Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 4.4
What you will learn
- Define a fallacy and name about ten common informal fallacies.
- Recognize each fallacy in examples drawn from religious and non-religious debate.
- Explain why an accusation of fallacy must be made carefully, since some resembling arguments are legitimate.
- Use the idea of a fallacy to improve your own arguments instead of only attacking others.
The big idea
A fallacy is a common mistake in reasoning that makes an argument look better than it is. Informal fallacies are errors of content, relevance or wording, such as attacking a person instead of an argument, or using a word in two senses. Knowing their names helps a student spot them quickly. But the names are not weapons. Many fallacies have legitimate cousins, and a charge of fallacy needs to be made only when the argument really has the flaw. The aim is to reason well, not to score points. Believers and critics fall into the same traps.
Key terms
- Fallacy
- A mistake in reasoning that is common enough to have a name. Formal fallacies are errors of logical form. Informal fallacies are errors of relevance, meaning or evidence.
- Ad hominem
- A Latin phrase meaning to the person. The fallacy of attacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself.
- Straw man
- Misrepresenting an opponent’s position in a weaker form and then refuting that form.
- False dilemma
- Presenting two options as the only ones when others exist.
- Begging the question
- Assuming in a premise the very thing the argument is supposed to prove. It is also called circular reasoning.
- Equivocation
- Using a word in two different senses within one argument as if it had one meaning.
- Genetic fallacy
- Judging a belief true or false only by where it came from.
- Appeal to authority
- Treating a person’s say-so as proof. It is a fallacy when the person is not an expert on the matter, when experts disagree or when the claim is taken as beyond question.
- God of the gaps
- Using God as the explanation for whatever science cannot yet explain. The label is also applied by critics to some arguments from ignorance.
Background
Aristotle wrote a short work on sophistical refutations, listing ways in which arguments deceive. Medieval teachers added to the list, and modern textbooks contain dozens of named fallacies. The Latin names that remain, such as ad hominem and non sequitur, are still widely used.
In religious debate, fallacies occur on every side. A preacher may caricature unbelief, a critic may caricature faith, and a listener may accept an argument because it comes from someone admired. Learning the common types is a defense for the reader and a discipline for the speaker. But the names must be used carefully, as the last step shows.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Fallacies of attack
Three fallacies involve how an opponent is treated. The ad hominem attacks the person: that preacher has been divorced, so his argument for the resurrection fails. The behavior of a speaker does not alter the truth of the premises. The straw man misstates the other view: Christians believe the earth is flat and so are anti-science. The speaker then refutes a position no one holds. The genetic fallacy rejects a belief because of its origin: you only believe in God because you were raised in a church. Origins may raise questions, but they do not decide whether the belief is true.
A related mistake is poisoning the well, which discredits a source in advance so that nothing it says will be heard. All of these replace the argument with a judgment about the person or the history.
Step 2: Fallacies of framing
Several fallacies shape the options available. A false dilemma offers only two choices: either the Bible is literally true in every word, or it is worthless. Many traditions hold other views of how Scripture is inspired. Begging the question assumes what is to be proved: the Bible is true because it says it is the word of God, and God cannot lie. Here the premise already assumes the Bible’s truth. Special pleading applies a rule to others but exempts one’s own side without good reason.
Equivocation uses a word in two senses. The argument that faith is believing without evidence, and that the apostles had faith, so the apostles believed without evidence, depends on one meaning of faith, but the New Testament and the tradition often mean trust. The word shifts and the argument is only apparently valid.
Step 3: Fallacies of weak support
Some arguments rely on thin support. An appeal to ignorance says that because something has not been disproved, it is true, or because it has not been proved, it is false. An appeal to popularity says that because many believe it, it must be so. A hasty generalization draws a broad rule from a few cases. A slippery slope claims without evidence that one step will lead to a chain of terrible results. An appeal to emotion tries to win agreement by stirring feelings that are not relevant to the truth of the claim.
The phrase God of the gaps points to a pattern in which a gap in current scientific knowledge is used as positive evidence for God. Many Christian theologians have objected to this move, since it ties God to what is not yet understood and makes belief shrink as knowledge grows. Some critics apply the label broadly, and defenders reply that certain arguments are based on what is known, not on what is unknown.
Step 4: Authority and its proper use
Everyone relies on authority. A patient follows a doctor and a student follows a teacher. Appeal to authority is a fallacy only when it is misused: when the authority has no expertise on the matter, when experts disagree and one side is quoted as if it were unanimous, or when authority is treated as ending the discussion. Quoting a scholar of the New Testament on the dating of Mark is reasonable. Quoting a famous actor on the same question is not.
The same applies in the church. Catholic and Orthodox teaching gives a special place to the authority of the Church, and Protestants to Scripture. Those teachings are not merely fallacies of authority, since they rest on arguments about why the authority is trustworthy. What can be asked in any case is why the authority is reliable on this question.
Step 5: Spotting fallacies fairly
Calling something a fallacy is itself an argument, and it can be wrong. Pointing to a speaker’s record may be fair when the speaker’s honesty is the issue, as with a witness. A comparison to a slope may be fair when there is real evidence of the steps. There is also the fallacy fallacy, which assumes that if an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. The conclusion may still be true. The argument has failed to show it.
A good practice is to name the problem in plain words before using the Latin name, to ask whether the argument could be repaired, and to check one’s own arguments first. When a fallacy is found in an opponent’s reasoning, the fair response is to say what the argument lacks, and to ask what better support might look like.
