C.S. Lewis coined the term "Bulverism" back in 1941 in an essay published in The Socratic Digest. It was his method of explaining a particularly egregious logical fallacy that he was seeing at the time. Turns out, of course, it is a favorite in today's world.
Lewis used a fictional character named Ezekiel Bulver to illustrate this fallacy. Ostensibly, at an early age Bulver overheard an argument between his mother and his father. His father claimed that the sum of two sides of a triangle were greater than the third. His mother retorted, "Oh, you only say that because you are a man." And Bulver learned an important lesson. You don't need to prove an argument. You simply need to assume that your opponent is wrong and explain his error. Using proof -- logic, arguments, evidence, that sort of thing -- isn't helpful in Bulverism. It's a distraction (at best). All you need to do is explain the error.
The way that works today is so common that I'm sure every one of us has heard it. "You only say that because you're a man" or "because you're white" or "because you're a Christian." Please feel free to apply that wherever you see it. It certainly includes "because you're a woman," "a person of color," or "an atheist" and then on to economics, social conditions, educational levels, denominations ... on and on and on. And perhaps it is those endless possibilities that makes it so popular. It certainly seems to be the approach of choice today. The problem, of course, is that it is a fallacy.
I've already written about the problem of lumping people together. Of course, the problem continues. An example. "If you're a white male Christian you're a Trump lover." Really? So why is it that I didn't vote for the man, warned others not to, and won't vote for him this time? Because people are individuals, not groups. Because generalizations and stereotypes are only generally true and can't be applied to individuals without further examination. Because Bulverisms are a logical fallacy that refuses to address the question and slaps the opponent with an irrelevant stereotype instead.
We are not doing people favors when we label them and then dismiss what they say because of the label. Liberals do it; conservatives do it. Skeptics do it; Christians do it. Males do it; females do it. Everyone. But failing to address the ideas in favor of a label doesn't answer the ideas. And while I expect nothing more of those who are opposed to Christ, we Christians are commanded to love one another, from our fellow believers to our neighbors. And dismissing someone because of your favorite label is not love.
Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts
Monday, June 01, 2020
Thursday, June 12, 2014
The False Dilemma
Perhaps you've heard of this logical fallacy. It's also called oversimplification or "black and white thinking"1. In the False Dilemma, you are given a limited number of choices (usually only two), but, as it turns out, there are more. And it qualifies an argument as fallacious. Of course, if there are only the choices offered, then it isn't a fallacy. So "Either you're an American or you're from the Moon" would be a False Dilemma and "Either you're dead or you're alive" would be accurate. My favorite False Dichotomy is the lawyer's question in court. "Mr. Jones, answer 'yes' or 'no'. Have stopped beating your wife?" Of course, if Mr. Jones never beat his wife, there is no right answer to the question. False Dilemma.
On the topic of homosexual behavior we often face this dilemma. It is particularly difficult for a large number of people when it comes to a member of your own family. Is it true that there are only two options? Either you embrace homosexual behavior or you reject the homosexual. For Pastor Danny Cortez, it was either embrace his son as gay or embrace the Bible. Many choose the former and call it love. But even if it's not a family member, we are told that we are either "tolerant", by which they mean "embrace the behavior", or we are intolerant, meaning we are opposed to it2. Welcome to the False Dilemma.
Culture is not at stake here. Public opinion isn't the criterion. Consensus isn't the final answer. What is at stake here is Christianity. Like Satan in the Garden of Eden, we are first asked, "Did God say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Regardless of our response (because many today have already been poisoned enough -- the Bible calls it "blinded" (2 Cor 4:4) -- not to know the obvious answer), they follow up with "You shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4) and even "Your eyes will be opened" (Gen 3:5). Having carefully and deliberately denied God, His declared values, and His authority, it is not possible to follow with "But I'm still in favor of Christianity." The Gospel is based first on the problem of Sin, and denying the problem doesn't solve it; it only removes the Answer.
So they leave us with a False Dilemma. Either embrace the sin or embrace the Word. And I deny that fallacy. I deny that a person is defined by their sinful propensities. We all have them, but they do not define us. And I deny that we must reject the person because he or she is a sinner. If the reason for such a claim is vague, it's because you aren't thinking of the reality that all of us are sinners. Rejecting a person who sins would require rejecting everyone ... including yourself.
I would argue, instead, there is indeed a "Third Way", although not the one being offered (which is no such thing). That way would be Jesus's way. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). In Matthew 9 we read that Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors (Matt 9:10), but not because He accepted their behavior. What He told His detractors was, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12). Did you get that? They weren't "just fine". They were sick. This "Third Way" is where you stick around because you love them enough to help. Of the Christian sinner we read, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). And for those who are not believers we need to be there to offer the Gospel, speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15).
This is not "embrace the behavior" nor is it "reject the sinner". It does embrace the Word and side with God, but not against the sinner. It is a better option. Because the "either-or" fallacy we are offered is a false dilemma. It is, therefore, incorrect.
________
1 Let's not forget other terms for it, like false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization. In case you thought it was simple.
2 In case you fail to see the problem with this idea, "tolerance" requires a difference of opinion. If we agree, their definition of "tolerant", then there is no tolerance required. "Tolerance" requires a difference of opinion that we, nonetheless, allow to continue. It is not embracing the opposite opinion.
On the topic of homosexual behavior we often face this dilemma. It is particularly difficult for a large number of people when it comes to a member of your own family. Is it true that there are only two options? Either you embrace homosexual behavior or you reject the homosexual. For Pastor Danny Cortez, it was either embrace his son as gay or embrace the Bible. Many choose the former and call it love. But even if it's not a family member, we are told that we are either "tolerant", by which they mean "embrace the behavior", or we are intolerant, meaning we are opposed to it2. Welcome to the False Dilemma.
Culture is not at stake here. Public opinion isn't the criterion. Consensus isn't the final answer. What is at stake here is Christianity. Like Satan in the Garden of Eden, we are first asked, "Did God say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Regardless of our response (because many today have already been poisoned enough -- the Bible calls it "blinded" (2 Cor 4:4) -- not to know the obvious answer), they follow up with "You shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4) and even "Your eyes will be opened" (Gen 3:5). Having carefully and deliberately denied God, His declared values, and His authority, it is not possible to follow with "But I'm still in favor of Christianity." The Gospel is based first on the problem of Sin, and denying the problem doesn't solve it; it only removes the Answer.
So they leave us with a False Dilemma. Either embrace the sin or embrace the Word. And I deny that fallacy. I deny that a person is defined by their sinful propensities. We all have them, but they do not define us. And I deny that we must reject the person because he or she is a sinner. If the reason for such a claim is vague, it's because you aren't thinking of the reality that all of us are sinners. Rejecting a person who sins would require rejecting everyone ... including yourself.
I would argue, instead, there is indeed a "Third Way", although not the one being offered (which is no such thing). That way would be Jesus's way. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). In Matthew 9 we read that Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors (Matt 9:10), but not because He accepted their behavior. What He told His detractors was, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12). Did you get that? They weren't "just fine". They were sick. This "Third Way" is where you stick around because you love them enough to help. Of the Christian sinner we read, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). And for those who are not believers we need to be there to offer the Gospel, speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15).
This is not "embrace the behavior" nor is it "reject the sinner". It does embrace the Word and side with God, but not against the sinner. It is a better option. Because the "either-or" fallacy we are offered is a false dilemma. It is, therefore, incorrect.
________
1 Let's not forget other terms for it, like false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization. In case you thought it was simple.
2 In case you fail to see the problem with this idea, "tolerance" requires a difference of opinion. If we agree, their definition of "tolerant", then there is no tolerance required. "Tolerance" requires a difference of opinion that we, nonetheless, allow to continue. It is not embracing the opposite opinion.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The Syllogism
Are you familiar with syllogisms? These are the logical constructions used for reasoning. The most common syllogism idea is the argument that if A is true, then B is true as well. A is true. Therefore, B is true. Here's the most common example you'll see:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates was a man.
Conclusion: Socrates was mortal.
It is a logical process the result of which is not either true or false, but valid or invalid. That is, if it follows the rules of logic it is valid. Further, if the premises are true, then the argument is true because the logic is valid.
