Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 12:19:33 GMT
Yes, it goes even so far as correctly defining a fallacy. QED.
The likely culprit is your interpretation of what Britannica says. I have given details, you have not.
The first thing you said was that "there is no "fallacy of nature", and I showed that there was, remember?
The details of the case was that you said originally "the subject of modern religious activities and might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics .
The term "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" can be used to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable." So, QED again, and I hope that helps.
It is however possible that even "authorities" of past repute have fallen sway to the grunts responsible for the lie that any agency found in nature could have initiated life on Earth.
All that is required, Arlon, is for one to assert that in the case of the origins of life on earth, presently at least, nature works in mysterious ways. This always seems to be perfectly satisfactory for any of the devoutly-challenged who cannot explain what their preferred deity is up to. For my own part, it is hard to take any lessons in understanding from one with extreme credulity in supernatural alternatives and who, moreover apparently does not know how old the cosmos is - or discounts quantum physics, come to that. But we've been here before.