- What is the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the person who makes it?
- Why is a straw man unfair, and how can you avoid making one?
- Can you find a false dilemma in a religious or political debate you know?
- When is an appeal to authority reasonable, and when is it a fallacy?
- What is the fallacy fallacy?
- Which fallacy are you most likely to commit yourself?
Examples
Straw man
A critic says that Christians believe God is a magician who grants wishes to those who pray hard enough, and then argues that unanswered prayers disprove Christianity. The traditions he describes do not teach that. The critic has refuted a view few hold. A fair statement of the teaching on prayer would look quite different.
Begging the question
A speaker argues that miracles never happen because the laws of nature do not allow exceptions, and that the laws of nature allow no exceptions because miracles never happen. The conclusion has been placed in the premise. A fair argument would give independent reason for thinking the laws admit no exceptions.
A legitimate use that looks like a fallacy
A court hears that a witness was paid to testify. The lawyer points to the payment to cast doubt on the testimony. This is not an ad hominem fallacy, since the payment bears on the witness’s reliability. It does not prove that the testimony is false, but it is a relevant reason to check it carefully.
Different perspectives
Classical and scholastic logic
Aristotle and medieval logicians taught that exposing fallacies protects the search for truth. Aquinas’s method of stating the strongest objections before answering them is itself a defense against the straw man.
Protestant and Catholic apologists
Writers on both sides of the Reformation sometimes committed the fallacies they condemned in each other, such as caricaturing opponents’ teachings. Modern ecumenical dialogue has put effort into stating each tradition’s position as its own members would.
Eastern Orthodox
Orthodox writers stress the danger of rationalism, in which clever argument replaces humble worship. They also use careful argument in defending doctrine. Their concern is that reasoning be placed in the service of truth and love, and not pride.
Secular critical thinking
Textbooks on critical thinking treat fallacies as general tools, applicable to every subject. They warn that the labels can be misused and recommend reconstructing an argument charitably before labeling it.
Philosophers of religion
Many philosophers on both sides argue that popular debate between believers and skeptics is full of fallacies, and that the best work in the field avoids them. They encourage readers to engage the strongest versions of each position.
Why it matters
Fallacies are tempting because they often work: they are persuasive even when unsound. A student who knows them will be harder to mislead and more careful in speaking. The concern is not only with winning but with truth and fairness. Christians are told to speak the truth in love, and honest reasoning is part of that. The need to spot fallacies fairly, without becoming a faultfinder, is part of the moral character of the apologist.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Any argument that contains a fallacy has a false conclusion.
Correction: A fallacious argument may reach a true conclusion. It has failed to support it. Treating failure of an argument as proof of falsehood is the fallacy fallacy.
Misunderstanding: Appeals to authority are always fallacies.
Correction: Relying on genuine experts in their field is reasonable. The mistake lies in appealing to someone who lacks expertise, or treating authority as beyond question.
Misunderstanding: Only opponents commit fallacies.
Correction: Everyone does. The best habit is to check one’s own arguments first.
Misunderstanding: Attacking a person’s character is always irrelevant.
Correction: Sometimes it is relevant, for example when the person is a witness whose honesty matters. It is a fallacy when used to dismiss an argument whose premises can be assessed independently.
Knowledge check
What is a fallacy?
A fallacy is a common mistake in reasoning that makes an argument seem better than it is. Formal fallacies are errors in logical form, such as affirming the consequent. Informal fallacies are errors of relevance, meaning or evidence, such as the straw man or equivocation.
Explain the straw man fallacy with an example.
It occurs when a speaker misstates an opponent’s view in a weaker form and then refutes that form. For example, saying that Christians believe prayer works like magic and then arguing that unanswered prayer disproves faith. The refutation does not touch the actual teaching.
What is begging the question?
It is assuming in a premise what the argument is meant to prove, so that the reasoning goes in a circle. For example, arguing that a text is true because it says it is true. A sound argument supplies independent reasons for its premises.
When is an appeal to authority legitimate?
It is reasonable when the authority has real expertise on the question, when the authority represents a broad agreement among experts and when the claim is open to checking. It becomes a fallacy when the authority has no relevant expertise or is treated as ending all discussion.
Why should fallacy charges be made carefully?
Some arguments that resemble fallacies are legitimate, such as questioning a paid witness. A fallacious argument may also have a true conclusion. A careful critic names the error in plain words, checks that it really applies and asks whether the argument could be repaired.
Think it through
- Which fallacy have you heard most often in conversations about religion?
- When did you last change a position because you saw a fallacy in your own argument?
- What is the difference between a firm reply and an unfair one?
- Can you name a time when someone accused you of a fallacy unfairly?
Independent assignment
A fallacy hunt
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Find three short passages of persuasive writing: one for Christianity, one against and one on an unrelated subject. In each, look for a fallacy from this lesson. Quote or paraphrase the passage briefly, name the fallacy, explain why it applies and say how the argument could be repaired. If you cannot find one in a passage, say so and say why. Keep this for yourself.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Read the introduction and several named fallacies. Practice finding each in a short piece of writing.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Look at how objections are stated before they are answered.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Look for places where Lewis states an opposing view before replying.
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom (The Gay Science) Read selectively and ask which of his arguments you find fair and which you find overstated.
- Ephesians 4:15 Read about speaking the truth in love.
- Proverbs 18:17 Read the verse about hearing the other side.