Here, let's try another. This is the basic, straightforward, rational argument of the pro-life crowd:
Premise 1: It is wrong to kill a human being without sufficient moral justification.
Premise 2: Human life begins at fertilization.
Conclusion: Killing an embryo or later is wrong.
If you examine the syllogism, you'll find that the argument is valid. The premises are properly constructed. The conclusion correctly follows the premises. This is a valid argument.
What, then, is wrong with the argument? How is it not true? Well, you'll have to demonstrate that the premises are faulty. Unfortunately, in that regard, Premise 2 is undeniable. No one in their right mind can deny that the human being begins as an embryo. Science is irrefutable here. The first stage of human life exists at the end of fertilization. From that point on human life is simply going through the various stages of human life without a clear demarcation of when one stage ends and another begins.
In order, then, to dismantle this argument, you're going to have to dismantle the first premise. It is not wrong to kill human beings. No, that's not good. Killing human beings for the well being of a mother is sufficient moral justification. Oh, but that would include infanticide, so that won't work. Oh, I know! A fetus is not a human being! But actually demonstrating in any substantive, measurable, or rationally supportable way the difference between a human being in the fetus stage as opposed to a human being in, say, an infant stage or even a teenage stage is impossible. There are differences, but differences that would classify one as "human" and the other as "not human" are not there.
The syllogism is valid. There are no logical fallacies in the structure. The premises are universally true. Thus, the conclusion is not only valid, but true. So why is it that the pro-life argument is considered irrelevant, emotional, religious, or a flight of fancy while the pro-abortion side is rational? Well, you can decide the answer to that one yourself.
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates was a man.
Conclusion: Socrates was mortal.
It is a logical process the result of which is not either true or false, but valid or invalid. That is, if it follows the rules of logic it is valid. Further, if the premises are true, then the argument is true because the logic is valid.
Here, let's try another. This is the basic, straightforward, rational argument of the pro-life crowd:
Premise 1: It is wrong to kill a human being without sufficient moral justification.
Premise 2: Human life begins at fertilization.
Conclusion: Killing an embryo or later is wrong.
If you examine the syllogism, you'll find that the argument is valid. The premises are properly constructed. The conclusion correctly follows the premises. This is a valid argument.
What, then, is wrong with the argument? How is it not true? Well, you'll have to demonstrate that the premises are faulty. Unfortunately, in that regard, Premise 2 is undeniable. No one in their right mind can deny that the human being begins as an embryo. Science is irrefutable here. The first stage of human life exists at the end of fertilization. From that point on human life is simply going through the various stages of human life without a clear demarcation of when one stage ends and another begins.
In order, then, to dismantle this argument, you're going to have to dismantle the first premise. It is not wrong to kill human beings. No, that's not good. Killing human beings for the well being of a mother is sufficient moral justification. Oh, but that would include infanticide, so that won't work. Oh, I know! A fetus is not a human being! But actually demonstrating in any substantive, measurable, or rationally supportable way the difference between a human being in the fetus stage as opposed to a human being in, say, an infant stage or even a teenage stage is impossible. There are differences, but differences that would classify one as "human" and the other as "not human" are not there.
The syllogism is valid. There are no logical fallacies in the structure. The premises are universally true. Thus, the conclusion is not only valid, but true. So why is it that the pro-life argument is considered irrelevant, emotional, religious, or a flight of fancy while the pro-abortion side is rational? Well, you can decide the answer to that one yourself.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Equivocation
MSNBC commentator Touré (That's a name?) commented on Roe v Wade 40 years after. He was in favor. He told of a time when he got a girlfriend ("I was in a committed relationship with a woman who I knew was not the one." I'm sorry, what do you mean by "committed"?) pregnant. Having that baby -- becoming a father 15 years ago -- would have changed his life direction. "She decided it was best to have an abortion and days later she did. We did. And in some ways that choice saved my life."
Welcome to the logical fallacy known as Equivocation. Equivocation occurs when you use a term as the same thing when what you mean by it is two different things. Here's a silly but appropriate example:
- All banks are beside rivers.
- I put my money in a bank.
- Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.
Yes, silly, but that illustrates the fallacy. You take a word that can mean different things and then use it to mean the same thing. Touré told us that his female sex partner's (I have a hard time calling her his "committed relationship" or even "girlfriend" at this point) abortion "saved my life." You see, if she hadn't done that heroic, unselfish act, Touré would have died.
Well, of course not. He wouldn't have died. In this equivocation, "life" could mean "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body" (as the phrase "saved my life" would typically suggest) or it could mean "a way or manner of living."1 In Touré's piece the latter was exactly what he meant ... and the two are not the same thing.
The argument of the pro-life advocate is that life -- human life in particular -- is valuable and worth defending. The argument of the pro-choice advocate is that choice -- a woman's choice in particular (not a man's choice and certainly not the choice of the unborn) -- is valuable and worth defending. The pro-abortion advocate (I'm being generous here because "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" is a hairline distinction.) might argue that life is valuable, but here they equivocate. They would argue that the life of the child in the womb is not more important than the life of the woman. Now, at face value it might be hard to argue against that. Seems reasonable. So let me show you the fallacy. They would argue that the life ("the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body") of the child in the womb is not more important than the life ("a way or manner of living") of the woman. See it now?
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It invalidates the argument that uses it. The pro-abortion argument above, then, is not valid.
Equivocation is a favorite among those in the pro-abortion camp. It is a favorite among the anti-theists, too. Perhaps you've seen something like this one.
- Christians did the Crusades.
- Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage.
- Therefore, it is mean-spirited, contentious people who are opposed to homosexual marriage.
All kinds of errors there, but one of them is equivocation. They have defined "Christian" with "Crusades", defined "Crusades" with "mean-spirited" and "contentious", and then equated the two. The classical Equivocation Fallacy.
Now, to be honest, just about anyone can accomplish this fallacy. I don't mean to suggest that it is only "evil pro-aborts and homosexuals" that make this error. Christians do it, too. Indeed, that's why I'm bringing this up. Pay attention, Christians. Know your terminology. Know their terminology. Make sure you're not mixing terms. Making a good argument with bad logic doesn't make for a good argument. I recently read a paper on immigration where a family member was deported because they didn't have the proper documentation. It concluded, "What did they do wrong? Well, they were different – they spoke broken English – but since when was that a justification for not recognizing a person’s humanity?"2 Regardless of what you believe about immigration or how it should be handled, equating "a person's humanity" with their presence in this country is a fallacy. That is the equivocation fallacy. Bad argument regardless of the quality of the intent. Don't do that.
________
1 Interestingly the first definition I offered here is the first definition in the dictionary and occupies in various forms multiple definitions. In the dictionary I referenced that second definition was way down at number 6 on the list.
2 I have not given a reference to the paper because I don't wish to cause any undue or unnecessary responses to the author (or those who may be closely connected to the author). Who wrote it is irrelevant to the discussion. I saw the same kind of thinking in a TV interview of an undocumented immigrant in college. "Just because I don't have the right documentation doesn't make me a second-class citizen!" "Second-class citizen" suggests "a person of lesser value", but "citizen" has a specific meaning and not having been a legal, natural-born or naturalized citizen makes her not a citizen at all. Argument invalid.
Welcome to the logical fallacy known as Equivocation. Equivocation occurs when you use a term as the same thing when what you mean by it is two different things. Here's a silly but appropriate example:
- All banks are beside rivers.
- I put my money in a bank.
- Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.
Yes, silly, but that illustrates the fallacy. You take a word that can mean different things and then use it to mean the same thing. Touré told us that his female sex partner's (I have a hard time calling her his "committed relationship" or even "girlfriend" at this point) abortion "saved my life." You see, if she hadn't done that heroic, unselfish act, Touré would have died.
Well, of course not. He wouldn't have died. In this equivocation, "life" could mean "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body" (as the phrase "saved my life" would typically suggest) or it could mean "a way or manner of living."1 In Touré's piece the latter was exactly what he meant ... and the two are not the same thing.
