• Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance involve drawing connections between the premises and conclusions where none actually exist. That is, the truth of the conclusion is not dependent on the truth of the premises. The necessary connection between premises and conclusions is perhaps the most important connection to be made in argumentation. A violation of this is a violation of the highest order.

 

• Ad hominem (argumentum ad hominem, "argument to/against the man")

This fallacy draws unnecessary and unwarranted connections between negative characteristics of the claimant and the truth of their claims.

 

Example:

"The eristic and solipsistic tone of the posts on this forum are a devastating indictment against the positions such posters articulate.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/53f61972ae62dd54

 

The poster here is drawing a connection between perceived negative characteristics (eristicism and solipsism) and the value of their arguments. Note: The validity of the character assessments is irrelevant. True or false, it is the connection between those characteristics and the truth value of their arguments that is being abused here.

 

• Appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum, “appeal to the people”, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad numerum, “appeal to the number”, consensus gentium, “agreement of the clans”)

This fallacy draws unnecessary and unwarranted connections between people that already accept a conclusion as true, and the truth of that conclusion. There are numerous past examples of things many people have accepted as true which turned out later to be false.

 

Example:

“throughout recorded history, millions of otherwise well adjusted and rational people have stepped forward and made the claim that they had first person experience with god(s).”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/813cf0cbdd1d2624

 

The above quote was used as support that because there were many such testimonies, then this constituted evidence that there was, in fact, a god.

 

From a deductive reasoning point of view, the amount of evidence for a view is irrelevant. The conclusion is true if the premises are true and there is a logical connection between them.

• Fallacy fallacy (argumentum ad logicam, argument from fallacy)

This one is a tempting one to commit. Given a fallacious argument in which the conclusion is not known to be true because either the premises are false or there is not relationship between the premises and the conclusion it is also a fallacy to say that the conclusion is necessarily false because of this. If all we have is a fallacious argument, then all I can do is point out the fallacy and leave it to the arguer to present a valid argument.

 

Example:

“Most importantly from the point of view of this board, atheism and all atheists should be indicted because atheism rests on false and fallacious principles and the atheists here have yet to advance a proposition about religion that is not fallacious or wrong. http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/3e3ab8b2114520fa

 

Here the connection is drawn between the alleged fallacies of atheism, and the truth value of atheistic conclusions.

 

• Fallacy of composition & division

These fallacies erroneously assign attributes to the whole based on attributes of the parts (composition) or assign attributes to the parts based on attributes of the whole (division).

 

Example:

“If we examine the body thoroughly, we cannot locate the "I" *anywhere*.  Therefore it seems that if the phenomenon of "I" has a noumenal origin, it cannot be physical.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/adfce64f7cab0bb5

 

Here the arguer is positing the existence of a separate and non-physical soul because that soul cannot be found in the individual components of the body in which it allegedly resides. That is, our cells and DNA do not exhibit consciousness, ergo the consciousness exhibited in our whole must come from a separate source.

 

• Genetic fallacy

This fallacy is when a conclusion is based on something’s origin or previous meanings and ignores the present context in which it is being presented.

 

Example:

“A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God.  Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God".  This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless".  The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods"."

 

You folks gotta live with it...or continue down this path of hypocrisy. “

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/43c2b503afee344a

 

Word meanings change over time. Thus, the etymology of a word, while interesting in an academic sense, does not bind it to a specific meaning. To bind a word to its original meaning, while discarding changes to that meaning over the years, especially its current meaning in its current contexts, is to commit a genetic fallacy.

 

• Appeal to antiquity (proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem)

This fallacy attempts to establish the truth of something based simply on the fact that it correlates with some tradition, or that it has existed for a period of time.

 

Example:

“[The Bible] has a history of having survived for over 2000 years…”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/a26100565d779f93

 

It doesn’t matter how long something has been held as true. Age does not affect the truth of a statement. Certainly no Christian is saying the Bible was less true a certain period of time ago, ergo it cannot be more true now.

 

• Appeal to authority (argument by/from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam, “appeal to respect”, ipse dixit, “he himself said it”)

Essentially the opposite of the ad hominem, this fallacy attempts to link the truth of a claim to a positive characteristic of the claimant. In this case, their authority or expertise on a subject.

 

Example:

“About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey...”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/af5d159f8c91b87/

 

The status of a person believing in theism is irrelevant to the truth of theism.

 

• Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam, “argument to the consequences)

This fallacy considers the ramification of accepting a conclusion as true, then attempts to establish the truth of the conclusion based on whether or not the consequences are desirable.

