Video Transcript: Fallacies of Relevance

Hi, I'm David Feddes. And this talk is about fallacies of relevance. A fallacy is a statement that sounds true or seems to make sense or just, it sounds right. But when you look at it more  closely, it's not accurate, or it wasn't based on good evidence. And when you use a fallacy,  whether it's in writing or in speaking, and somebody discovers that it's a fallacy, then they  may think that you're not very smart, or that you just don't have a very good command of the facts, or worse that you're trying to fool them, or pull one over on them. And so they don't  trust you very much. And so you do want to avoid fallacies wherever you can. You also want  to avoid them because you want to use the truth and not bad argument in order to try to  persuade people. So fallacies are something that we want to avoid. And we want to look at  some fallacies of relevance. fallacies of relevance are fallacies that can be grouped in the  category of using arguments or evidence that really don't have very much to do with the  actual idea in question. So let's look at several fallacies of relevance. And I want to give some  examples of those. And I'm going to give examples that especially might appear in  discussions of religion or Bible matters, or morality. One, the fallacy of relevance is the appeal to force, believe me or I will hurt you. Now, that one's been used throughout the ages in  various forms, by religious persecutors by political persecutors who are basically they're  trying to scare you into behaving or believing in a different way. And obviously, this has  nothing to do with actually persuading someone of the truth and accuracy of what you're  claiming. And appeal to force can appear in a variety of ways. It might appear between two  five year olds, where the one says, You better agree with me, or I'll punch you in the nose.  And adults may be just a little bit more subtle. Let's see whether you still have a job in the  church, when people find out you hold those views. Now, that doesn't really have much to do  with whether those views are accurate or not. It's more a veiled threat that if I expose what  you really think you could have some really serious consequences coming down on you. And  instead of presenting someone with evidence or good arguments to persuade them, you say,  you're going to be in big trouble if you don't change your mind. Or if you're a teacher, or  professor, you can send the signal. If you disagree with the professor, you will get a bad grade or fail the class. Now there's a case where that's not always a fallacy. If you don't study, if you don't learn your stuff. Yeah, you may disagree with the professor simply because you're totally uninformed. And you probably will fail the class. But there are areas of legitimate  disagreement areas where there are different views held by well informed people, but the  professor holds one view and you hold a different one, and he's going to nail you for it. Now,  again, if he says I want you to know what my view is, and understand it, then you better be  able to explain the view. But that doesn't mean necessarily that you have to agree with it, in  order to pass the class. Another kind of appeal to force is just by sending the message that  people will sound crazy, if they keep on saying that. And sometimes people take the idea of  resurrection, or of God's miraculous work as being totally irrationally crazy. And they will use  the idea that people will mock you, they will look down on you, if you let that view be known  or if you stayed or a stand up. And these are all different versions of the appeal to force not  persuading people, that their view is incorrect, but simply telling them that there's gonna be  some pretty painful consequences if they don't change. That's a fallacy of relevance. Because whether somebody can beat you up, or fail you in the class, or get you in trouble is irrelevant  to whether their belief is actually true. Another fallacy is called the genetic fallacy and that's  discrediting a person or an idea based on their origin. For instance, you got your Christian  beliefs from your parents. Now that you've grown up, those ideas aren't believable anymore.  If it came from mom and dad. It can't be true. We smart people who are now reeducating  you? When you believe us? When you're getting your ideas from us, then your beliefs are  likely to be true. But Mom and Dad, what did they know? That's discrediting a belief based on  Origin. Or here's another one that I've heard six day creationism is favored by Seventh Day  Adventists. Some of the key writers on Sixth Day creationism, we're Seventh Day Adventists,  and we're not Seventh Day Adventists and therefore, six day creationism is false. Well, the  first place, there are older roots for six day creationism than the Seventh Day Adventists. But  in the second place, even if somebody came up with an idea, it doesn't mean the idea is false. Just because they came up with it, and you're not one of them. There may be sound  arguments against six day creationism, but saying that it came from the Seventh Day 