The argument of the pro-life advocate is that life -- human life in particular -- is valuable and worth defending. The argument of the pro-choice advocate is that choice -- a woman's choice in particular (not a man's choice and certainly not the choice of the unborn) -- is valuable and worth defending. The pro-abortion advocate (I'm being generous here because "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" is a hairline distinction.) might argue that life is valuable, but here they equivocate. They would argue that the life of the child in the womb is not more important than the life of the woman. Now, at face value it might be hard to argue against that. Seems reasonable. So let me show you the fallacy. They would argue that the life ("the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body") of the child in the womb is not more important than the life ("a way or manner of living") of the woman. See it now?
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It invalidates the argument that uses it. The pro-abortion argument above, then, is not valid.
Equivocation is a favorite among those in the pro-abortion camp. It is a favorite among the anti-theists, too. Perhaps you've seen something like this one.
- Christians did the Crusades.
- Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage.
- Therefore, it is mean-spirited, contentious people who are opposed to homosexual marriage.
All kinds of errors there, but one of them is equivocation. They have defined "Christian" with "Crusades", defined "Crusades" with "mean-spirited" and "contentious", and then equated the two. The classical Equivocation Fallacy.
Now, to be honest, just about anyone can accomplish this fallacy. I don't mean to suggest that it is only "evil pro-aborts and homosexuals" that make this error. Christians do it, too. Indeed, that's why I'm bringing this up. Pay attention, Christians. Know your terminology. Know their terminology. Make sure you're not mixing terms. Making a good argument with bad logic doesn't make for a good argument. I recently read a paper on immigration where a family member was deported because they didn't have the proper documentation. It concluded, "What did they do wrong? Well, they were different – they spoke broken English – but since when was that a justification for not recognizing a person’s humanity?"2 Regardless of what you believe about immigration or how it should be handled, equating "a person's humanity" with their presence in this country is a fallacy. That is the equivocation fallacy. Bad argument regardless of the quality of the intent. Don't do that.
________
1 Interestingly the first definition I offered here is the first definition in the dictionary and occupies in various forms multiple definitions. In the dictionary I referenced that second definition was way down at number 6 on the list.
2 I have not given a reference to the paper because I don't wish to cause any undue or unnecessary responses to the author (or those who may be closely connected to the author). Who wrote it is irrelevant to the discussion. I saw the same kind of thinking in a TV interview of an undocumented immigrant in college. "Just because I don't have the right documentation doesn't make me a second-class citizen!" "Second-class citizen" suggests "a person of lesser value", but "citizen" has a specific meaning and not having been a legal, natural-born or naturalized citizen makes her not a citizen at all. Argument invalid.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
"No True Scotsman" Fallacy
This was a new phrase to me mentioned by Glenn in a comment to my Defined by Failure article. I had to look it up because I enjoy and am concerned about logical fallacies. Interesting. According to a site I've never seen before, RationalWiki, the No True Scotsman fallacy is defined as "a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing." The story is told of Antony Flew who, seeing a newspaper article about a Scotsman committing sex crimes, asserts, "no Scotsman would do such a thing." Well, of course, all you need is one or two more examples of a "true Scotsman" committing just such a crime and you have a fallacy.
This is a favorite approach among Christian apologists. We're told that Hitler was a Christian and look what he did. We respond with "no true Christian would do such a thing." We are pointed to the horrors of the Crusades and respond with "no true Christian would do such a thing." Same kind of reasoning.
But let's consider it for a moment. First, is it an actual fallacy? While it certainly can be, I would argue that it isn't always. Here's the notion. There are two sets. One is the set of people in Set X. The other is the actions of Set Y. Restating the fallacy in my new set terms, "no true member of Set X would perform the actions of Set Y."
In terms of the logical statement:
1. No one in Set X does something from Set Y.
2. He does Set Y.
Therefore, he is not a member of Set X.
The suggestion from the term "logical fallacy" is that the argument is not valid, but is such a claim ever valid? Well, if membership in Set X is defined as not performing the actions of Set Y, then it would be true and not a fallacy. It is said that the slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if it doesn't happen. The same is true for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. As long as the definition of "true Scotsman" accurately excludes the activity in question, then it is not a fallacy. In this case, this logical argument is only a fallacy when the premise fails. That is, if it is true that "No one in Set X does something from Set Y", then it isn't a fallacy. If, on the other hand, that premise is false, the argument is false.
So, if we're talking "true Scotsman", consider the following. Let's say that Addison Macalister of the clan Macalister is talking with Ralf Bauer. Ralf is telling Addison, "I am of strict German heritage, to be sure, but I'm a true Scotsman at heart." Addison would not be in error if he said, "No true Scotsman is of German heritage." That's because "true Scotsman" has a definition that excludes "German heritage".
So back to this approach from a Christian apologist perspective. Is it a fallacy? I would argue that it can be and, if we're not careful, it often is. I've heard, "No true Christian would ..." and have it end with "vote for Obama" or "be a Democrat". This is simply false. For whom you vote or with which political party you side is not part of the definition of "Christian". That is fallacious. Nothing in the definition of "Christian" requires perfection. Indeed, we understand that no one, Christian or not, arrives at perfection in this life.
"Well, then," our opponents would say, "you are back to the problem of Hitler and the Crusades, aren't you?" Not at all. You see, there are two other factors to consider. First, one argument would be "Hitler was not a true Christian because he did these things." But a better statement would be "Hitler's actions did not express Christian values as represented by Christ (remember, "Christian") and the Bible." The former statement is questionable under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The latter is a statement of fact. The other factor, however, is found in the biblical definition of "Christian".
There are a variety of components that Scripture includes as "Christian". "You must be born again" (John 3:3-7) would exclude anyone who is not born again. "I'm a Christian but I'm not born again" would indicate that the statement is just as false as describing a "round square". Clearly faith is a mandatory component. An "atheist Christian" (such as a noted pastor I could name) is a violation of logic. There are, then, various pieces to "Christian" without which one cannot be defined as "Christian" despite their claims to the contrary. While "sinless perfection" is not one of those pieces (and, thus, it is false that "no true Christian would commit such an act"), here's what John does say on that:
The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is out there. Like the slippery slope fallacy, it is something to watch out for. Like the slippery slope fallacy, sometimes it is not a fallacy. If you fancy yourself a Christian apologist -- a defender of the faith -- it would likely be wise to keep it in mind and be careful not to do it. Indeed, Christians -- true Christians -- fail miserably. (Look at Peter as a prime example.) But remaining within the biblical definition of Christian and calling those outside that biblical definition "not Christian" is not a fallacy. Neither is recognizing activities in Set Y (which we would call "sin") as "not Christian". There are those who claim to be Christians who do not meet the definition of Christian, and there are activities that are deemed "unChristian" which are indeed outside of the bounds of good Christian activities. The fallacy exists. We should just be careful to avoid making that mistake.
This is a favorite approach among Christian apologists. We're told that Hitler was a Christian and look what he did. We respond with "no true Christian would do such a thing." We are pointed to the horrors of the Crusades and respond with "no true Christian would do such a thing." Same kind of reasoning.
But let's consider it for a moment. First, is it an actual fallacy? While it certainly can be, I would argue that it isn't always. Here's the notion. There are two sets. One is the set of people in Set X. The other is the actions of Set Y. Restating the fallacy in my new set terms, "no true member of Set X would perform the actions of Set Y."
In terms of the logical statement:
1. No one in Set X does something from Set Y.
2. He does Set Y.
Therefore, he is not a member of Set X.
The suggestion from the term "logical fallacy" is that the argument is not valid, but is such a claim ever valid? Well, if membership in Set X is defined as not performing the actions of Set Y, then it would be true and not a fallacy. It is said that the slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if it doesn't happen. The same is true for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. As long as the definition of "true Scotsman" accurately excludes the activity in question, then it is not a fallacy. In this case, this logical argument is only a fallacy when the premise fails. That is, if it is true that "No one in Set X does something from Set Y", then it isn't a fallacy. If, on the other hand, that premise is false, the argument is false.
So, if we're talking "true Scotsman", consider the following. Let's say that Addison Macalister of the clan Macalister is talking with Ralf Bauer. Ralf is telling Addison, "I am of strict German heritage, to be sure, but I'm a true Scotsman at heart." Addison would not be in error if he said, "No true Scotsman is of German heritage." That's because "true Scotsman" has a definition that excludes "German heritage".
