Underseer
Contributor
Variations of this argument come up a lot when I discuss apologetics with Christians or Muslims. This is perhaps one of the most revealing arguments they make. In order to find their truth claims true, I have to "seek God with my heart" before examining the evidence.
In other words, I have to want the conclusion to be true before I examine the evidence for whether or not the conclusion is true. It's an incredibly obvious appeal to emotion/ begging the question (circular logic) fallacy such that I wonder none of them notice, but this argument is made to me with such regularity that I can only conclude that most of them don't understand what's wrong with this argument.
Wanting things to be true doesn't make them true.
Honestly, you should have figured that out as a toddler when cookies didn't magically appear in your hand.
If you question the existence of electrons, I don't require you to want to believe electrons are real before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question the existence of elephants, I don't require you to want to believe elephants are real before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question the existence of the Germ Theory of Disease, I don't require you to want to believe that some microorganisms can communicate disease before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question whether or not the Sun rises in the East, I don't require you to want to believe that the Sun rises in the East before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question whether or not laws against murder exist, I don't require you to want to believe that the laws are real before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
I don't need you to be in a particular state of mind for any of the above because the evidence is such that you will be compelled to believe whether you want those things to be true or not. That is the nature of truth. But if I want you to believe that Christianity or Islam are true, then I need you to be in a particular state of mind before you can look at the evidence. You need to want the conclusion to be true before you look at the evidence for whether or not the conclusion is true.
If you need confirmation bias to convince someone that something is true, either it's not true or you have a very bad understanding of the supporting evidence.
In other words, I have to want the conclusion to be true before I examine the evidence for whether or not the conclusion is true. It's an incredibly obvious appeal to emotion/ begging the question (circular logic) fallacy such that I wonder none of them notice, but this argument is made to me with such regularity that I can only conclude that most of them don't understand what's wrong with this argument.
Wanting things to be true doesn't make them true.
Honestly, you should have figured that out as a toddler when cookies didn't magically appear in your hand.
If you question the existence of electrons, I don't require you to want to believe electrons are real before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question the existence of elephants, I don't require you to want to believe elephants are real before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question the existence of the Germ Theory of Disease, I don't require you to want to believe that some microorganisms can communicate disease before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question whether or not the Sun rises in the East, I don't require you to want to believe that the Sun rises in the East before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
If you question whether or not laws against murder exist, I don't require you to want to believe that the laws are real before showing you the evidence. I just show you the evidence.
I don't need you to be in a particular state of mind for any of the above because the evidence is such that you will be compelled to believe whether you want those things to be true or not. That is the nature of truth. But if I want you to believe that Christianity or Islam are true, then I need you to be in a particular state of mind before you can look at the evidence. You need to want the conclusion to be true before you look at the evidence for whether or not the conclusion is true.
If you need confirmation bias to convince someone that something is true, either it's not true or you have a very bad understanding of the supporting evidence.