Adventists isn't one of them. Here's a couple of examples from the Bible of the genetic fallacy. In the Old Testament, the great prophet Amos goes and preaches in the land of Israel, where  the the 10 tribes are and not in his native land of Judah, and Amaziah, a priest of the false  gods and in that are being worshipped by the 10 tribes said to Amos, get out, you seer, or go  back to the land of Judah, earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don't  prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the Kings sanctuary, and the temple of the  kingdom. So in other words, we're Israel, your Judah, ideas that comes from Judah belong in  Judah, don't tell us about the god we're supposed to worship. Because we get our ideas from  good proper 10 tribe priests. Or Nathaniel, before he met, Jesus was told that we've met the  Messiah, and he comes from Nazareth in Galilee. And Nathaniel's first reaction is Nazareth,  Can anything good come from there. So that's the genetic fallacy just because a guy comes  from Nazareth means he must be dumb, or he must be not worth considering, or he must be  ungodly. Because we all know that Nazareth is the armpit of Israel. Well, maybe something  good can come from Nazareth, Jesus of Nazareth. Nathaniel almost missed out on Jesus  because of the genetic fallacy. But Nathaniel was invited come and see. And by the time he  got to know Jesus, he believed that he was the Son of God and the Savior of the world. So you got to get over your fallacies. When when somebody is talking to you, and you think they got  their idea from the wrong place, or they're the wrong kind of person to be bringing the idea,  you got to look at the idea itself. And whether it's true, and whether the basis for those claims are true. Now, sometimes, there's an element of the genetic fallacy where it is appropriate to  consider the source. If somebody is a chronic liar, if they're a person of evil character, and  they're telling you things, you shouldn't necessarily totally dismiss their claims, just because  they're a bad person, or just because of the source. But you might say I, I'm certainly not  going to believe it, because it comes from them, I'm going to want to look at it more closely.  But overall, you can't just say, oh, consider the source. If the source is bad, we're going to  write it off. If the source is good, we're going to believe it. That's the genetic fallacy. Another  fallacy is personal attack. And this isn't so much identical to threatening or the fallacy of force but it has some similarities, obviously. I'll take an example from Richard Dawkins, one of the  most forceful opponents of Christianity and other religions in the world. He's a dogmatic  advocate of atheism. Here's some of his argument. I think a case can be made that faith is  one of the world's greatest evils, comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate.  Another statement from Dawkins, it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who  claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane, or wicked, but I'd  rather not consider that. And then he goes on, and it's so kind to the ignorant, so he's a real  sweetheart, but you'll notice it's entirely personal attack. It's entirely insults. And saying that  a faith is just evil worse than smallpox. You don't want to catch it. You got to be ignorant,  stupid, insane, and, and of course, atheists aren't the only ones who use that kind of  argument. But the the method is, is to insult or say something bad about somebody without  any proof whatsoever, rather than showing that their belief is mistaken and that your belief is  based on better grounds. Christians can use a personal insult just like an atheist can. For  example, this author does not accept creation in six 24 hour days, because he's an old earth  compromiser and does not believe the Bible as written. Now, it's possible that somebody  might not believe in six 24 hour days of creation, because they have different grounds or  different interpretation of the Bible, but where they still love the Bible and believe the Bible  with their whole heart, but just don't take it to mean, what the young earth creationist says it  means. And the young earth creationists may be too quick to attack and say, Oh, he's just a  compromiser. He doesn't really believe the Bible. And you can get the same game played by  someone who doesn't believe in creation and six 24 hour days, this author accepts creation  and six 24 hour days, because she's ignorant of modern science, and ancient culture  literature, if they really knew what I know, about Ancient Near Eastern literature. And if they  were as scientifically informed as I am, then obviously, they would know that creation didn't  happen in six 24 hour days. So if you're disputing how long God took to make the world, don't  resort to the fallacy of personal attack, and just insult and degrade the person that you're  talking about, or the people who came up with the view. Instead, show why and how there's  better evidence in the Bible for your view. Another approach in Latin is called to quote gay in 