So back to this approach from a Christian apologist perspective. Is it a fallacy? I would argue that it can be and, if we're not careful, it often is. I've heard, "No true Christian would ..." and have it end with "vote for Obama" or "be a Democrat". This is simply false. For whom you vote or with which political party you side is not part of the definition of "Christian". That is fallacious. Nothing in the definition of "Christian" requires perfection. Indeed, we understand that no one, Christian or not, arrives at perfection in this life.
"Well, then," our opponents would say, "you are back to the problem of Hitler and the Crusades, aren't you?" Not at all. You see, there are two other factors to consider. First, one argument would be "Hitler was not a true Christian because he did these things." But a better statement would be "Hitler's actions did not express Christian values as represented by Christ (remember, "Christian") and the Bible." The former statement is questionable under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The latter is a statement of fact. The other factor, however, is found in the biblical definition of "Christian".
There are a variety of components that Scripture includes as "Christian". "You must be born again" (John 3:3-7) would exclude anyone who is not born again. "I'm a Christian but I'm not born again" would indicate that the statement is just as false as describing a "round square". Clearly faith is a mandatory component. An "atheist Christian" (such as a noted pastor I could name) is a violation of logic. There are, then, various pieces to "Christian" without which one cannot be defined as "Christian" despite their claims to the contrary. While "sinless perfection" is not one of those pieces (and, thus, it is false that "no true Christian would commit such an act"), here's what John does say on that:
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).There it is. While true believers can and do sin (1 John 1:8-10) -- and when they do they have an Advocate (1 John 2:1) -- what they cannot do (John's term) is to make a practice of, keep on, sinning. So if the claim is "No true Christian sins with impunity", the statement is fact, not fallacy.
The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is out there. Like the slippery slope fallacy, it is something to watch out for. Like the slippery slope fallacy, sometimes it is not a fallacy. If you fancy yourself a Christian apologist -- a defender of the faith -- it would likely be wise to keep it in mind and be careful not to do it. Indeed, Christians -- true Christians -- fail miserably. (Look at Peter as a prime example.) But remaining within the biblical definition of Christian and calling those outside that biblical definition "not Christian" is not a fallacy. Neither is recognizing activities in Set Y (which we would call "sin") as "not Christian". There are those who claim to be Christians who do not meet the definition of Christian, and there are activities that are deemed "unChristian" which are indeed outside of the bounds of good Christian activities. The fallacy exists. We should just be careful to avoid making that mistake.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Strawman
Last week was a family gathering. The more family that gathers, the more interesting the conversations can get. It was very interesting when one of my family members explained that if he ever became convinced that Calvinism was right, he'd join the Ku Klux Klan because they were the same thing.
I found it to be a wonderful "teaching moment." My son and his new wife had both been talking with me about the "strawman" argument. They understood it to simply be a weak argument. I was explaining to them that it was something different. The "strawman" argument substitutes a person's actual position with something that is not an accurate representation, and then explains why that position is wrong. I found, during the initial conversation, that I was having difficulties coming up with illustrations. Then I was given this beautiful example. Calvinism is like the Aryan Nation. People who believe in Election believe that they are special people and everyone else is inferior. That, of course, is so wrong! And my son picked up on that illustration quite well.
The difficulty of the strawman argument is that 1) it is linked in some sense to the real position, and 2) there is a tendency, in defending your real position, to want to defend against the strawman argument. In the example above, my son wanted to explain why Calvinism is not like white racism, but the defenses looked as if he was defending the Ku Klux Klan. The correct answer is, "You're right! That kind of thinking is wrong! Now ... what has one to do with the other?" But when you agree with the opponent that the argument he offered on your behalf is wrong, it appears as if you're agreeing that you are wrong, and that's not right either. And humans, being what we are, are very quick to pick up defenses based on emotion much more quickly than defenses based on reason, so the mere fact that we are being opposed, even if it isn't a valid argument, tends to make us want to "take up arms," so to speak.
Arguments can be tricky things. Most of us, when we hear the word "argument", think of "fight", but this isn't the case. We are indeed called to make a defense of the truth. In so doing, we will be required make arguments. We should do so with care. We should do so with reason. We should make sure that the motivation isn't so much self-defense, but both defense of the truth and concern for those we believe to be mistaken. We need to avoid "talking past" each other where we might be using similar terms without similar meaning. We need to be careful to understand the concerns of the other person so we can properly address those concerns rather than merely our defense. There is a lot that goes into this. Perhaps a good starting place would be prayer.
I found it to be a wonderful "teaching moment." My son and his new wife had both been talking with me about the "strawman" argument. They understood it to simply be a weak argument. I was explaining to them that it was something different. The "strawman" argument substitutes a person's actual position with something that is not an accurate representation, and then explains why that position is wrong. I found, during the initial conversation, that I was having difficulties coming up with illustrations. Then I was given this beautiful example. Calvinism is like the Aryan Nation. People who believe in Election believe that they are special people and everyone else is inferior. That, of course, is so wrong! And my son picked up on that illustration quite well.
The difficulty of the strawman argument is that 1) it is linked in some sense to the real position, and 2) there is a tendency, in defending your real position, to want to defend against the strawman argument. In the example above, my son wanted to explain why Calvinism is not like white racism, but the defenses looked as if he was defending the Ku Klux Klan. The correct answer is, "You're right! That kind of thinking is wrong! Now ... what has one to do with the other?" But when you agree with the opponent that the argument he offered on your behalf is wrong, it appears as if you're agreeing that you are wrong, and that's not right either. And humans, being what we are, are very quick to pick up defenses based on emotion much more quickly than defenses based on reason, so the mere fact that we are being opposed, even if it isn't a valid argument, tends to make us want to "take up arms," so to speak.
Arguments can be tricky things. Most of us, when we hear the word "argument", think of "fight", but this isn't the case. We are indeed called to make a defense of the truth. In so doing, we will be required make arguments. We should do so with care. We should do so with reason. We should make sure that the motivation isn't so much self-defense, but both defense of the truth and concern for those we believe to be mistaken. We need to avoid "talking past" each other where we might be using similar terms without similar meaning. We need to be careful to understand the concerns of the other person so we can properly address those concerns rather than merely our defense. There is a lot that goes into this. Perhaps a good starting place would be prayer.
Friday, December 29, 2006
False Dichotomy
In the past I've made a couple of posts on the topic of logical fallacies. They had fun little Latin names like "Tu Quoque" and "Post hoc ergo procter hoc". This one doesn't (and many shed a sigh of relief). It's simply the concept of the false dichotomy.
In the false dichotomy, you are typically given two choices: "Either this or that." Unfortunately, rarely does life offer you merely two choices. But you are often presented with either an obviously good choice or a clearly bad choice and you are "free" to choose which one. Sometimes your are given no good choice ... choose.
The fun example is the classic courtroom scene. The attorney asks, "Yes or no ... Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife?" Now, poor Mr. Jones can say "yes" to indicate he is not beating his wife to which the lawyer cries, "So! You used to beat your wife, but no longer!" No, no, that's not the right answer. How about "no"? "So! You admit that you still beat your wife!!" Obviously there is a third alternative: "I never beat my wife."
We find ourselves often facing false dichotomies. We must either agree with his theological point or be heretics or, at best, obviously ignore Scripture. We must either agree with her view on how to act in this situation or we are obviously uncompassionate. You cannot, for instance, recognize sin without being "judgmental" or agree with a creed without being "outdated" and "narrow-minded". You can't stand on a biblical truth without being unloving and harsh. I recently visited a website that argued in favor of Universalism. The position offered was this: Either all people are saved, or God failed. These are all false dichotomies.
False dichotomies are very effective. In the fun example above, the attorney gives the witness choices. He's not forcing anything, right? I mean, how fair can he be? The false dichotomy appears to offer options, to be "open-minded", to be fair. But by narrowing the options to two, it carefully redirects your attention from the truth. The argument is like a magician who gets you to watch over here while he manipulates something over there and ... poof! ... it's magic! The argument says, "Look, here are the choices," and if you agree to the premise you will not see the world of options outside of the question.
