Oftentimes when someone quotes scripture to demonstrate their point, someone will contend it with the counterargument: "That's your interpretation." There are other versions of this, including "That's just your opinion" and similar wording. The problem is that if this is said simply as a blanket statement rather as the introduction to an argument which will demonstrate the point, then it is simply a fallacious response.
In my experience, the people who make such argumentation have one thing in common: they can never follow it up. They will tell you "That's just your interpretation" or "That's just how you see the verse," but when you ask them to demonstrate how you might be misrepresenting the verse, or you ask them to examine the verse, they almost always will refuse to do so.
Brothers and sisters, if anyone pulls this fallacy with you, do not permit it to them. If one wishes to suggest you have misused God's word, ask them to answer for it. Explain it. Demonstrate it. If they cannot, or they simply repeat themselves, or they present a very shallow response, then they will have shown themselves to be full of nothing but hot air. Stick to the word of God, show that the truth is there in the plain wording, and they will have nowhere else to go.
Showing posts with label Logical Fallacies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logical Fallacies. Show all posts
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Friday, December 7, 2012
The Westboro Law
There is an internet adage known as Godwin's Law, which states that the longer a debate or conversation goes on, the more likelihood something or someone will be compared to Hitler or the Nazis (this is also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum). For example:
Might I now propose a new law? I call it the Westboro Law. What is this new law, you ask? It's the idea that the longer a debate or conversation either over morality or religion goes on, the more likelihood someone is going to make a reference or analogy to the Westboro Baptist cult (I refuse to call them a church). For example:
Now what would we call this? Reductio ad Westborum, perhaps? Latin is not my strong point...
Person A: "I believe in tighter gun control laws."Or as an another example:
Person B: "You know who else believed that? Hitler!"
Person A: "President Obama wears pants. You know who else wore pants? The Nazis!"OK, that one was a little exaggerated, but you get the point. Some instances of this can be just as silly. It's basically a logical fallacy of responding to something by jumping to an extreme example of that position or opinion, and when there's very little to connect the two (or at the very least, a very slim connection). It is also an attempt to make the other side look bad by striking at the audience's or reader's emotions.
Might I now propose a new law? I call it the Westboro Law. What is this new law, you ask? It's the idea that the longer a debate or conversation either over morality or religion goes on, the more likelihood someone is going to make a reference or analogy to the Westboro Baptist cult (I refuse to call them a church). For example:
Person A: "I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."Or even (as I once personally experienced):
Person B: "You know who else believes that? The Westboro Baptist people!"
Person A: "[insert religious arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality at all]"Just like Godwin's Law, this seeks to jump to an extreme analogy simply to make the other side look or sound bad. Because Fred Phelps and his cronies are the poster children for how to do your religion wrong, people cling to them whenever they want to make other religious people or certain moral beliefs look bad. This, likewise, is attempting to appeal to the emotional responses of those reading or listening to the conversation or topic. It is also just as fallacious.
Person B: "Wow! You're just like the Westboro Baptist crazies!"
Now what would we call this? Reductio ad Westborum, perhaps? Latin is not my strong point...
Friday, August 31, 2012
Using Evil Recorded in the Bible Against the Bible
It's popular for many today to quote passages dealing with evil in the Bible, and use it against the Bible. It's done either in the tone of "Look! Evil! That must mean this book is evil!" or "This happened in the Bible, this must mean God approves it." How many times, for example, have we heard the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30-38) quoted as if to embarrass us that it exists in the Bible?
Let's review a few things regarding this:
Firstly, let's clarify what the Bible is. The Bible is not about how nice a guy Jesus was. It isn't about how God is nothing but love, love, love, exciting and new. It isn't about how wonderful a people Christians are. It isn't about how great the world would be if we were just all so gosh darn nice to one another for a change. It isn't about how better your life can be. It isn't about getting rich. It isn't a children's book. And it most certainly isn't about buying some panhandling kid a pair of goofy shoes.
What is the Bible about, then? It is the story of mankind's fall and his salvation by the merits and salvific atonement of Christ. In order to talk about mankind's salvation, however, one must give a reason for man to be saved, and that entails either a discussion of or examples of mankind's evil. How can you possibly understand the words of the apostle Paul, that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), unless you see this discussed or displayed beforehand?
Secondly, and on that same train of thought, it is fallacious to assume that the mere mention of evil makes an entire work evil. A work on the proper mode of government would have to, by example, give poor examples of leadership, as Machiavelli does in his famous work, The Prince or his other, lesser known work, The Discourses. Yet if an author gives poor examples of leadership so that we may more properly understand the better examples, that does not give us the right to simply dismiss his entire argument. If anything, it's a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Thirdly, it is fallacious to state that, simply because a writer includes evil in his work, he must somehow approve it. According to such logic, an author who writes on the Holocaust must approve of the Holocaust, irregardless of whether or not he wrote on the Holocaust as an evil and barbaric act of inhumanity. In like manner, simply because an incident is recorded in scripture does not mean God approved of it.
Is there evil in the Bible? Yes there is. There's incest, rape, fraud, the murder of best friends, the breaking of oaths, and other examples. Yet man is a fallen creature, and even unbelievers would agree that man is capable of doing all the aforementioned evil. The Bible does not mince words when it comes to mankind's depravity. Men in toto are by their nature objects of wrath because of their sin (cf. Eph 2:3). Let us therefore give thanks to God for Christ, who "knew no sin," yet became sin "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). The Bible does mention evil, but it likewise tells us how we are able to flee from it and seek the righteousness of God.
Let's review a few things regarding this:
Firstly, let's clarify what the Bible is. The Bible is not about how nice a guy Jesus was. It isn't about how God is nothing but love, love, love, exciting and new. It isn't about how wonderful a people Christians are. It isn't about how great the world would be if we were just all so gosh darn nice to one another for a change. It isn't about how better your life can be. It isn't about getting rich. It isn't a children's book. And it most certainly isn't about buying some panhandling kid a pair of goofy shoes.
What is the Bible about, then? It is the story of mankind's fall and his salvation by the merits and salvific atonement of Christ. In order to talk about mankind's salvation, however, one must give a reason for man to be saved, and that entails either a discussion of or examples of mankind's evil. How can you possibly understand the words of the apostle Paul, that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), unless you see this discussed or displayed beforehand?
Secondly, and on that same train of thought, it is fallacious to assume that the mere mention of evil makes an entire work evil. A work on the proper mode of government would have to, by example, give poor examples of leadership, as Machiavelli does in his famous work, The Prince or his other, lesser known work, The Discourses. Yet if an author gives poor examples of leadership so that we may more properly understand the better examples, that does not give us the right to simply dismiss his entire argument. If anything, it's a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Thirdly, it is fallacious to state that, simply because a writer includes evil in his work, he must somehow approve it. According to such logic, an author who writes on the Holocaust must approve of the Holocaust, irregardless of whether or not he wrote on the Holocaust as an evil and barbaric act of inhumanity. In like manner, simply because an incident is recorded in scripture does not mean God approved of it.
Is there evil in the Bible? Yes there is. There's incest, rape, fraud, the murder of best friends, the breaking of oaths, and other examples. Yet man is a fallen creature, and even unbelievers would agree that man is capable of doing all the aforementioned evil. The Bible does not mince words when it comes to mankind's depravity. Men in toto are by their nature objects of wrath because of their sin (cf. Eph 2:3). Let us therefore give thanks to God for Christ, who "knew no sin," yet became sin "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). The Bible does mention evil, but it likewise tells us how we are able to flee from it and seek the righteousness of God.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The Story of a Self-Proclaimed Communist
Once upon a time a gentleman came across someone who called himself a Communist. As they began to chat, the gentleman asked what had attracted the Communist to that ideology.
"Because I believe that the government should provide for the people," the Communist said.
"But do you agree with class warfare" asked our gentleman.
"Heavens no," replied the Communist.
Perplexed, but also curious, the gentleman asked, "Do you think capitalism is bad?"