 

Example:

“If atheism is true, we must abandon all hope and every worthwhile reason to live because the death that waits at the end is the death of any motivation, save the satisfaction of animal desires.

        Yet, meaning and hope are necessary to the mind, thoughts not so easy to shake. The young man who stood up in a debate claiming, Nothing has meaning," clearly thought his own sentence did... and gave himself way. And we cannot survive without hope. Nothing kills the human soul he way one sentence does, "I have nothing to look forward to."

        All this makes atheism an unworkable philosophy: though you don't believe in meaning and hope, you realize that survival depends on living as if you do.””

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/dbcf2deb87c71a69

 

This statement places the truth of atheism in the hands of whether or not its consequences result in survival of the individual that accepts it. The validity of his interpretation of the consequences of atheism aside, just because those consequences result in bad things does not mean the philosophy is unworkable.

 

• Appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum, “argument to the cudgel”, “appeal to the stick”).

This fallacy comes in the form of a threat. You are told to accept the conclusion as true, or you will suffer some consequence.

 

Example:

“But since you asked and your question goes to motivation ("WHY atheists should believe") I would have to go with Pascal's Wager. Yes, I am fully aware of all of the atheist refutations of PW - yeah I know that Pascal guy was a real cheese head.  But despite those seemingly clever refutations, Pascal's basic point still has merit...”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/f21fef98a8ad28c0

 

For the uninitiated, Pascal’s Wager essentially states that one should believe in God because the consequences of not believing in God are undesirable, if God exists.

 

• Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

This fallacy attempts to invoke feelings of pity or guilt in the target, in an attempt to accept the arguer’s conclusion as true.

 

“reading some of the posts, i feel slightly worried that some of you dont really fathom or give much thought to the process of abortion... for you show no real humanity.  a baby....gets blendered....<raises eyebrow>...kills a baby. “

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/6660a4f23382842b

 

This post essentially dismisses any facts or statistics about the issue and goes right for the appeal to emotion.

 

• Naturalistic fallacy

In short, this fallacy confuses “is” versus “ought”. It says that how things are is how they should be.

 

Example:

“That is the ultimate aim of science and evolution, to turn us all into machines. “

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/eb2df8e40144bb0f

 

Science is descriptive. It explains the world as it appears to be. It has no aim or goal in restructuring the universe or its inhabitants in a particular way.

 

• Red Herring

Anything that distracts from the topic, rather than attempting to establish the truth of it, is a red herring. Oftentimes fallacies can also double as Red Herrings.

 

• Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of ambiguity appear, superficially, to be valid arguments. This is due to lack of clarification of the terms being used. Precise and explicit definition of terms prevents and exposes these fallacies.

 

• Equivocation

Equivocation is when a single term is used with different meanings in the course of a single argument, in an attempt to link those different meanings together.

 

Example:

“Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. “

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/23201ec6a2b108f3

 

There are many and varying definitions for “god”. The argument preceding this example provides support for only one attribute of “god”, that of creator. The arguer, however, references God (The Chrisitan god), which necessarily includes additional attributes other than creator. By using multiple definitions of “god”, the attempt here is to have the other attributes of God taken as true by default.

 

• Straw Man

A Straw Man is a misrepresentation of a concept. This can be accidental or deliberate. It is easily remedied by clarifying the accepted definition of the concept being addressed.

 

Example:

“I don't quite get evolution. If wwe came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why isn't any monkey baby's evolving?”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/3a290dd169cb076e

 

Suffice it to say, evolution does not say we came from monkeys nor does it suggest that there should no longer be monkeys.

 

• Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of Presumption generally include false implicit assumptions. These are generally harder to detect as their conclusions can often be true, regardless of the invalid reasoning used to establish their truth, or their conclusions align with intuition. The flawed reasoning is not always apparent and critical thinking is necessary to uncover it.

 

• Affirming the consequent/denying the antecedent

These two fallacies are found in arguments of similar structure to:

If A, then B

A

Therefore B

Based on the premise “If A, then B” only one other outcome is logically valid:

            Not B

            Therefore Not A

 

But there are two other forms, both of which are fallacious: affirming the consequent:

            B

            Therefore A

(The premise only states that A will result in B. Affirming the consequent erroneously assumes that only A will result in B, so if B is true then A must be true. That is, it ignores other ways B can be true.)