One of these false dichotomies that has been used so effectively these days is in the arena of the argument of homosexual behavior. Many Christians have eased off the biblical position that homosexual behavior is sin because of these false dichotomy arguments. Someone points to Leviticus and says, "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:13). The response is, "So, are you saying we need to follow the Old Testament law? Do you think we should do away with pork? Should we eliminate football?" (I actually heard this argument made on The West Wing.) This is a false dichotomy. "We either follow all the Old Testament Law or we follow none of it." Of course, the sweeping argument against the biblical Christian is far more prevalent and combines more than one fallacy, but includes this false dichotomy. They simply say, "If you claim that homosexual behavior is a sin, you are a bigot, a homophobe." It's a false dichotomy. Either you agree that homosexual behavior is normal, acceptable, right, or you are a bigot, scared of homosexuals. There are other options, of course. It could be that one is not bigoted or homophobic, but simply intent on following the clear teaching of Scripture. But in order to avoid the accusation, many have decided to leave the clear teaching of Scripture and stand on the other side.
Unfortunately, the argument about homosexual sin is only a hint of the numbers of false dichotomies we face. You are either conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, a hawk or a dove. As a Christian you are either concerned about biblical truth or concerned about the needs of people. Love, in fact, seems to present a host of these dichotomies. You can't love and ... many things. You can't love and tell the honest truth. You can't love and punish. You can't love and believe doctrine. You can't love and recognize sin. This false dichotomy has put God in an awful box. It is not possible to love and send people to Hell. Fortunately, all of these are false dichotomies. These are all part of the False Dilemma, Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation, Black-and-White Fallacy, Either-Or Fallacy. They are all premised on the belief that there are only two options. They are all logical fallacies.
A bad argument in favor of a good idea is possibly more harmful than a good argument in favor of a bad idea. We need to be careful of the approaches we take when supporting truth. We need to avoid the false dichotomy. If there really are only two possibilities, we must first demonstrate it before we argue it. Otherwise, we must avoid the manipulation. And when we face the argument, we should be aware of it and recognize it and call it what it is rather than caving in to bad arguments and faulty conclusions. Check the options given and see if there aren't more available. Rarely are there only two. Let's think, Christians.
In the false dichotomy, you are typically given two choices: "Either this or that." Unfortunately, rarely does life offer you merely two choices. But you are often presented with either an obviously good choice or a clearly bad choice and you are "free" to choose which one. Sometimes your are given no good choice ... choose.
The fun example is the classic courtroom scene. The attorney asks, "Yes or no ... Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife?" Now, poor Mr. Jones can say "yes" to indicate he is not beating his wife to which the lawyer cries, "So! You used to beat your wife, but no longer!" No, no, that's not the right answer. How about "no"? "So! You admit that you still beat your wife!!" Obviously there is a third alternative: "I never beat my wife."
We find ourselves often facing false dichotomies. We must either agree with his theological point or be heretics or, at best, obviously ignore Scripture. We must either agree with her view on how to act in this situation or we are obviously uncompassionate. You cannot, for instance, recognize sin without being "judgmental" or agree with a creed without being "outdated" and "narrow-minded". You can't stand on a biblical truth without being unloving and harsh. I recently visited a website that argued in favor of Universalism. The position offered was this: Either all people are saved, or God failed. These are all false dichotomies.
False dichotomies are very effective. In the fun example above, the attorney gives the witness choices. He's not forcing anything, right? I mean, how fair can he be? The false dichotomy appears to offer options, to be "open-minded", to be fair. But by narrowing the options to two, it carefully redirects your attention from the truth. The argument is like a magician who gets you to watch over here while he manipulates something over there and ... poof! ... it's magic! The argument says, "Look, here are the choices," and if you agree to the premise you will not see the world of options outside of the question.
One of these false dichotomies that has been used so effectively these days is in the arena of the argument of homosexual behavior. Many Christians have eased off the biblical position that homosexual behavior is sin because of these false dichotomy arguments. Someone points to Leviticus and says, "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:13). The response is, "So, are you saying we need to follow the Old Testament law? Do you think we should do away with pork? Should we eliminate football?" (I actually heard this argument made on The West Wing.) This is a false dichotomy. "We either follow all the Old Testament Law or we follow none of it." Of course, the sweeping argument against the biblical Christian is far more prevalent and combines more than one fallacy, but includes this false dichotomy. They simply say, "If you claim that homosexual behavior is a sin, you are a bigot, a homophobe." It's a false dichotomy. Either you agree that homosexual behavior is normal, acceptable, right, or you are a bigot, scared of homosexuals. There are other options, of course. It could be that one is not bigoted or homophobic, but simply intent on following the clear teaching of Scripture. But in order to avoid the accusation, many have decided to leave the clear teaching of Scripture and stand on the other side.
Unfortunately, the argument about homosexual sin is only a hint of the numbers of false dichotomies we face. You are either conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, a hawk or a dove. As a Christian you are either concerned about biblical truth or concerned about the needs of people. Love, in fact, seems to present a host of these dichotomies. You can't love and ... many things. You can't love and tell the honest truth. You can't love and punish. You can't love and believe doctrine. You can't love and recognize sin. This false dichotomy has put God in an awful box. It is not possible to love and send people to Hell. Fortunately, all of these are false dichotomies. These are all part of the False Dilemma, Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation, Black-and-White Fallacy, Either-Or Fallacy. They are all premised on the belief that there are only two options. They are all logical fallacies.
A bad argument in favor of a good idea is possibly more harmful than a good argument in favor of a bad idea. We need to be careful of the approaches we take when supporting truth. We need to avoid the false dichotomy. If there really are only two possibilities, we must first demonstrate it before we argue it. Otherwise, we must avoid the manipulation. And when we face the argument, we should be aware of it and recognize it and call it what it is rather than caving in to bad arguments and faulty conclusions. Check the options given and see if there aren't more available. Rarely are there only two. Let's think, Christians.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Another Logical Fallacy
Another logical fallacy is called "Tu Quoque" (pronounced "two coke"). It is Latin for "You, too". And I am quite sure that you are all familiar with it, even if you aren't aware of it. The argument tries to deflect opposition by pointing the finger at the opponent. In its most crass form, you'll hear it on the playground. "You're stupid." "Oh, yeah? Well, your mother wears combat boots!" You see, the response doesn't address the claim; it simply points the finger at the opponent. We've heard this argument recently in the debate on torturing Islamic detainees. "It's wrong to torture prisoners." "No it's not! Look at how they treat our people!" It's the "two wrongs make a right" approach ... which is obviously wrong.
Teenagers seem to come armed with this argument. Mom: "You shouldn't have premarital sex." Daughter: "Did you have premarital sex?" Mom: "Yes." Daughter: "Then who are you to tell me not to?" You see, whether or not Mom ever committed the offense is not relevant to whether or not it is wrong.
I recently saw this approach over at H.H. Patriarch Anthony. The author takes Sean Hannity to task for his comments about Democrats. In his response to Mr. Hannity, these are the kinds of comebacks he offers:
Please, please, please note: I am not taking the author of this piece at H.H. Patriarch Anthony to task. I am not saying that the Democrats are wrong. I am not saying that the Republicans are right. I am not saying that Sean Hannity was right. I am not saying that President Bush is infallible, inerrant, or even right. I am simply pointing out that this type of argument is so very, very common, especially among Christians (we are so prone to point out faults rather than to offer valid arguments), and it is so very, very ... wrong. It does not address the issues. It does not answer the "What is right?" question. It does not offer answers. Worse, it simply confirms the allegations against your position. I am not disagreeing or agreeing over the political issues discussed, nor am I defending Hannity. I'm simply asking you, the reader, to take time to consider your defense of right and wrong.
Remember my premise: There is little as damaging to the truth as a bad argument offered in its defense.
Teenagers seem to come armed with this argument. Mom: "You shouldn't have premarital sex." Daughter: "Did you have premarital sex?" Mom: "Yes." Daughter: "Then who are you to tell me not to?" You see, whether or not Mom ever committed the offense is not relevant to whether or not it is wrong.