English, it's YouTube. And basically, this is to say, Well, you may say, there's something wrong  with my ideas or my argument, but you've got the same problem. Rather than saying, hey,  good point, I maybe should change my mind about that. So here's how it may work. A few  examples. You people who say same sex marriage is unbiblical, aren't sexually perfect, so  stop judging others when you're no better. So for example, when you're talking about  homosexuality, they'll, they'll say, Yeah, but other people get divorced, and other people  living together. So don't talk about what God says about same sex marriage. Well, that's true,  there are other sins, and other people have problems. But that doesn't settle the issue of  whether God approves of homosexuality and same sex marriage. You need a better argument  than that. Another example, you say the church was fight racism, but you're just as racist as  anyone else. Maybe so maybe not. But that doesn't change the fact that the church should  fight racism, so deal with the claim, and not just with what might be wrong with the person.  You say, I've misused church finances, but you're just as bad or worse as I am. You're a bad  person, too. We're all sinners. Maybe so. But if you misuse church finances, you better face  that fact. Rather than trying to divert attention with the fallacy of you, too. Instead, you got to deal with the claim and deal with it yourself. It doesn't keep make you right to point out that  somebody else might be just as wrong as you are. Another fallacy of relevance is crowd  appeal. The bandwagon approach, everybody's doing it, it must be okay. Hey, everybody can  be wrong. So you need to deal with the facts of the matter and the evidence for it. And the  grounds for believing it not just that everybody is believing it, or everybody's doing it,  because there have been periods of history, where people, lots of them in great crowds did  what was wrong, or believe what was incorrect. Another form of crowd appeal is the idea of  progress. You've got to join the right side of history. And a couple of decades ago, people  thought like that, well, we've progressed so far since then, and you're just going to be on the  wrong side of history. If you don't come along for the ride. Well, sometimes history changes  for the better and there's progress. Sometimes things get worse. And the best way to improve is to go back and recover what was there. Sometimes there's a new covenant, and God  reveals great things. Of course, we're living in the New Covenant, so he's not going to reveal  brand new things anymore. But there have also been times when God says go back to the  ancient paths. Once upon a time you knew what was right and you've slid far from it. Now get back to the origins. And so you can't just argue progress. Another form of crowd appeal is is  patriotism, draping yourself in the flag, saying all good red blooded patriots think this way.  And instead of showing the grounds for why something is true or right, you instead just say,  Hey, anybody who doesn't think like me isn't very patriotic, make our country great. Be like  me. Or you're taking our country down the tubes, you got to be like me. Another form of  crowd appeal can be to use God talk piety you use Christianese words are all kinds of God talk and it and you make it sound like you're so much more pious than the other person you're  talking about. But you're really not establishing the facts of the matter. Or there may be  snobbery, maybe not everybody's doing it, but a different form of crowd appeal, our kind of  people, the people who are in the know, the finest folks, we're doing it. This is what we fine  folks believe, and maybe others don't, but they're really not among the elite. You see some of  that in the Bible. The people who were among the rulers did not want to believe in Jesus and  some of the crowds were believing in Jesus. And so the ruler says, Has any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in him? No. But his mob that knows nothing of the law, there's a curse on  them. Or here's another more contemporary argument. Christianity is more popular among  people with less education and lower income than it is among educated, affluent people. Faith is a crutch for needy people who won't think, well, it's not so clear that less educated people  are more likely to believe they're more educated, but those who claim it are using the  snobbery form of that crowd appeal fallacy. They're saying, Hey, if you're more educated, if  you're higher income, you're not going to believe that's for Dummies, that's for poor people.  It's a crutch. Another fallacy of relevance is appealing to tradition, something must be right,  because people have believed it or done it for a long time. And sometimes this happens in the beliefs that we have about the Bible, or even the story of Jesus. Here's an example. An  innkeeper turned Mary away, even when she was about to give birth. And three wise men  came to see baby Jesus. Christians have believed these things for centuries, so they must be 

somewhere in the Bible. Well, if you actually read the Bible, there is no innkeeper who turns  Mary and Joseph and Jesus away. The Bible says there was no room for them in the inn. But  better translations actually say there's no room for them in the guest room. And so they may  not have been staying in the guest room, but rather in another part of the house or in another place because all kinds of people were in town, but there is not necessarily a hard hearted  innkeeper, there's a certain room that wasn't available. And so Mary and Joseph were given a  different spot for her to give birth, but that villainous innkeeper has become part of the telling of the Christmas story for a lot of years, even though it's not in the Bible. Three Wise Men  came to see the baby Jesus, where in the Bible does it say three Wisemen came to see Jesus.  