Craven de Kere wrote:I hadn't seen that response.
Anywho, the example of science was not intended as a comparison of the two but to simply illustrate that prevalence of an accepted notion is in no way a basis for its justification.
The point is that "chronological snobbery" is simply a fallacious argument. It's an appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) in disguise.
It's most commonly coupled with an equally fallacious slippery slope argument.
Why it isn't more easily recognized is because "chronological snobbery" has use that isn't fallacious (though I have never seen it used without fallacy).
The legitimate use is to refute a fallacious argument that just because we do things the way we do now it is correct. This would be the opposite to an argumentum ad antiquitatem but I know of no term in common use for this because i have never seen this fallacy in action.
So what I am trying to say is that "chronological snobbery" is just about always a fallacious argument, unless it is used in response to a fallacious argument that bases the validity of something exclusively on its modern adoption.
The comparison with science was an easy way to illustrate the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem. It was not meant for an apples to apples comparison of religion to science.
I will use a different example.
"What's wrong with the world today? We are losing our values. The sin of homosexuality is becomming accepted as a way of life. Feminism is making women try to be men. Sex is pervading our culture. If our forefathers saw this they would be appalled!"
Now all of the above judgements might be valid, but in the above not a single argument establishes (or even attempts to) validity.
It's merely a fallacious argumentum ad antiquitatem. This is pretty much what "chronological snobbery" is.
For example, the tolerance of homosexuals in modern society is not based on the commonality of its acceptance, to reject it on grounds of "chronological snobbery" is to ignore all the arguments about said tolerance and simply make an appeal to tradition.
Now if the tolerance is argued as justified merely on the basis of its modern acceptance it is a perfectly valid rebuttal. But nobody really argues that tolerance is right just because it's more common these days. So that argument does not address any of the merits of tolerance but simply goes for fallacy instead.
I agree with all of this. However, it doesn't really apply to the argument JM, Frank, and I were making - namely, that constant re-inventions of the fundamental doctrines of religion in accordance with societies moral trends is absurd (hence the term "chronological snobbery.")
All of the things you said above are insightfull and ring true. But we are not discussing whether or not acceptance of homosexuality is a good or bad thing for society. We are discussing whether or not homosexuality should be accepted by
religion and all of the implications therein. As JM and I said earlier, religion is based on the concept of Divine Truth - an eternal, unchanging moral code. It cannot simply "evolve" or "advance" the way that morality in society can.
So, when someone makes the argument that gay clergy is a super-duper idea, they are essentially saying that everybody else throughout 2000 years of Christianity was wrong - because, unlike society as a whole, religious morality is not fluid and it there is only
one correct way. Invartiably, this new intrepretation is perfectly in lne with whatever the latest moral revolution has been (ie- homosexuality.) Since this pattern of re-intrepretation is ubiquitous to every age, I think the term "chronological snobbery" fits perfectly.
I see your point that "chronological snobbery is an appeal to tradition in disguise." But the chronological snobbery argument is not an appeal to tradition for the sake of an appeal to tradition. It is merely a way of pointing out the fact that a) every generation re-intreprets the Bible, often changing the fundamental doctrines withen, b) that these re-intrepretations are
always designed to jive with new moral trends. Now, this is either an incredible coincidence or evidence of the absurdity of religion itself.
So people who advocate constantly changing religious intrepretation are
doing the exact opposite of chronological snobbery. Essentially, they are saying that "this is the right way to do things, because it is they way my people, in my age, in my place do things." Or, in this case, they are saying pro-gay intrepreatation of the Bible is correct because my generation of Western civilization accepts homosexuality. To the extent that "chronological snobbery" is an appeal to tradition, is the same extent that the pro-gay clergy stance is an appeal to modernity purely for the sake of modernity. Same difference.
But calling a person a hypocrite is senseless, we are all hypocrites at one time or another.