I recently saw this approach over at H.H. Patriarch Anthony. The author takes Sean Hannity to task for his comments about Democrats. In his response to Mr. Hannity, these are the kinds of comebacks he offers:
Hannity claims that the Democrats have no plan for winning the war on terror. We have been fighting this war for 5 years now under Republican control and have yet to capture Osama Bin Laden or stop any significant terror plot ourselves. All the terror plots that have foiled since 9/11 have been stopped by other countries and most of the time the US was unaware of them until the arrest were already made.I don't offer this in defense of Hannity or even to assault the author of the post, but to illustrate the logical fallacy. Nothing in this retort answers Hannity's claim that the Democrats have no plan for winning the war on terror. It may prove that the current plan (which, by the way, requires that it exists) isn't working, but it doesn't offer an alternative. It is the classic "Tu Quoque" error: "Oh yeah? Well, your plan isn't working, is it?" Maybe not, but the assertion that there is no alternative plan hasn't been answered.
As to border security, the only change to border security that the Bush administration has brought about in its six year history is to make it easier to cross the border. They have consistently failed to secure our borders then they blame it on the Democrats. Excuse me? Who controls both houses of Congress and the White House and has for the last six years? Even with all that power, the Republicans cannot secure our borders, thus making us less safe than before 9/11.I've explained the error. Can you see it here? Hannity asserted that the Democrats don't have a better plan to defend the borders. This response doesn't offer a better plan, but simply says that the existing one isn't any better.
When it comes to the idea of raising taxes, the Democrats may very well do that. And while I would hate to let go of the lower tax rate, I would hate to know that my son would have to pay for my careless attitude toward the future. Under the Bush administration’s tax cuts, the deficit has doubled and tripled. We went from have a budget surplus under Clinton to a budget deficit under Bush. More people are unemployed now than under Clinton and in order to make their numbers look lower than Clinton’s, Bush made it more difficult to apply and receive unemployment benefits, thus lower the number of claims and making it look like he has lowered unemployment. But the fact of the matter is that unemployment may be higher than ever, but due to their creative bookkeeping we may never know the truth.This one is a really good illustration of the "Tu Quoque" fallacy and here's why. The upshot of the fallacy is that it essentially says, "Yes, you're right." It doesn't refute the allegation; it simply points a finger back at the allegator. (Yeah, I know, no such word ... but it's fun making them up, isn't it? My "allegator" would be "one who alleges".) Hannity suggested that the Democrats would raise taxes and, in defense of Democrats, the author here ... agrees. The argument is not that Hannity was wrong, but that it's good to raise taxes. This argument is supported by pointing fingers at the current system. "Tu Quoque". "Oh, yeah? Well, you're no better!" (Interestingly, on June 20, 2005, the Christian Science Monitor reported that there was actually a decline in the deficit. It appears that the President's tax cuts are bringing in greater revenue. Oh, well, that's another discussion.)
Please, please, please note: I am not taking the author of this piece at H.H. Patriarch Anthony to task. I am not saying that the Democrats are wrong. I am not saying that the Republicans are right. I am not saying that Sean Hannity was right. I am not saying that President Bush is infallible, inerrant, or even right. I am simply pointing out that this type of argument is so very, very common, especially among Christians (we are so prone to point out faults rather than to offer valid arguments), and it is so very, very ... wrong. It does not address the issues. It does not answer the "What is right?" question. It does not offer answers. Worse, it simply confirms the allegations against your position. I am not disagreeing or agreeing over the political issues discussed, nor am I defending Hannity. I'm simply asking you, the reader, to take time to consider your defense of right and wrong.
Remember my premise: There is little as damaging to the truth as a bad argument offered in its defense.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A Logical Fallacy
It is entirely possible, when one is defending the truth, to use a poor argument to do it. This doesn't mean that the truth being defended is not true. It means the argument is poor. Unfortunately, a bad argument used to defend a real truth merely does damage to the credibility of the truth. I would like to address one of these bad arguments that I hear so often from Christians. Consider it a learning opportunity.
The logical fallacy is in the family of causal fallacies. We tend to mistakenly attribute cause to things that may or may not actually be the cause. The most common is the "post hoc" fallacy, short for "Post hoc ergo procter hoc". It's Latin for "After this, therefore because of this."
Here's how it goes. Event A occurs before Event B. We would then attribute the cause of Event B to Event A. However, without more than mere time as evidence, it's an improper argument. Let me give an obvious example -- an obviously bad example. "Fast food restaurants have really taken off since the 1960's. However, since they have become popular, the prison population has risen exponentially. Obviously, fast food restaurants makes people into criminals." You can see without blinking an eye that this is absolute nonsense.
So, let's see if you can see it as easily when I give you this extremely popular Christian argument. "In the early 1960's America outlawed prayer in school. Since then, morality in the United States has plummeted. Clearly the removal of school prayer has caused the decline of American morality." Yeah, I'm sure you've all heard that one. You may have used it yourself. You probably like it. Can you see that it is as wrong as my silly "fast food" example?
Now, understand, it could be that removing school prayer has damaged American morality, but simply listing it in time doesn't make the point. And, if you think about it, I'm not sure you want to argue that it did. I mean, do we believe that mandatory praying makes good people? I don't think so.
Let me offer a different theory (just for fun). On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This event precipitated a series of events that resulted in World War I. This "war to end all wars" decimated Germany. As the country slowly tried to recover from its massive wounds, a young, charismatic leader surfaced. He told them they were the master race and he would lead them to world domination. Before the end of the the 1930's, Adolf Hitler had launched his attack on Europe.
This war spread to the world, and America was soon fighting on two fronts. As a result, every able-bodied, patriotic American male joined up to defend his country. This left a unique world of an inordinate number of "single parent" families, which in turn brought about a new classification in American society -- the "teenager". Prior to World War II, you were either a child -- under the full responsibility and education of your parents -- or you were an adult, having finished being a child. But in this time of crisis, this particular class of people were too young to go to war, but too old to need direct supervision. Many of this new category of people ended up fatherless from the war, but all of them suffered years of a lack of education that being a child necessarily offers.
This generation of "teenagers" became the new parents of the 1950's. Stunted in their education, they tended to be less rigid, questioning authority more than their predecessors, less inculcated in tradition. Their children moved farther from these values and became the 60's generation, whose catch phrases included "Don't trust anyone over 30" and "Question authority". It was the generation that came from World War II that pushed prayer out of public school, and it was their offspring that enlarged this removal of God from the public square. Each subsequent generation has been a devolution of the previous one, adopting less and less of the prior values and moving ever so slowly away from America's roots in morality.
Why would I say that America had its roots in morality? First, we were started by people running from religious persecution. The Puritans are fabled for their moral values. Then, when this young nation adopted democracy, they were quite clear on the limitations. Our form of government only works when people are basically moral. When the masses determined that they could vote themselves money, it began the decline. "Entitlements" -- that's what they're called. The Puritan notion of working for the best of one's society ... that was poisoned ... sometime around 1914, I theorize.
Okay, it's a theory. Honestly, it's one of my little pet theories. It very well could be wrong. But one thing I know -- it more comprehensively addresses a far more complex question than does the answer "The elimination of school prayer has caused the moral decline of America." It is my suspicion that the elimination of school prayer was a symptom, not a cause. A nation dedicated to Christian values would have deflected that problem. Since we didn't, I have a hard time thinking that this event is the cause of American immorality. And since nations are not people, God is free to judge nations temporally. I don't think, when that day comes to America, that it will be because we eliminated school prayer. I think it goes a lot deeper than that.
The logical fallacy is in the family of causal fallacies. We tend to mistakenly attribute cause to things that may or may not actually be the cause. The most common is the "post hoc" fallacy, short for "Post hoc ergo procter hoc". It's Latin for "After this, therefore because of this."
Here's how it goes. Event A occurs before Event B. We would then attribute the cause of Event B to Event A. However, without more than mere time as evidence, it's an improper argument. Let me give an obvious example -- an obviously bad example. "Fast food restaurants have really taken off since the 1960's. However, since they have become popular, the prison population has risen exponentially. Obviously, fast food restaurants makes people into criminals." You can see without blinking an eye that this is absolute nonsense.