"Of course not," replied the Communist, "I believe capitalism is a perfectly legitimate system of economy."
"Do you believe in private property and ownership?"
"Why should I? People should be permitted to freely own property."
"Perhaps you could help me for a moment, sir, because you say you are a Communist, and yet you have affirmed a love for all the things which Communism speaks out against."
The gentleman could tell our Communist friend was getting agitated, if just a bit, and he grew rather stern as he looked at our gentleman and asked, "Are you judging me, sir?"
"Judging? Not at all. You, however, present to be two contradictions: that which you think you are, and that which you truly are. Have you read the works of Marx and Engels?"
"Somewhat," replied the Communist, "but I find them to be irrelevant to this topic. They are two men who lived long ago, and who are now dead. Their works are antiquated by now."
"Yet their works have laid the foundation for the belief system you now uphold. You cannot simply ignore the historical development and traditions of the system of beliefs you now uphold, neither can you choose to redefine it by your own unilateral will."
"Now see here, sir," said the Communist, his voice showing he was growing quite irate, "I will not have you pass judgment on me. I know what I am, and I'm a Communist! You have no right to tell me otherwise!"
"Tell me, if I told you I descended from African tribes, would you believe me?"
The Communist looked our gentleman over and, finding him quite Caucasian, replied, "I wouldn't reckon so."
"Of course not. I could declare myself African all I wanted, but that wouldn't change the facts. Now, in a similar circumstance, you tell me you are Communist, and yet you neither uphold what Communism believes, nor do you oppose what it opposes - in fact, you present all the negative in the positive. You even belittle their founders."
"You cannot suppose what is in my heart!" the Communist cried.
"Your heart is irrelevant," the gentleman said, "the reality that is and the reality you desire are two separate things, irregardless of what your 'heart' thinks. Words have meaning, history is in stone, and it is not up to us to reinterpret what either means or says. You cannot choose to unilaterally revise what it means to be Communist any more than I can decide unilaterally means to be Caucasian. In this essence, you deny the authority of Marx, Engels, and other men in history, and choose instead to rely upon your own authority. You are not a Communist, my friend, you are simply yourself."
"And I suppose you believe yourself to be of authority on Communism?!" the Communist said in a loud voice, his rage building.
"I claim no such thing," the gentleman said, "I am simply going by what the original writers of your pet ideology have said. I have judged you by them - and they all say that you are a fake."
At these words, the Communist threw into a rage, calling the gentleman an intolerant bigot and stormed off.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
A Fallacy Regarding Jesus and Same Sex Marriage
In more than a few times, I have heard the argument made against religious beliefs regarding homosexuality in general something to the effect of "Jesus never talked about same sex marriage," or "Jesus never talked about homosexuality." This is meant either to imply that Jesus was all right with both subjects, or that, since he never spoke on it, Christians shouldn't dwell on it for too long. There are, however, four issues that arise from this argument and demonstrate just how fallacious it is:
1) It was not an issue at that time. Jesus was a devout Jew who was not opposed to the Mosaic Law, in particularly the moral law. While he often attacked the traditions of the Pharisees or the human wisdom of the Sadducees, both of which had been added to the Law, he never once lifted a finger to attack anything God had written. At the time Christ lived, in the area Christ lived, and to the audience spoke to for the most part, there was not rampant homosexuality or sodomy as there was elsewhere in the world, and the question of what defined marriage was at that point not an issue. Therefore, to bring up that Jesus never spoke directly on homosexuality or same sex marriage is about as relevant as bringing up that Athanasius never spoke directly on post-modern thought.
2) Jesus still identified marriage as being between a man and a woman. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, the following dialogue occurs:
3) Christ's handpicked leaders condemned homosexuality. The apostle Paul especially condemned it: while talking of "dishonorable passions," he makes mention of women who "exchanged natural relations" and men who "gave up natural relations with women and were consumed by passion for one another" (Rom 1:26-27); he said that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9); he called it "contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10). The apostles, including Paul, were handpicked by Christ personally, and were chosen and entrusted to carry on his will and doctrine, ergo if one takes issue with how they interpret sin and morality, they shall have to take it up with Christ himself.
