It is true that most interactions that happen between and among people are highly irrational. This is because logic is not the only way that humans use to purvey meaning. However, when one wants to make an argument based on logic and reason, one has to break away from this tradition of irrationality as is the case with many philosophers. One way to avoid that tradition is to avoid logical fallacies, which are in essence incorrect patterns of thought when one is making an argumentative stance. This paper details the circumstances that surrounded a time when a friend tried to convince me of his stand using the chronological snobbery fallacy.
The story begins when we were discussing the topic of whether God existed. My stance was that it was highly improbable to prove that an all-knowing and all-capable being either existed or did not exist. As such I took the agnostic stance. However, my friend took the atheistic stance. To a point, I agreed with him since I questioned several logical loopholes in The Bible. However, I believed that his argument against The Bible was full of irrational support.
His argument was illogical since it used chronological snobbery. As such, he believed that a book written by “a generation of goat herders” was in no way suitable to guide the thought patterns if a time as civilized as the 21st
Century. However, this argument was tainted since he believed that we were too advanced to take what the writers of the Old Testament wrote seriously. Therefore, even though I did not believe in most of what the Old Testament wrote as being the truth, I had to disregard this argument as it was based on a fallacy.