Nowhere, it says there were Wise Men or Magi from the east and they came to see Jesus. And  there were three gifts offered gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But it never says, there were  three wisemen that's just part of later tradition that sprang up, but many, many Christians  would be absolutely sure that the Bible tells us there were three wisemen. And you have to be careful of fallacies of tradition, because in the Bible, there are many things that are said that  are added to over the years or that were just wrong ideas have grown up over the years. And  you really do have to get back and read the Bible for itself. Because otherwise the fallacy of  tradition will tell you what it says even before you read what it says. fallacy of improper  authority is appealing to somebody who's an authority in one area, but not in the area being  discussed. There are many different examples that can be given of that. Now, here's one. 97% of scientists say that climate change is real, and that humans are the main cause. Now why is that a fallacy? Well, it's an appeal to improper authority. For one thing, most scientists are not  climate experts. Somebody who is a scientist and has an expertise in marine biology, might  not know any more about climate than anybody else. Somebody who is a physicist involved in scrutinizing the theories of particle physics, for instance, might not know More about climate  than anybody else. Scientists who focus on climate where climatology is their main discipline  might have more authority on questions of climate change. But saying 97% of scientists in  general, is just an improper appeal to authority because most of them are not experts on  climate. Oh, and by the way, here's another reason why it's a fallacy. Real science points to  evidence, not polls. There was a time when more than 97% of scientists believed that the  Earth was the center of the universe. But it didn't turn out to be So there was a time when the overwhelming majority of scientists thought that Sir Isaac Newton's theory of physics was the  last word on physics. It turned out not to be. And so science never goes by polls of how many  scientists believe in thus and such but rather, what's the evidence? What's the data? What  are the sound arguments for it, and it's an appeal to improper authority to claim that 97% of  scientists believe anything, because scientists have many different sub disciplines where  they're not experts in the things they're not studying. And because science just doesn't work  that way. Here's another example of improper authority, of appealing to someone who's not  an expert or their style of doing it. Philippians four, verse 13, a favorite of many people says, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Now without verse on his shoes,  Philippians 4:13. Steph Curry makes three pointers, and he wins NBA titles. So the verse  means I can achieve anything I want with Jesus help if Steph can do it. So can I? Well, in the  context of Philippians, Paul is saying I have learned how to be content, when I have plenty. Or  when I have very little, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. So a good  interpretation might be if Steph Curry misses his three pointer, and doesn't win the NBA title,  and gets sick. And Steph still praises the Lord and follows Jesus. He can do all things through  Christ who strengthens him, he can win through Christ who strengthens him and keep his  head during victory. But he can also be content when things go poorly for him because he can be drawn closer to Christ through that, too. So I'm not knocking Steph here, I'm knocking the  kind of interpretations is I really want something, I'm going to go for it. And I can do all things  through Christ who strengthens me. And that really makes me confident that I'm going to  succeed and get what I wanted and accomplish the thing I was after. That's a wrong  interpretation of that text. And it's a improper appeal to authority to say, Hey, Steph's great  ballplayer, and he likes that verse. Another fallacy of relevance is appealing to emotion.  Because how you happen to feel about something doesn't necessarily prove that it's true. One kind of appeal to emotion would be appealing to pity. Here's an example. Transgender people 

often suffer depression and cruelty. That is so sad that they are made to feel that way.  Therefore, sex change is normal and healthy. Well, if you're gonna make the case that  changing somebody's sex is normal and healthy, maybe you can try to make that case. But  don't make it on the case that you should just feel pity. Because some people feel depression  because they're uncomfortable with their body. Or because they feel bad that people have  been against them. It is bad if people are cruel, no doubt about it. And it's sad that people feel sad. But that doesn't really prove much one way or the other. If you can get people to pity  you. It does not mean that you're right about the subject being discussed. You need to make  your case and other grounds. Here's another example of an appeal to emotion that appeals to affection or love. My dear daughter, whom I love, so much came out and told me, she's  lesbian. Surely, my God affirms and approves that daughter whom I love so much. Well, it's  great that you love your daughter. But it doesn't prove that homosexuality is okay. You need  other grounds to make that case. Or here's another example of appeal to emotion appealing  to anger. priests have molested many boys, those boys have suffered terrible that is awful.  Those priests, those child molesters are terrible. Surely God hates homosexuality. Well, maybe God does oppose homosexuality, but if he does you better find a better argument than that  one, because many homosexual, many homosexual people, many gay men don't want to  molest boys. And the fact that some priests have done so and that that's an outrage, and that that really makes a lot of people angry. Maybe they have a right to be angry about molesting  boys. But that doesn't prove that all adult homosexual behavior is wrong. My understanding  of the Bible is that it is wrong. But it's because the Bible teaches that. And on those grounds,  not on the grounds that I'm really mad about what happens to boys at the hands of some evil  priests. So again, that doesn't mean that the statement is necessarily true or false. It just  means that if you're trying to use emotional force, rather than real evidence, then you're  committing the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Another fallacy is the fallacy of adverse  consequences that if the thing you're saying is true, it would be so painful that I just can't  accept it. And that could be applied to a lot of different areas. I'll just take some cases from  how we deal with the Bible. The Bible can't possibly teach that God does miracles, that would  violate all our assumptions about the laws of nature. Well, maybe so but then too bad about  your assumptions about the laws of nature, perhaps just because you don't like what it would  do to your assumptions, doesn't mean that it can't be true. You need to make your argument  on other grounds than saying, hey, we want to believe that all of nature behaves uniformly  that it always goes along that it's always interconnected by exact laws that run like a  machine. And if you introduce God into the equation, then we won't know what to think  anymore. Well, sorry. But just because it would have adverse consequences for you, it doesn't mean that it's not true. Or here's another example, The Bible cannot possibly teach that  people go to hell without Christ. Think of how many would perish if that were true? Yes, it is  sad to think of how many would perish if that were true. But that doesn't mean it's not true.  It's a consequence, that you might not like thinking about people perishing without Christ in  hell. A terrible thought. But still, might be true. And just arguing that it would be painful to  consider. That doesn't mean that it's untrue, you're gonna have to make your case on other  grounds. Another fallacy of relevance is personal incredulity. The the notion that something  can't be true, if it doesn't make sense to you. Or if you find it hard to believe, or if you've  never come across evidence for it personal incredulity means I can't believe that, therefore, it  can't be true period. Here's some examples. I have never seen a miracle. I've never sensed  God. So I don't believe in God or miracles. Okay, that tells us something. It tells us what you  have seen, and what you haven't sensed. It doesn't tell us anything about the reality of God  or the possibility of miracles. I've never personally seen Mount Everest or stood on its top. But Mount Everest exists. You should not believe that God's reality depends on whether you have  sensed him, or whether you've yet witnessed a miracle because other people have. And  you're saying because I can't believe it can't be true. Maybe you need to, maybe you need to  have adjusted what you find believable. Or another example, I can't figure out the doctrine of  the Trinity. It's just too complicated. It can't possibly be true. Well, that tells us more about the limits of your intellect than it does about the possibility of the Trinity being true. Because just  because I can't figure something out doesn't mean it can't be true. You might have great 

difficulty figuring out the higher levels of calculus. But calculus can still be accurate  mathematics. You may say I can't understand that theory at all. But it can be true just  because your brain isn't big enough to grasp it. Or here's another example. I've always  believed in a pre tribulation rapture. I can't imagine how anybody can't see it plainly taught in the Bible. Well, maybe you can't see it. But millions of people have a different view of the end  times than that. That doesn't mean their view is true, or that yours is false. It does mean that  just because you can't see how they can believe that doesn't mean that it's untrue or  unbelievable. That's the fallacy of personal incredulity. I can't see how that can be so don't  even talk to me about it. That tells us more about the narrowness and the limits of your mind  that it does about what reality is. Sometimes reality is bigger than the things that we've  managed to figure out. And so let's open our minds a little bit to the possibility that truth is  bigger than what we've mastered. Thus far. The Fallacy of personal incredulity doesn't allow  you to expand your knowledge base very much because it's just based on what you find  appealing or believable at the moment. So again, when we think about fallacies of relevance,  we're thinking about areas in which the claim that is being disputed, is almost unconnected  with your means of arguing for it, whether you're using force, whether you're saying what I  can't believe, or any of these other examples. And so it's best to the degree possible from our writing, and from our speaking, to get rid of fallacies and when we're dealing with others. It's  helpful to learn some of these fallacies, to know not to be bamboozled or intimidated or fooled into believing something for which there's really no sound grounds for believing it.