4) Christian theology takes into consideration the Bible as a whole. Those who might still persist in the previous point with "Paul and Co. are still not Jesus" are not considering how Christian theology views scripture as a whole, which is that all scripture is "God-breathed" and sourced directly to God (2 Tim 3:16). The only Christians who isolate doctrines to literally only the words of Christ believe what is called "Red Letterism" (referring to the habit of some Bibles to put the letters of Christ in red), and they are generally not considered orthodox in such thinking. We must also remember that Christ was God, and as all scripture is sourced to God, all scripture is therefore sourced to him, ergo we cannot isolate our inspired writ to only what words God the Son said during his earthly ministry.
Most important of all, of course, is the fact that Christ spoke out against all sin, heterosexual and homosexual alike. A man coveting after a woman for lustful purposes made him guilty of adultery, and made him just as much a sinner before God as a man embracing homosexual desires. It was for such individuals that Christ came into this world, so that he may absolve men of their sins and make them righteous before God. "I have not come to call the righteous," Christ said, "but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). No man is a greater sinner than another, but "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). If this post has grieved anyone, I pray that it does not merely give them empty grief, but that they would be "grieved into repenting" (2 Cor 7:9), and that God may "perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). One day, God will judge us all through Christ Jesus, and we will be cast either into eternal punishment or into eternal life. Until then, you have a chance to repent and place your trust in this beautiful Gospel that God has given mankind through His Christ. God bless.
1) It was not an issue at that time. Jesus was a devout Jew who was not opposed to the Mosaic Law, in particularly the moral law. While he often attacked the traditions of the Pharisees or the human wisdom of the Sadducees, both of which had been added to the Law, he never once lifted a finger to attack anything God had written. At the time Christ lived, in the area Christ lived, and to the audience spoke to for the most part, there was not rampant homosexuality or sodomy as there was elsewhere in the world, and the question of what defined marriage was at that point not an issue. Therefore, to bring up that Jesus never spoke directly on homosexuality or same sex marriage is about as relevant as bringing up that Athanasius never spoke directly on post-modern thought.
2) Jesus still identified marriage as being between a man and a woman. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, the following dialogue occurs:
And Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [Matthew 19:3-6]Note that when speaking about marriage, Christ refers to Genesis 2 and states God had made mankind "male and female," and that, in regards to marriage, a man shall leave his father and mother (not simply "his guardians" or a vague "two parental units"), and hold fast not to his "significant other" or "civil union partner," but "his wife." In this context the two people "become one flesh" in marriage. Note also that Christ is speaking here entirely of a heterosexual relationship, both in regards to the parents and to the couple getting married. Therefore, Christ's view of marriage is one that was isolated to heterosexual relationships alone. There was no room for homosexual relationships.
3) Christ's handpicked leaders condemned homosexuality. The apostle Paul especially condemned it: while talking of "dishonorable passions," he makes mention of women who "exchanged natural relations" and men who "gave up natural relations with women and were consumed by passion for one another" (Rom 1:26-27); he said that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9); he called it "contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10). The apostles, including Paul, were handpicked by Christ personally, and were chosen and entrusted to carry on his will and doctrine, ergo if one takes issue with how they interpret sin and morality, they shall have to take it up with Christ himself.
4) Christian theology takes into consideration the Bible as a whole. Those who might still persist in the previous point with "Paul and Co. are still not Jesus" are not considering how Christian theology views scripture as a whole, which is that all scripture is "God-breathed" and sourced directly to God (2 Tim 3:16). The only Christians who isolate doctrines to literally only the words of Christ believe what is called "Red Letterism" (referring to the habit of some Bibles to put the letters of Christ in red), and they are generally not considered orthodox in such thinking. We must also remember that Christ was God, and as all scripture is sourced to God, all scripture is therefore sourced to him, ergo we cannot isolate our inspired writ to only what words God the Son said during his earthly ministry.
