Fallacies
In an ideal world, all thoughts, arguments, and discussions would prove reasonable and would well reflect all available evidence. All participants in dialogue would maintain integrity and would pursue truth wherever it might lead.
We do not live in an ideal world.
On account of our frailty, limitation, and corruption, we are all liable to commit fallacies in how we think, reason, argue, and discuss. Fallacies involve invalid or faulty reasoning in our thought and communication process.
Fallacies in logic and argument abound. Fallacies tend to be categorized in two main ways: as formal or informal. Arguments in which some aspect of its form prove deficient are formal fallacies. All formal fallacies fall under the non sequitur domain, since the flaws in the argument’s form expose the conclusion as not able to follow from the premises. Formal fallacies include an appeal to probability, an existential fallacy, or even the fallacy of fallacies: presuming an argument’s conclusion must be false if premises in the argument prove fallacious. Yes, one can even prove fallacious when arguing about fallacies!
The most prevalent form of fallacies remains informal fallacies. Informal fallacies are not found in the form of the argumentation, but in their substance: the logic of the argument proves unsound because of faulty or poorly justified premises. Of informal fallacies there seems to be no end. They include all forms of circular reasoning, appeals to or arguments from ignorance, moderation, the majority, and/or silence, begging the question, cherry-picking/survivor bias, fallacies involving line drawing or etymology, false attribution, false dilemma, moving the goalposts, no true Scotsman, various forms of questionable cause and the slippery slope. Red herring arguments, including ad hominem, appeal to authority, the bandwagon, or emotion, guilt by association, strawman, tu quoque (better known as “whataboutism”), and the like, are also informal fallacies. And these are only a few of the many and diverse types of informally fallacious arguments which abound in modern discourse.
Sometimes we commit fallacies on account of a lack of knowledge or training, thus acting out of ignorance. Unfortunately, a good number of fallacies are committed with more corrupt motivations. Many times, fallacies are set forth in order to try to cover up and hide major deficiencies in evidence and support: when evidence will sufficiently persuade about a given issue, the evidence will be used; in situations where the evidence does not advance a given argument well, it proves easier to resort to some kind of fallacy or another. Many will turn to fallacies and fallacious reasoning in an attempt to manipulate or even gaslight their audience, consciously and deliberately appealing to emotions and primal impulses, especially fear and tribalism, to persuade.
Fallacies take place across the spectrum of disciplines and fields, but fallacies seem especially pervasive in the domains of politics and religion. Therefore, as Christians, how should we approach and consider logical and argumentative fallacies?
We do well to confess how participation in a logical or argumentative fallacy is not inherently a matter of sin and unrighteousness. One will search the Scriptures in vain for the commandment, “thou shalt never commit a logical fallacy in argument or discussion.” An argument does not prove more moral or Biblical because it is well and appropriately reasoned and argued; as indicated above, believing an argument’s conclusion must be false because a fallacy was committed within the argument is itself fallacious, an argument from fallacy. If a person makes a fallacious argument out of ignorance or without impure or improper motives, the fallacy remains a fallacy, and the argument made therefore might be called into question; but we would not be wise to think the one making the argument has committed some kind of moral transgression. But if a person makes fallacious arguments with an intent to deceive or manipulate, then we can have confidence God in Christ will hold them accountable one day for their treachery against truth and integrity. In such a circumstance, however, the fallacy itself is not the transgression: the base, immoral motivations behind committing the fallacy represent the sin (cf. Colossians 3:5-10, etc.)
Christians always do well to remember how judgment belongs to God in Christ; it is for us to encourage and love one another, not presume to be judges (cf. James 4:11-12). To this end we should be wary of judging others if and when they commit fallacies in reasoning and argument. They may not even be aware they are speaking fallaciously; even if they have some inkling of the nature of their arguments, they may not be consciously aware of the extent of what they are doing. Furthermore, who among us can honestly say they have not themselves used, however intentionally, logical fallacies in their thinking, reasoning, and arguments? Just as we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (cf. Romans 3:23), so we all have also, at some point or another, used some kind or another of the logical fallacies listed above in the way we have thought and spoken with others.