 

And denying the antecedent:

            Not A

            Therefore Not B

(This assumes that B cannot be true without A, an assumption not included in the premise)

 

Example (affirming the consequent):

“2. I've experianced in my personal life all that the Bible says that Jesus will do for me. (peace and joy)”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/4d9d1b0361f99ffe

 

The assumption here is that there is no other way this individual could experience peace and joy.

 

Example (denying the antecedent):

“Because the "if" portion of your hypothesis is false, the "then" part is not a valid conclusion.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/da880926f9d50931

 

Almost a verbatim explanation of denying the antecedent.

 

• Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam, “appeal to ignorance”, argument by lack of imagination, argument from personal incredulity, argument from personal belief, argument from personal conviction)

This fallacy stems from the assumption that if a person cannot perceive a certain premise being false, it is true or if they cannot perceive a certain premise being true, it is false.

 

Example:

“Personally, I have concluded that the existence of intelligent design makes more sense than otherwise. I see evidence of it.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/d2525143dc641070

 

Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it’s true, or even truer than other possible alternatives.

 

• Begging the Question/Circular Argument

This fallacy includes its intended conclusion as an assumption or premises, either said or unsaid.

 

Example:

“The evidence [for God] is in the Bible you reject. Thus, there is no other evidence and you will always remain unconvinced.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/3b49a7498a05c32a

 

Since the authority of the Bible is derived from God this argument is saying that God exists because the Bible says so and we should believe the Bible because God wrote it (which presumes his existence).

 

• Complex Question/Loaded Question

This is a question that includes an assumption as its basis. Providing a simple yes or no answer to the question constitutes tacit acknowledgement of that assumption.

 

Example:

“Well...I would like to know what would you do if God appeared to you one day. Would you start beleiving in HIM?”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/3650d493c5cfa9f6

 

The question makes the assumption that said God exists.

 

• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (“After this therefore because of this”)

This is the correlation equals causation fallacy. It assumes that because there is an apparent correlation between two or more events, then there is also a causal relationship between them.

 

Example:

“well, it has been scientifically proven that religious people live longer. Is that something of value ?”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/25e800c81d72a23a

 

The above statement was based on a study that showed a correlation between religiosity and lifespan. The study itself admitted ignorance as to the causal factors, but the poster here did not.

 

• False Dilemma (bifurcation fallacy, false dichotomy, either-or fallacy)

This fallacy presents and assumes only two options, when in actuality there may be more.

 

Example:

“No one is asking that ID theory be accepted as fact.  They are just

asking that it be presented as one theory and as I stated before, the

alternate theory is "random chance".  Perhaps we should start

referring to that as "RC theory". “

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/e72de9f690de9bde

 

There are actually several fallacies in this one statement. Regardless, the assumption here is that “design” and “random chance” are the only available explanations for the universe.

 

• Hasty Generalization

This fallacy takes the attributes of some portion of a group of objects and presumes those attributes apply to all members of that group.

 

Example:

“Scripture contains universal truths and is written for all generations and for all who have the wit to decipher the clues in it. Why should this be so, you wonder. Because not every one has the capability or the will to know what scripture means, certainly not atheists. (which is why they are atheists).”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/a3290ee6fefc8a96

 

There are two hasty generalizations here. The first is the assumption that if there are one or more truths in scripture, then the scripture as a whole is universally true. The second is that if some atheists cannot understand it, then none can.

 

• No True Scotsman

This fallacy occurs when someone arbitrarily redefines the term being discussed to exclude a certain group who would otherwise be included in that definition.

 

Example:

“The Bible teaches that we are spiritual beings, having a spirit in addition to a soul and body. When they ate of the tree, the spirit aspect of them died immediately. The body/soul died afterward.

 

That's why Jesus said we had to be "born again" to enter Heaven, and He specifically mentioned being born again of the spirit. When we are born of the flesh, we are spiritually dead, which is why we cannot enter Heaven, and why we sin.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/9a974e61d1b74793

 

In this example the poster is redefining “death” as it was used in Genesis to refer to the punishment Adam and Eve were supposed to suffer for eating from the tree of knowledge.

 

• Slippery Slope

A slippery slope is when one takes a conclusion and then assumes future consequences of that conclusion, without supporting them.

 

Example:

“As Dostoyevsky observes in his book The Brothers Karamazov, if God doesn't exist, "everything is lawful", including rape, torture and murder -- which is one of many examples of how atheism inspires evil.”

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/048a91fda7c393be

 

Here it is assumed that if God doesn’t exist, then every action would be allowed, yet no support is given for this presumed outcome.