Most important of all, of course, is the fact that Christ spoke out against all sin, heterosexual and homosexual alike. A man coveting after a woman for lustful purposes made him guilty of adultery, and made him just as much a sinner before God as a man embracing homosexual desires. It was for such individuals that Christ came into this world, so that he may absolve men of their sins and make them righteous before God. "I have not come to call the righteous," Christ said, "but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). No man is a greater sinner than another, but "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). If this post has grieved anyone, I pray that it does not merely give them empty grief, but that they would be "grieved into repenting" (2 Cor 7:9), and that God may "perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). One day, God will judge us all through Christ Jesus, and we will be cast either into eternal punishment or into eternal life. Until then, you have a chance to repent and place your trust in this beautiful Gospel that God has given mankind through His Christ. God bless.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Personal Negation Fallacy
On more than one occasion I have had someone respond to an argument or position with simply, "I don't like that." That seems to be popular in this day and age, especially in regards to religion. A person might say, "I can't believe in a God like that," or, "I don't like that God would do such a thing." From this, the person concludes that the thing must be false.
The problem is that merely negating something does not automatically make it not true. Let me put it this way: a person may not like a 55 mph speed limit and want to drive 70 mph, but that isn't going to stop a policeman from pulling them over for speeding. Simply not liking the speed limit did not magically make the speed limit dilemma disappear, or make it conform to what the person desired. Reality did not suddenly transform to the person's personal opinion.
In like manner, this same standard can be applied to negations within faith. Saying "I don't like the idea of a God who sends people to hell" does not suddenly mean that God must not send people to hell. Saying "I prefer a God who does this" does not suddenly make it so that God does as you desire. Reality does not conform to your personal whims and desires, and sooner or later - whether it's when the policeman clocks your speed, or you appear before God on the day of judgment - you will have to answer to reality.
The problem is that merely negating something does not automatically make it not true. Let me put it this way: a person may not like a 55 mph speed limit and want to drive 70 mph, but that isn't going to stop a policeman from pulling them over for speeding. Simply not liking the speed limit did not magically make the speed limit dilemma disappear, or make it conform to what the person desired. Reality did not suddenly transform to the person's personal opinion.
In like manner, this same standard can be applied to negations within faith. Saying "I don't like the idea of a God who sends people to hell" does not suddenly mean that God must not send people to hell. Saying "I prefer a God who does this" does not suddenly make it so that God does as you desire. Reality does not conform to your personal whims and desires, and sooner or later - whether it's when the policeman clocks your speed, or you appear before God on the day of judgment - you will have to answer to reality.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The "You're a Man" Fallacy
In abortion argumentation, a common attack against critics who are male is, "You're a man, you can't get pregnant, so you don't have a right to talk about it." Let's take a moment just to review why this argument simply doesn't work.
1) It's an ad hominem, plain and simple.
An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like "You're stupid!"), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument.
Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, "Don't tell me what to do! You're a woman, you don't know what it's like to have testicles!" Of course not. I'm not responding to her arguments or any of her points - I'm just stating that she's a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said.
2) It's inconsistent with other argumentation.
If a white person said, "I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong," would anyone stand up and say, "You can't comment! You're white!" Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, "You can't say you support abortion! You're a man!" Probably none. Yet if you're going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board.
The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong.
3) It's not carried to its logical conclusion.
Let's say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can't comment on abortion because he's a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let's take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don't think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.
1) It's an ad hominem, plain and simple.
An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like "You're stupid!"), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument.
Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, "Don't tell me what to do! You're a woman, you don't know what it's like to have testicles!" Of course not. I'm not responding to her arguments or any of her points - I'm just stating that she's a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said.
2) It's inconsistent with other argumentation.
If a white person said, "I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong," would anyone stand up and say, "You can't comment! You're white!" Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, "You can't say you support abortion! You're a man!" Probably none. Yet if you're going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board.
The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong.
3) It's not carried to its logical conclusion.
Let's say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can't comment on abortion because he's a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let's take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don't think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)