的

  • nuances of belief and non-belief.

    複雜性和細微差別的機會

  • 3.What is False Dilemma/False Dichotomy Fallacy

    。 3.什麼是虛假困境/虛假二分法謬誤

  • The False Dilemma (also known as False Dichotomy) Fallacy occurs when an argument presents two

    虛假困境(也稱為虛假二分法)謬誤發生在當一個論證提出兩個

  • options as the only possibilities, when in fact more options exist.

    選項作為唯一的可能性,而實際上存在更多選項時。

  • This fallacy limits the possibilities to two, often extreme, options, with the intent to

    這種謬誤將可能性限制為兩種(通常是極端的)選擇,其目的是

  • force a choice between them, ignoring other viable alternatives.

    強迫在它們之間做出選擇,而忽略其他可行的選擇。

  • It's a tactic used in argumentation to corner the opponent into choosing an undesirable

    這是辯論中使用的一種策略,目的是逼迫對手選擇不受歡迎的

  • option or to oversimplify complex issues into black-and-white choices.

    選項,或將複雜的問題過度簡化為非黑即白的選擇。

  • Everyday Example: In a discussion about career choices, Person

    日常例子:在一次關於職業選擇的討論中,

  • A says, "You either go to college and succeed, or you don't go and end up failing in life."

    A 說:“你要么上大學並取得成功,要么不上大學而最終在生活中失敗。”

  • Here, Person A is presenting a false dilemma by suggesting that success is only achievable

    在這裡,A 提出了一個錯誤的困境,他認為成功只能

  • through college education and that not attending college inevitably leads to failure.

    透過大學教育才能實現,而不上大學必然會導致失敗。

  • This ignores other paths to success, like vocational training, entrepreneurship, or

    這忽略了其他成功途徑,例如職業訓練、創業或

  • self-taught skills.

    自學技能。

  • Example of Atheist Use of False Dilemma Fallacy An atheist might employ a false dilemma fallacy

    無神論者使用虛假困境謬誤的例子 無神論者可能會運用虛假困境謬誤

  • by asserting, "You must either accept evolution and reject all religious teachings, or deny

    ,斷言:“你必須要么接受進化論並拒絕所有宗教教義,要么

  • science entirely and live in ignorance."

    完全否認科學並生活在無知中。”

  • This statement presents an overly simplistic choice, implying that accepting scientific

    這種說法提出了一個過於簡化的選擇,暗示接受科學

  • theories like evolution is fundamentally incompatible with any religious belief.

    像進化論這樣的理論從根本上來說與任何宗教信仰都不相容。

  • It ignores the many individuals who reconcile their religious faith with scientific understanding,

    它忽略了許多將宗教信仰與科學理解相調和的個人,

  • and the various religious interpretations that do not conflict with scientific discoveries.

    以及與科學發現不衝突的各種宗教解釋。

  • By framing the debate as an either/or scenario, it dismisses the nuanced positions many hold

    透過將辯論界定為非此即彼的場景,它駁斥了許多人所持有的將

  • that blend scientific knowledge with spiritual beliefs.

    科學知識與精神信仰融為一體的微妙立場。

  • Example of Christian Apologist Use of False Dilemma Fallacy:

    基督教護教家使用虛假困境謬誤的例子:

  • A Christian apologist might use a false dilemma fallacy by stating, "You either believe in

    基督教護教者可能會使用虛假困境謬誤,說:「你要么相信

  • the Christian God and have a moral compass, or you are an atheist and live a life without

    基督教的上帝並有道德指南針,要么你是無神論者並且過著沒有任何道德指導的生活

  • any moral guidance."

    。 ”

  • This creates an oversimplified binary choice, suggesting that morality is exclusive to Christian

    這造成了一種過於簡單化的二元選擇,表明道德是基督教

  • belief and nonexistent in atheism.

    信仰所獨有的,並且在無神論中不存在。

  • It disregards the possibility of atheists and followers of other religions possessing

    它忽略了無神論者和其他宗教的追隨者擁有

  • strong ethical principles independent of Christian doctrine.

    獨立於基督教教義的強大道德原則 的可能性 。

  • This argument unfairly diminishes the complex landscape of moral philosophy and the diverse

    這種論點不公平地削弱了道德哲學的複雜性以及不同文化

  • sources of ethical values across different cultures and belief systems.

    和信仰體系中道德價值的多元來源。

  • 4.What is Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

    4.什麼是循環推理(迴避問題)

  • Circular Reasoning, also known as Begging the Question, occurs when the conclusion of

    循環推理,也稱為迴避問題,當

  • an argument is assumed in the premises.

    論證的結論在前提中被假定時,就會發生循環推理。

  • Essentially, the argument goes in a circle, with the conclusion simply restating a form

    本質上,論證是循環進行的,結論只是重申了

  • of the original assumption.

    原始假設的一種形式。

  • It's a logical fallacy because it doesn't provide any actual evidence or reasoning,

    這是一個邏輯謬誤,因為它沒有提供任何實際的證據或推理,

  • just reasserts the point in a way that appears to be an argument.

    只是以一種看似論證的方式重申了這一點。

  • Everyday Example: Imagine someone arguing about the trustworthiness

    日常範例:想像一下,有人在爭論 新聞來源的

  • of a news source said: "You can trust this news channel because it always tells the truth."

    可信度時 說:“你可以信任這個新聞頻道,因為它總是說實話。”

  • This is circular reasoning because the premise (the channel tells the truth) is the same

    這是循環推理,因為前提(渠道說真話)與

  • as the conclusion (it is trustworthy).

    結論(可信)相同。

  • It assumes what it's trying to prove without providing any external evidence of the channel's

    它假設了它試圖證明的內容,但沒有提供任何管道

  • credibility.

    可信度的外部證據。

  • Example of Atheist Use of Circular Reasoning: In a theological debate, an atheist may propose

    無神論者使用循環推理的例子:在神學辯論中,無神論者可能會提出

  • a circular argument by asserting, "God is merely a man-made concept because all notions

    循環論證,聲稱「上帝只是一個人造概念,因為

  • of God are inherently created by humans."

    上帝的所有概念本質上都是由人類創造的」。

  • This line of reasoning is inherently circular, as it employs the premise of God's concept

    這種推理本質上是循環的,因為它採用上帝概念

  • being human-generated as proof of its artificiality.

    是人類產生的前提來證明其人為性。

  • The argument essentially concludes that God is a man-made construct on the basis that

    這個論證的基本結論是,上帝是一個人造的概念,其基礎是

  • concepts of God originate from human thought.

    上帝的概念源自於人類思想。

  • However, this reasoning is circular because it assumes what it seeks to prove: the premise

    然而,這種推理是循環的,因為它假設了它想要證明的東西:

  • that all ideas of God are human creations is used to substantiate the conclusion that

    上帝的所有想法都是人類創造的前提被用來證實

  • God, therefore, is a fabricated concept.

    上帝是一個捏造的概念的結論。

  • This approach neglects to consider the possibility of a divine entity existing independently

    這種方法忽略了考慮神聖實體獨立於