If we have all committed logical fallacies in how we have thought, reasoned, and argued, and judgment regarding the immorality of it all belongs to the Lord, why should we even show concern about logical fallacies? It is not for us to judge people, but it is for us to consider reasoning and arguments so we might come to a better knowledge of the truth of God in Christ and in the world, and resist all forms of error and distortion (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, 2 Peter 3:18). The use of logical fallacies does not automatically invalidate the truth of the conclusion, but it certainly calls it into question. Those who have high quality evidence with which to support their propositions make much of that evidence; it is when the evidence is less strong and highly questionable when people start looking for various ways to try to justify their position, and logical fallacies often follow.
Thus, all Christians should have some familiarity with at least the basic and most prevalent forms of logical fallacies so they are better able to recognize when they are being committed. When the Christian can better recognize the presence of a logical fallacy, they find themselves in a much better position to ask themselves, or perhaps even the person making the argument, why the fallacy has been committed: not in an attempt to judge the person who committed the fallacy, but to discern what might be lacking in the argumentation which led to the fallacy. Perhaps the conclusion or proposition remains sound or at least somewhat tenable, but better argued with better forms of evidence in another context. Or perhaps the fallacy or fallacies expose great weaknesses in the attempted arguments which would justify rejecting the conclusion or proposition altogether. But if Christians prove less aware of logical fallacies, they may not notice them in various arguments, and fall prey to distortions of the truth and affirm error.
Christians active in personal work and preaching and teaching should give extra special care and consideration to the way they think, reason, and speak so they might avoid committing logical fallacies in their communication of the Gospel (cf. James 3:1-12). Paul warned Timothy about how many Christians would want preachers who would tell them the kind of things they wanted to hear and to thus wander off into myths, and charged Timothy to instead preach the Gospel “in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:1-5). Note the contrast Paul made: to preach the Gospel or preach what people would want to hear. Perhaps the most common temptation to commit logical fallacies involves a desire to win and maintain an audience over and above a commitment to reasoning in the truth soundly. And it “works”: you can preach and make rhetorical appeals to other authorities and/or attempt to relativize the standards within what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit in Scripture, and many will accept it; you can go beyond what is written in “concern” about a given topic, and make appeal to the “slippery slope,” and many will go along with it; you can cast aspersions on a given subject matter and call anything outside of your comfort zone “denominational” or label it with the name of a given denomination, thus suggesting guilt by association, and at least some will endorse it. As these examples suggest, temptations toward logical fallacies cross all confessional and partisan lines: those proclaiming the Gospel are just as easily tempted to commit logical fallacies, in order to keep people “in line” according to a given belief system as they are to try to convince them to accept some kind of change.
Yet such appeals do not “work” because they appeal to the truth of God in Christ with sober reasoning; they “work ” according to the demonic wisdom of the world, and relying upon the demonic wisdom of this world will ultimately backfire for those whose trust should be in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. James 3:13-18). Those of us active in personal work, preaching, and teaching should avoid committing logical fallacies because they might well call into question the integrity of our witness for the truth. The truth of God in Christ remains whether we have spoken of it in logically fallacious terms or not. The work of God through the Gospel of Christ is never entirely frustrated on account of the limitations of those proclaiming the message (cf. Philippians 1:12-20), but we should never want to put any kind of hindrance or stumbling block between anyone and the Lord Jesus. We should be able to proclaim the truth of God’s work in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ and all its implications with sound reasoning and coherent, consistent arguments (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). If we cannot proclaim a given matter the way we believe it should be proclaimed without resorting to some kind of logical fallacy or another, perhaps we should entirely re-think what it is we are preaching, and how.
Logical fallacies abound in our fallen world. We will continue to hear all kinds of fallacies in arguments. At times we ourselves will advance fallacies in our conversations and arguments. But we do well to aspire to think and speak in better ways. We do well to be aware of the various kinds of logical fallacies which abound, seek to avoid them ourselves, and become more conscious of how others use them and what their use might say about the arguments they advance. Above all, may we do better at avoiding logical fallacies when presenting the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit lest our witness be hampered and compromised. May we uphold the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit in our lives, and share in the resurrection of life!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post Fallacies appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
