Fallacies, Fallacies, and more Fallacies

Here is an excellent example as to why logic sends us in circles. A Christian blogger wrote a post in which he argued,

The really frustrating thing about most atheists—at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism—is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system.

That very short post prompted a much longer response by our old friend, Austin Cline.

It's fair to question the nature of what evidence is expected in support of a claim, but trying to exempt one's own personal god-claims from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy. If someone really thinks that some particular claim merits being exempt, they'll have to provide a sound logical argument in defense of that claim.

Mr. Cline says the standard imposed on theist claims is the same standard “used pretty much all the rest of the time” and that is why it is fair to impose that standard. Therefore, insisting on another standard without provided logical arguments to back up your demand is fallacious. If there is anything we have learned from Mr. Cline, it is that he loves to point out fallacies.

Now, Mr. Cline is a very learned man, especially when it comes to evaluating logical arguments. In fact, he even constructed a page which lists, in alphabetical order, the most common logical fallacies. But it is interesting that Mr. Cline overlooked a fallacy of his own. He says it is fair for atheists to impose their standard upon theists, even though theists might not agree with it, because that is the standard “used pretty much all the rest of the time.” But, isn’t that an example of the Appeal to Numbers fallacy? Mr. Cline describes that fallacy as occurring “any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it.” And this is exactly what Mr. Cline is doing. He offers no other reason for the theist to submit to his standard of proof other than, “everyone else is doing it.” Mr. Cline states that this is the same standard that scientists and prosecutors are held to. But science and law are not at all like theological debate. Why should that standard be applied here? Certainly not because it is “used pretty much all the rest of the time.”

Despite the fact that the bulk of my post so far is focused on Mr. Cline, I’m not writing this as a criticism of him. I only pick on him, partly to return the favor, but mostly because he is a very good, and prominent, example of the logic-only crowd.

My point here (you knew I had one) is to illustrate the shortcomings of logic. A logical argument is constructed to prove something, but if you try to get two people to agree on the standard of proof you end up with logical circles. The first person will say, “I think the standard should be set at this level.” The second person would respond, “You can’t do that! That isn’t the standard everyone else uses. You are committing the Special Pleading Fallacy. You have to prove that your standard is the best.” The first person then replies, “Well, why should we use your standard? Just because everyone else uses it? Isn’t that the Appeal to Numbers Fallacy? Everyone else could be wrong. You have to prove your standard is the best.” But of course, it would be impossible to prove whose standard to use because it is impossible to agree on what standard by which to judge the proof.

And so we are caught in a circle, and it is at about this time we should begin to realize that logic really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

–J.E. Heath
Inspired by my wisdom? Get more at per-fidem.org.
Comments? Email us.

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath