Sidebar: Logical Reasoning

After a few different posts, and some interesting comments, I think it’s time for a sidebar before we proceed forward with our investigation. There have been many different accusations of logical fallacies in discussions over the last few posts, and I think it’s time to discuss this for a little bit.

First, what is a fallacy? A logical fallacy is a flaw or gap in reasoning, something that involves a missing step in logic. They’re typically used by politicians or others who are more focused on impressing or convincing than on honest philosophical investigation or solid truth.Here, we’re going to list a few of the most common fallacies used and a description of what they are.

First, the most common one is the “ad hominem” fallacy. This is when, instead of answering a claim, the response becomes a statement about the person themselves. For example, claiming that because someone has been arrested, they’re unable to tell the truth at all.

Second, the “genetic” fallacy, saying that a position isn’t true because of its history. For example, because a German politician had been a member of the Hitler Youth in the 1930s, anything they do must be some sort of Nazi propaganda.

Third, the “strawman” fallacy, intentionally misrepresenting a person’s belief to make it easier to argue against. For example, claiming that someone who opposes abortion wants to turn women into baby-making machines.

Fourth, “special pleading.” This is one that I’d like to address in depth for a moment, because it’s one that’s levelled quite frequently and has been levelled against me a few times. Special pleading means trying to cite something as an exception to the rule without explaining the exception. It usually implies some version of a double standard. For example, saying that all thieves should go to jail, except this one, because he only stole $80.

Now, why has this one been used so many times in the discussion about the existence of God? Well, for a very simple reason. When most Christians try to prove that God exists, they will prove the necessity of some form of deity, and then assume that because a god must exist, the Christian God must exist.

How is this different from what I’ve been doing? Well, in the beginning, when I said to start from scratch, I meant to start from absolute scratch. This means no preconceived notions of God or assumptions about what he would be like. Any preconceived notions or arguments that the Christian God hasn’t been proven yet would be true. I haven’t proven the Christian God yet.

There is one final fallacy I would like to discuss. This last one is the “fallacy” fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is when someone assumes that because something was decided upon by bad reasoning, it automatically isn’t true. Just because the steps to get somewhere aren’t the most solid doesn’t make it less true.

Next time, we’ll actually continue with our journey forward.