So, let's see if you can see it as easily when I give you this extremely popular Christian argument. "In the early 1960's America outlawed prayer in school. Since then, morality in the United States has plummeted. Clearly the removal of school prayer has caused the decline of American morality." Yeah, I'm sure you've all heard that one. You may have used it yourself. You probably like it. Can you see that it is as wrong as my silly "fast food" example?
Now, understand, it could be that removing school prayer has damaged American morality, but simply listing it in time doesn't make the point. And, if you think about it, I'm not sure you want to argue that it did. I mean, do we believe that mandatory praying makes good people? I don't think so.
Let me offer a different theory (just for fun). On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This event precipitated a series of events that resulted in World War I. This "war to end all wars" decimated Germany. As the country slowly tried to recover from its massive wounds, a young, charismatic leader surfaced. He told them they were the master race and he would lead them to world domination. Before the end of the the 1930's, Adolf Hitler had launched his attack on Europe.
This war spread to the world, and America was soon fighting on two fronts. As a result, every able-bodied, patriotic American male joined up to defend his country. This left a unique world of an inordinate number of "single parent" families, which in turn brought about a new classification in American society -- the "teenager". Prior to World War II, you were either a child -- under the full responsibility and education of your parents -- or you were an adult, having finished being a child. But in this time of crisis, this particular class of people were too young to go to war, but too old to need direct supervision. Many of this new category of people ended up fatherless from the war, but all of them suffered years of a lack of education that being a child necessarily offers.
This generation of "teenagers" became the new parents of the 1950's. Stunted in their education, they tended to be less rigid, questioning authority more than their predecessors, less inculcated in tradition. Their children moved farther from these values and became the 60's generation, whose catch phrases included "Don't trust anyone over 30" and "Question authority". It was the generation that came from World War II that pushed prayer out of public school, and it was their offspring that enlarged this removal of God from the public square. Each subsequent generation has been a devolution of the previous one, adopting less and less of the prior values and moving ever so slowly away from America's roots in morality.
Why would I say that America had its roots in morality? First, we were started by people running from religious persecution. The Puritans are fabled for their moral values. Then, when this young nation adopted democracy, they were quite clear on the limitations. Our form of government only works when people are basically moral. When the masses determined that they could vote themselves money, it began the decline. "Entitlements" -- that's what they're called. The Puritan notion of working for the best of one's society ... that was poisoned ... sometime around 1914, I theorize.
Okay, it's a theory. Honestly, it's one of my little pet theories. It very well could be wrong. But one thing I know -- it more comprehensively addresses a far more complex question than does the answer "The elimination of school prayer has caused the moral decline of America." It is my suspicion that the elimination of school prayer was a symptom, not a cause. A nation dedicated to Christian values would have deflected that problem. Since we didn't, I have a hard time thinking that this event is the cause of American immorality. And since nations are not people, God is free to judge nations temporally. I don't think, when that day comes to America, that it will be because we eliminated school prayer. I think it goes a lot deeper than that.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Ready Always to Make a Defense
Over at Ales Rarus, we get a post offering questions from an atheist buddy. Clearly the questions are intended to dispute Christianity. The claims:
1. "Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world."
2. Why is the United States alone among the developed Western nations both in its religion and its violent crime rates?
3. Why do the so-called 'red states,' where Christianity is more popular, have higher violent crime rates?
4. Why are the percentages of atheists in prison so low?
Where do these claims come from? On what are they based?
1. What makes a country one with "high levels of atheism"? Pick one. Define "high levels of atheism". Of course, for some reason the numbers don't seem to bear out the claim even if it can be defined. According to Johns Hopkins University, the United States ranks 3rd out of the top 34 countries in volunteering and giving as a function of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this study done in December, 2005, the United States ranked #1 in terms of giving. One has to ask where the claim comes from. It would appear that the claim is an outright fabrication.
2. The United States is alone among developed Western nations in its religion. I wonder why that would be true? Could it be that it was a nation founded on a religious premise? Could it be that the nation is rooted in religion? Indeed, this nation required a religious morality to become a great nation. (And if, as the atheist's assertions are trying to say, religion makes for bad people, why did this nation at its most religious succeed so well, along with lower crime rates and higher giving?) Note, however, that while the U. S. may be alone in its religion among Western nations, it is not alone in the world as far as entrenched religious beliefs. Thus, the question makes presumptions regarding the value of "developed Western nations". Moving on, there is the claim that the United States is alone in "violent crime rates". Now, according to CSDP.org, the claim is false. While the U. S. may lead in numbers of crimes reported, the "violent crime rate" isn't as high as other nations. Russia, for instance, weighed in with a 22% crime rate and South Africa had a 55% crime rate, while the U. S. had a 5% crime rate. And it should be obvious to the casual observer that documenting and proving such an allegation would be extremely difficult.
3. What makes "Christianity more popular" in the so-called "red states"? And on what is the claim that their violent crime rates are higher? According to the 2005 crime rate statistics, it appears that the "blue states" are equally dispersed in the rankings of violent crime rates. Of course, there are 22 "blue states" (if you include the District of Columbia) and 29 "red states", so does that affect the numbers any? It appears that this is a claim without defense. For instance, the District of Columbia ranks #1 in violent crime, Maryland as #5, Delaware as #7, and Michigan and Illinois as #11 and 12 respectively. Note that the difference in crime rate between South Carolina (#2) and Illinois (#12) is 761.1 per 100,000 to 551.5 per 100,000. The District of Columbia tops the list with 1459 per 100,000 while North Dakota (a "red state") bottoms out at 98.2 per 100,000. That ought to tell us something ... that "red state" and "blue state" are no indicators of 1) whether or not they are "Christian" or 2) who has the higher crime rate between the two.
4. On the percentage of atheists in prison: One site provides the suggested number of 0.2% atheists in the prison population (compared to 8-16% in the general population). I'm sure this site is unbiased, since it includes the comment, "Let's just deal with the nasty Christian types." I'm confident that there is no agenda being driven here, no axe to grind, no reason to skew numbers. The fact that nearly 20% gave no answer for their religious affiliations is surely nothing to notice. The fact that other similar studies offer different numbers really ought to be ignored. Or, am I making too many assumptions?
Bottom line, the arguments are just as wrong as the popular argument among Christians that American morality has declined since they eliminated school prayer. The variables are too vast, the truth statements too skewed, and any real causality is too distant to call these valid arguments. As an example, Barna reported that while 96% of Americans claim to believe in a god, the numbers decline radically from there. Some 75% call themselves "Christians", but only 15% go to church, and only 5% say that their beliefs make any difference in their lives. In fact, the same percentage that call themselves "Christians" also hold that there is no such thing as "absolute truth", a simple contradiction of logic. (There cannot be a God and no truth.) So while anti-theists are tossing these highly questionable arguments at us, we're not even admitting that the U. S. is a "Christian nation", since our definition of "Christian" is much more narrow than the more common, vague "if you call yourself one, you are". If we used Barna's 5%, it would appear that real Christians are in a severe minority in this country and would not be expected to have a major impact on the nation's crime rates, giving, or politics. So before we feel the need to toss out religion altogether, perhaps we ought to examine whether or not there is a valid argument for the causal implications of the objections offered.
1. "Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world."
2. Why is the United States alone among the developed Western nations both in its religion and its violent crime rates?
3. Why do the so-called 'red states,' where Christianity is more popular, have higher violent crime rates?
4. Why are the percentages of atheists in prison so low?
Where do these claims come from? On what are they based?
1. What makes a country one with "high levels of atheism"? Pick one. Define "high levels of atheism". Of course, for some reason the numbers don't seem to bear out the claim even if it can be defined. According to Johns Hopkins University, the United States ranks 3rd out of the top 34 countries in volunteering and giving as a function of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this study done in December, 2005, the United States ranked #1 in terms of giving. One has to ask where the claim comes from. It would appear that the claim is an outright fabrication.
