Smoky Mountain Bible Institute
(Est. 2009) Lesson #72
Philosophy:
what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible
institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian? We continue, this month, to look at essential
tools for intelligent debate by identifying and avoiding logical fallacies.
Tautology, also called a
“circular argument”, involves defining terms or qualifying an argument in such
a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the
rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion, just
using different words. Example: “The Bible is the word of God. We know this
because the Bible itself tells us so.” While this is a true statement, and
Christians can agree that God’s word is a reliable witness to its own authority,
we must also admit that this statement does not follow the rules of logic. In
order for something to be logically true it must also be falsifiable. That is,
it must be possible to present a counter-argument, which, if proven true, would
disprove the original argument. In our example concerning the authority of
scripture, we can look at the many falsifiable truth claims made in the Bible,
which can be challenged and verified.
We find that these claims always stand up to objective scrutiny, confirming the
trustworthiness of the Biblical record. We must also acknowledge, however, that
when scripture makes supernatural claims, it is the Holy Spirit who gives us access
to faith in God’s word. Another, simpler example of tautology example would be,
“We used the bone in a rock layer to date the rock layer to 10 million years.
It is clear that the bones are 10 million years old because we found them in
the 10-million-year old rock layer.”
Appeal to Authority is a fallacy
which attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known
(but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being
offered. Example: “If climate change is a concern of our president and all of
those well-known Hollywood actors, then it is most certainly true.” In reality,
actual scientific data is what should be presented and discussed, rather than
the opinions of politicians or actors.
Appeal to Tradition, A.K.A. “don't
rock the boat” or “let sleeping dogs lie”, cites precedent or tradition alone. Example:
“We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We
shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.” “Because we have
always done it that way” is not a good or logical reason to do anything, so no
matter how old or new a process or tradition is, we should always know why we do what we do so that it does not
lose its purpose or meaning, and likewise, so that we don’t inhibit helpful
changes without cause.
Appeal to the Crowd is a fallacy
which refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide
support for a claim. Example: “If living together is immoral, then I have
plenty of company.” Moral norms and truth are not established by popular
opinion, however, but by the Creator. Another example: “That professor’s test
was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.” Fairness, however, is
established by facts, not opinions. And finally, “Molecules-to-Man Evolution
must be true since most scientists believe it.” Scientific fact is determined
using the scientific method, not by polling the beliefs of scientists. (Who,
incidentally, are in fact much more divided on the issue than people like Bill
Nye would have you believe.)
Slippery Slope, A.K.A. “the
domino theory”, suggests that if one step or action is taken, it will
invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are
negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assumes a chain reaction of
cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome. This was often
used as a reason for our nation’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict. “If we
let them fall, then one country after another will similarly fall to
communism.” It is illogical to say that one event causes another, only because
they are connected or similar. We can acknowledge their similarity or
connectedness while at the same time acknowledging that one did not cause the
other.
We will spend
one more session on logical fallacies next month.
Have a blessed New Year,
Pastor Portier
No comments:
Post a Comment