Personal Incredulity

Example

A Sikh can’t understand why the Guru would write about what they believe to be explicit topics, and so therefore rejects Charitropakhyaan as Guru Gobind Singh’s Bani.

Understanding the Personal Incredulity Fallacy

The Personal Incredulity Fallacy occurs when someone concludes that something must be untrue or false simply because they find it difficult to understand or believe. This fallacy arises when an individual’s lack of understanding or unfamiliarity with a concept leads them to dismiss it without sufficient evidence.

  • Characteristics:
    • Subjective Disbelief: Relying on personal difficulty to comprehend a concept as a basis for rejection.
    • Lack of Investigation: Not seeking further information or clarification to resolve misunderstandings.
    • Dismissal Without Evidence: Rejecting a claim or idea without providing objective reasons.

Applying It to the Scenario

  1. Context:
    • Charitropakhyaan is a section of the Dasam Granth, a scripture attributed to Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru.
    • The text includes stories that discuss moral and ethical lessons, sometimes through narratives that involve complex and mature themes.
  2. The Individual’s Position:
    • The Sikh cannot understand why Guru Gobind Singh would write about topics they perceive as explicit or inappropriate.
    • Based on this lack of understanding, they conclude that Charitropakhyaan cannot be the Guru’s authentic writing (Bani).
  3. Why This Is a Personal Incredulity Fallacy:
    • Subjective Difficulty Leads to Rejection: The individual is using their personal discomfort or inability to comprehend the purpose of the explicit content as grounds to dismiss the text’s authenticity.
    • Ignoring Historical and Literary Context: They are not considering the historical reasons, cultural context, or literary techniques that might explain why such content was included.
    • No Objective Evidence Provided: The rejection is not based on factual evidence or scholarly research that challenges the authorship of the text.

Why It’s Fallacious Reasoning

  • Personal Limitations Do Not Determine Truth:
    • An individual’s inability to understand or accept certain content does not inherently invalidate it.
    • Truth and authenticity are determined by objective evidence, historical records, and scholarly consensus, not personal beliefs.
  • Overlooking Contextual Interpretation:
    • The explicit topics in Charitropakhyaan may serve a didactic purpose, using illustrative stories to teach moral lessons.
    • Dismissing the text without exploring its allegorical meanings or symbolic significance limits one’s understanding.
  • Lack of Scholarly Engagement:
    • Rejecting the text solely based on personal incredulity ignores the extensive scholarship that supports its inclusion in the Sikh canon.
    • Scholars and theologians have studied Charitropakhyaan and provided interpretations that align it with Sikh teachings.

Conclusion

The individual commits the Personal Incredulity Fallacy by rejecting Charitropakhyaan as Guru Gobind Singh’s Bani simply because they cannot fathom why the Guru would write about explicit topics. This reasoning is fallacious because it relies on personal disbelief rather than on objective analysis or evidence. Accepting or rejecting a text’s authenticity should involve careful consideration of historical context, literary purpose, and scholarly research, rather than being based solely on personal difficulty in understanding.