2. The United States is alone among developed Western nations in its religion. I wonder why that would be true? Could it be that it was a nation founded on a religious premise? Could it be that the nation is rooted in religion? Indeed, this nation required a religious morality to become a great nation. (And if, as the atheist's assertions are trying to say, religion makes for bad people, why did this nation at its most religious succeed so well, along with lower crime rates and higher giving?) Note, however, that while the U. S. may be alone in its religion among Western nations, it is not alone in the world as far as entrenched religious beliefs. Thus, the question makes presumptions regarding the value of "developed Western nations". Moving on, there is the claim that the United States is alone in "violent crime rates". Now, according to CSDP.org, the claim is false. While the U. S. may lead in numbers of crimes reported, the "violent crime rate" isn't as high as other nations. Russia, for instance, weighed in with a 22% crime rate and South Africa had a 55% crime rate, while the U. S. had a 5% crime rate. And it should be obvious to the casual observer that documenting and proving such an allegation would be extremely difficult.
3. What makes "Christianity more popular" in the so-called "red states"? And on what is the claim that their violent crime rates are higher? According to the 2005 crime rate statistics, it appears that the "blue states" are equally dispersed in the rankings of violent crime rates. Of course, there are 22 "blue states" (if you include the District of Columbia) and 29 "red states", so does that affect the numbers any? It appears that this is a claim without defense. For instance, the District of Columbia ranks #1 in violent crime, Maryland as #5, Delaware as #7, and Michigan and Illinois as #11 and 12 respectively. Note that the difference in crime rate between South Carolina (#2) and Illinois (#12) is 761.1 per 100,000 to 551.5 per 100,000. The District of Columbia tops the list with 1459 per 100,000 while North Dakota (a "red state") bottoms out at 98.2 per 100,000. That ought to tell us something ... that "red state" and "blue state" are no indicators of 1) whether or not they are "Christian" or 2) who has the higher crime rate between the two.
4. On the percentage of atheists in prison: One site provides the suggested number of 0.2% atheists in the prison population (compared to 8-16% in the general population). I'm sure this site is unbiased, since it includes the comment, "Let's just deal with the nasty Christian types." I'm confident that there is no agenda being driven here, no axe to grind, no reason to skew numbers. The fact that nearly 20% gave no answer for their religious affiliations is surely nothing to notice. The fact that other similar studies offer different numbers really ought to be ignored. Or, am I making too many assumptions?
Bottom line, the arguments are just as wrong as the popular argument among Christians that American morality has declined since they eliminated school prayer. The variables are too vast, the truth statements too skewed, and any real causality is too distant to call these valid arguments. As an example, Barna reported that while 96% of Americans claim to believe in a god, the numbers decline radically from there. Some 75% call themselves "Christians", but only 15% go to church, and only 5% say that their beliefs make any difference in their lives. In fact, the same percentage that call themselves "Christians" also hold that there is no such thing as "absolute truth", a simple contradiction of logic. (There cannot be a God and no truth.) So while anti-theists are tossing these highly questionable arguments at us, we're not even admitting that the U. S. is a "Christian nation", since our definition of "Christian" is much more narrow than the more common, vague "if you call yourself one, you are". If we used Barna's 5%, it would appear that real Christians are in a severe minority in this country and would not be expected to have a major impact on the nation's crime rates, giving, or politics. So before we feel the need to toss out religion altogether, perhaps we ought to examine whether or not there is a valid argument for the causal implications of the objections offered.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Faith and Reason
In the classic Miracle on 34th Street, Maureen O'Hara's Doris finally comes to believe in Santa Claus. Natalie Wood's Susan, her inquiring daughter, wonders about this change. So Doris warmly shares this bit of wisdom with Susan: "Faith is believing in things ... when common sense tells you not to."
Then there's that wise character from All in the Family, Archie Bunker. About faith he says, "It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe."
For some reason, it seems, nearly the entire world, Christians included, have bought into this type of thinking. Adhereing to the sagacity of a Santa Claus movie and the wisdom of Archie Bunker, we now agree that faith and reason do not coexist. If it is faith it is not reason, and if it is reason it is not faith. And that, dear readers, is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
One of the primary complaints against Christianity is that it "doesn't make sense". Christians like to tell skeptics "Well, it's a matter of faith. God's ways are not our ways. You just have to believe." The really wise Christian might even point to Deuteronomy: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deut. 29:29). And to those Christians who object, there is a volley of Scripture to prove otherwise. "Lean not on your own understanding", "We walk by faith, not by sight", and "Knowledge puffs up."
Is this so? Are faith and reason opposites? Are we not to think, not to reason, not to figure things out? Well, the first clue comes from Deut. 29:29. The second half of that verse says, "But the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever." So, what is revealed? The Word of God is revealed. It is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and it is revealed in the Bible we have. So while we must absolutely concur that God, being infinite, has not/cannot/will not reveal all of Himself to the finite, we must also see that we possess what He has revealed and learn to handle it rightly. That takes ... reason.
While much of Christianity has headed toward a rending of the mind from faith, Scripture seems to contradict this. We are commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37). Nor is God opposed to human reasoning. He tells Isaiah, "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isa. 1:18). And while knowledge without love will make you arrogant (1 Cor. 8:1), Proverbs is full of the call to knowledge (Prov. 1:22; 2:10; 8:9-12; 10:14; 11:9; 12:1; 14:18; 15:2 ...). In Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lays out a classic logical argument for the resurrection. His approach is formally called reductio ad absurdum, and he shows that if there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12-19).
But let's take it one step further. When we look in the New Testament, we find the word "faith" repeatedly used. The standard Greek word is pistis or some form of it, and it means, according to Vine's, "firm persuasion". "Persuasion". The Bible says that "faith comes by hearing". In fact, Strong's says it means "to be convinced (by argument, true or false)".
What a pity! While so many Christians have been spending so much time trying to distance their faith from reason, it would appear that we are commanded to reason and that biblical faith itself is predicated on reason. Maybe Archie Bunker and Doris Walker weren't right in their explanation of faith after all? And maybe, instead of preserving the integrity of Christianity by avoiding rational discussion, we are actually doing harm? Now that's a sobering thought.
Then there's that wise character from All in the Family, Archie Bunker. About faith he says, "It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe."
For some reason, it seems, nearly the entire world, Christians included, have bought into this type of thinking. Adhereing to the sagacity of a Santa Claus movie and the wisdom of Archie Bunker, we now agree that faith and reason do not coexist. If it is faith it is not reason, and if it is reason it is not faith. And that, dear readers, is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
One of the primary complaints against Christianity is that it "doesn't make sense". Christians like to tell skeptics "Well, it's a matter of faith. God's ways are not our ways. You just have to believe." The really wise Christian might even point to Deuteronomy: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deut. 29:29). And to those Christians who object, there is a volley of Scripture to prove otherwise. "Lean not on your own understanding", "We walk by faith, not by sight", and "Knowledge puffs up."
Is this so? Are faith and reason opposites? Are we not to think, not to reason, not to figure things out? Well, the first clue comes from Deut. 29:29. The second half of that verse says, "But the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever." So, what is revealed? The Word of God is revealed. It is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and it is revealed in the Bible we have. So while we must absolutely concur that God, being infinite, has not/cannot/will not reveal all of Himself to the finite, we must also see that we possess what He has revealed and learn to handle it rightly. That takes ... reason.
While much of Christianity has headed toward a rending of the mind from faith, Scripture seems to contradict this. We are commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37). Nor is God opposed to human reasoning. He tells Isaiah, "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isa. 1:18). And while knowledge without love will make you arrogant (1 Cor. 8:1), Proverbs is full of the call to knowledge (Prov. 1:22; 2:10; 8:9-12; 10:14; 11:9; 12:1; 14:18; 15:2 ...). In Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lays out a classic logical argument for the resurrection. His approach is formally called reductio ad absurdum, and he shows that if there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12-19).
But let's take it one step further. When we look in the New Testament, we find the word "faith" repeatedly used. The standard Greek word is pistis or some form of it, and it means, according to Vine's, "firm persuasion". "Persuasion". The Bible says that "faith comes by hearing". In fact, Strong's says it means "to be convinced (by argument, true or false)".
What a pity! While so many Christians have been spending so much time trying to distance their faith from reason, it would appear that we are commanded to reason and that biblical faith itself is predicated on reason. Maybe Archie Bunker and Doris Walker weren't right in their explanation of faith after all? And maybe, instead of preserving the integrity of Christianity by avoiding rational discussion, we are actually doing harm? Now that's a sobering thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)