On fallacies and logic

Our readers have no doubt come across Mr. Heath's comments on logic in "Fallacies, Fallacies, and more Fallacies," but if you have not, I advise strongly that you read it, especially since this post will only build upon the foundation he has already laid. Mr. Heath has noticed something vital here: that without a standard, even logic folds upon itself. If I could, I would like to take this line of thought further.

He grazed the subject of a touchstone — that is, a standard upon which an argument is set. We cannot have a debate if we must "prove" every point and word, since they would just bring up more arguments and words that would need more proof. At a certain point, we must accept something as proven, else we will get no where.

As an example, say we were having a discussion on whether Abstract Painters are really artists (a discussion I will be having in next month's issue of Primum Mobile Magazine, but I digress). We might debate as to the definition of art, but we must approach the argument with a few assumptions. First is a common definition of Abstract Painting. Next, we must have a reasonable understanding of Art – perhaps not all the peculiarities, but we will get nowhere if someone in the debate thinks that "Art" really means "spaghetti." We must have a common language that we agree is meaningful; that is, we cannot keep questioning the definitions of words that everyone knows. There are a hundred different details that must provide the table for the discussion, otherwise the debate will get mired in minutia. Trust me, I have had conversations like that.

We must assume a touchstone, else we would get nowhere.

Which brings me to the topic of Mr. Heath's post: the debate between theists and atheists. He points out that every fallacy one side points out can be countered with another. Every time they say we're working outside their system, we can throw back that their system isn't proven, and can never be proven. How silly would the debate be if we started making them prove that their fallacies were really fallacies? Even logic itself assumes that logic is correct, and that cannot be proven outside of itself, which is the standard for proof.

Our touchstone is God. We know, to borrow a phrase, that one line is crooked because we know what a straight line is. Logic alone does not provide this straight line, since logic is built upon that same foundation that is the straight line (by the way, it is not fallacious to mix your metaphors – it is merely bad taste).

Logic alone is not enough. We can debate, as we often do, about religion and such, but it is bad form for the other side to accuse us of making assumptions in favor of Christianity when they make similar assumptions about atheism. If they want us to prove ourselves according to their system, then they first need to prove their system against a tertium quid, or third thing. It is not good enough to simply yell "Fallacy!"

-Paul Lytle, Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath