Video Transcript: Component Fallacies Part 2

Red Herring is another form of fallacy and that's turning a discussion in a direction that  doesn't affect the original question. It's getting off topic. Here's an example. A fetus does not  feel pain during an abortion. Therefore abortion is okay. Or the opposite red herring and  unborn baby feels pain during an abortion. Therefore abortion is wrong. But what if the whole  dispute is a red herring in the first place? What if the rightness or wrongness of abortion has  absolutely nothing to do with whether the fetus feels pain? The question in the rightness or  wrongness of abortion is whether abortion is the murder of a human being. The question is  not whether there happens to be some pain that goes along with it. An assassin's bullet in the head, might cause no pain whatsoever. And it's still murder. A doctor's needle in the arm  while putting in an intravenous to save your life might cause some pain. But it's not murder,  and it's not wrong. You see, an assassin's bullet in the head might cause less pain than a  needle in the arm, but the one is dead wrong. And the other one is absolutely right. The  question of pain is a red herring when you're talking about whether abortion is right or wrong, and this fallacy can occur in a lot of different ways where you get off on some subject that  you're arguing about. And it really doesn't have any bearing on the matter that you're trying  to figure out. The straw man fallacy is the fallacy of setting up kind of a scarecrow something  that's fake, not a real human, not a real argument. You take the worst form, or the most  exaggeratedly stupid form of an argument, and you set that up and then you blast away at it,  even when you're not even touching the real form of the other of the other view. Here's an  example. Creationists treat the Bible, like a science textbook, or like an encyclopedia that  answers all our questions. The Bible is not a science textbook. It's not meant to answer  questions on every subject. Therefore, creationists are wrong to think that God created the  world in six days of ordinary length. Now, there are a lot of creationists who don't think the  Bible is a science textbook, who don't think that it's meant to be an encyclopedia, that  answers all our questions. And yet, they still think that God created the world in 60 days of  ordinary length. Now, whether they're right about that or wrong about that, you need to make a case against them based on what they really believe and who they really are not on the  claim that all of them think the Bible is a big science encyclopedia. It's a straw man, to set  your opponent up that way, and then try to knock down the Scarecrow. But you haven't even  touched the real person who believes that view. For instance, a person might not be making a scientific claim or trying to be a big encyclopedia when he says, You know, I did this project.  And on day one, I took part of that I did that part of the project. Day two, I took care of  another part and so on for six days, and then I finished the project. Now, well would that  person be claiming I am making scientific claims about everything under the sun? No, they'd  just be saying, hey, it took me six days to do this. And supposing God said, I took six days to  create the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that's in them, and I rested on the seventh  day. Now, God isn't saying, and therefore the Bible is trying to answer every question you  ever had about science, or it was an encyclopedia on every scientific idea. But it still is saying  what it says. So, again, I'm not trying to settle here the dispute whether God created in six 24  hour days or not, I'm just saying that there are forms of argument, which set up your  opponent to be less than he really is. Creationists can do it in the other direction, where they  say, Oh, wow, people who don't take Genesis weren't on as teaching six 24 hour days are  people who don't value the Word of God at all. And we shouldn't be like that. So we definitely  should believe in six 24 hour days. Well, it's a straw man, because there may be some people  who don't take Genesis one seriously. But there are many who do and yet aren't convinced of  the six ordinary days. But either way you can't Have a good argument when both of you are  shooting at straw man. non sequitur is just Latin for it does not follow, and it isn't proven.  Here's just a few examples. Spirit filled people are kind, Jenny is kind. Therefore, Jenny is spirit filled. Well, that doesn't prove anything. Spirit filled people may be kind, and Jenny may be  kind and they have that in common. But that doesn't prove that she's spirit filled, it may just  prove that she's a kind person. Pastor X is a money hungry hypocrite. Therefore, all Christians are hypocrites. Now, that's obviously an example of hasty generalization. But it's also a non  sequitur just because pastor X is a money hungry hypocrite does not prove anything about all the other Christians who are out there. Here's another non sequitur, old cars, and computers  are obsolete. Christianity is old. So it's obsolete? Well, just because some things are obsolete 

after they age of few years doesn't mean that everything that's old, is obsolete. It's a non  sequitur. The slippery slope argument is also known as the camel's nose fallacy. There's the  old story about the chieftain whose camel wanted to get into the tent. And so the at first just  the camel stuck his nose into the tent because it was cold outside. And so he said, okay,  that's okay, camel, you can have your nose in the tent. And the camel says, What can I put  my head in? And he's okay, sure. How about my neck? And how about my hump? And pretty  quick, the whole camel is in the tent, and there's no room for the guy. And so, the camel's  nose fallacy is if you give a little pretty quick, the whole thing is going to come. And the  slippery slope is another term for that where if you give a little soon, it's going to be the whole mess. Now, in some cases, give an inch and they take a mile is true. But nonetheless, there is  such a thing as the slippery slope fallacy or the camel's nose fallacy. I'll give you a few  examples. If a master's degree isn't required for all pastors, churches won't value the truth. If  you give just a little bit on your academic requirements, you're just throwing open the doors  for all sorts of numbskulls and nincompoops to be in the ministry. Well, there is a different  possibility that say, Jesus, or Peter or Paul, who didn't have master's degrees from one of our  universities still turned out to be pretty good preachers who valued the truth. So that the  slippery slope takes a concern and and maybe a legitimate concern. The person who wants  every patient to have a master's degree wants to make sure that you have people who  studied hard, who have the ability to think and understand. But it doesn't prove that if you  don't have that kind of academic requirement, everything's gonna go to pot. another  example. If kids are allowed to question adults, they'll grow up to be wicked rebels. So kids  are meant to be quiet. They're meant to be seen and not heard. And they're meant to be very submissive to their parents, and never to want to discuss anything with their parents father  knows the best. And there's the fear that if you even get into dialogue with kids, or have any  back and forth with them, they're just going to be the most rebellious ornery obnoxious in  your face people you've ever run into. But the fact of the matter is that possibly, if you're, as  a parent, such a Hardhead, that you won't discuss things with your kids, you might provoke  them to be wicked rebels. But the slippery slope fallacy says that if you allow a little bit of  questioning, it's going to lead to a whole lot of rebellion. Another example, if our view of the  millennium the 1000 year reign of Christ is doubted, then Jesus return will be denied. So if  you're in a discussion about what the 1000 years really means, is it referring to a figurative  period in which, between Jesus first and second coming? Is it referring to a literal 1000 year  time when Jesus rules amidst the Jewish people from Jerusalem is it referring to something  else? Anyway, if you take the argument say you had better believe my view of the millennium or you don't believe in Jesus return and reign at all. You see the slippery slope, the camel's  nose, you're saying if you give just a little bit, I can't help but think it's you're gonna make all  sorts of other terrible, terrible mistakes. But in the whole realm of theology, there are many  places where Christians disagree on matters of lesser importance where they hold rock solid,  on the things that are more clear in the Bible and that Christians agree upon. So we have to  be very careful with the slippery slope fallacy in general, but especially when we're talking  with other Christians, either or fallacy is also called the false dilemma fallacy or the excluded  middle. And so the examples of that from the realm of Christianity and religion are this.  Miracles are not important for their own sakes. But for the message they convey, it doesn't  matter whether the miracles really happened, because what really matters is the message of  the miracles. But what if miracles mattered, but as a demonstration of Jesus power and an act of compassion for the people, and they conveyed a message, for instance, when Jesus gives  the light, sight to a blind man, maybe the main message is that Jesus opens the eyes of  people spiritually. And Jesus does talk about that right after healing the man of his blindness.  So it's true, that the message being conveyed is very, very important from that miracle. But  the miracle itself also happened. And it matters. You see, the either or, is a false dilemma.  Both are true. Another example of a false dilemma. Jesus was all about kindness, and love,  not commands, and punishment. You've got either or you set up now either Jesus has got to  be kindness and love, or he's got to be a commanding and punishing God. If you read the  Bible, you'll find that he's both he's kind and full of love. He also says that if you loved me,  you'll obey my commands. And Jesus talked about hell more than anybody else in the Bible. 

So when you set up a false dilemma and say, Jesus has either got to be this, or he's got to be  that you're not being true to the facts another, either or a husband must demand respect  from his wife, or she will rule the roost. Really, is it possible that instead of him demanding  respect from his wife, instead, he loves her as Christ loves the church and treats her with  great consideration and behaves like a noble person? And she ends up respecting him?  Because he's that kind of person and not because he demanded respect? And is it possible  that she's not really intent on ruling the roost. To say either the man rules the roost or the  woman rules the roost is an either or, which excludes the middle of it. And it's a fallacy, then  to try to make a case for one side to the exclusion of the other. Here's a very different kind of  fallacy almost the opposite of that fallacy, the middle ground fallacy which claims that the  truth lies between extremes. Evangelicals say that people are saved only by Jesus.  Universalists say that all are saved. Let's avoid extremes. And let's say that some people are  saved without Jesus, if they're good, the middle position, let's not be an extremist, and say  Jesus is the only way. And let's not say that everybodys saved. Let's say that some people but  not all people are saved without Jesus. Well, that's just as false and as silly that just because  you land somewhere between two extreme or what you portray to be extreme is the correct  position is bad reasoning. Because sometimes the truth is, at one end of the spectrum, Jesus  is the Savior and the only Savior of all. And if they don't believe in Him, then there'll be lost.  another example of the middle ground fallacy. Pro choicers. Favor all abortions. Pro lifers think all abortions are wrong. The truth is, that abortion is okay up to six months. Really? You say  the extremists say that all abortions are wrong and the pro choicers think that there's nothing  wrong with them. But we know that the truth is somewhere in between. We don't necessarily  know that if a baby is a human life from the point of conception, then abortion is not okay, up  to six months. Now. The fact that that's a fallacy to argue that way, it doesn't mean that there must never ever, ever be any kind of compromise politically. Let's say that as a person who  believes in the life of all humans from the moment of conception, there's legislation that  would protect kids after six months in the third trimester. Must you oppose such legislation  because it's not consistently covering all unborn life, or can you favor it because it's at least  protecting some unborn babies, you could compromise politically and support protections for  children in the third trimester and still hold fast to your convictions that in the first two  trimesters, they also ought to be protected. But this is the most you're going to be able to get for now, politically. But there's a big difference between what's possible in politics and and  what is logical and valid in reasoning and what is right in morality. Another fallacy is faulty  analogy, using an argument based on a word picture that doesn't really hold true. Raising a  child is like baking a cake, stick to the recipe and the results will be good. Well, is that really?  So? is a child a cake? Is it the case that if you just as a parent, pour in the right ingredients,  poof, outcomes a great kid? No, there's a mystery to human personality. And so children can't  be directly compared to a cake. Now there may be a slight resemblance where Yeah, most of  the time if you pour into a child, a child, the right kinds of things. You're helping them to be a  good kid and a good adult. But it's not as simple as baking a cake where if you follow the  same recipe, you get the same result every time. I remember one person who's even used  this analogy and told me raising a child is like baking a cake. If you stick to the recipe, the  results will be good. And I was struck by that, because three weeks after I heard him say that  his son killed himself. So that I never forgot that. Another faulty analogy, Jesus is the light.  Therefore, you can turn him on or off, like you flip a light switch. Well, when Jesus says, I'm  the light of the world, he's not talking about our modern methods of lighting, or the ability to  flip things on and off. And you may have your notions about whether you can turn genes on or off in your life. But this is a faulty analogy. Just because the Bible calls Jesus the light of the  world does not mean you can apply that analogy and say, therefore, people have the power  to flip him on and off. Another faulty analogy. Scripture says Satan is like a roaring lion.  Scripture also speaks of Jesus as a lion. So Jesus and Satan are ultimately alike. Now, the first  two statements are true. Scripture does say he's like a roaring lion. Scripture speaks of Jesus  as a lion. Now, does that mean therefore that Jesus and Satan are the same? No, no, because  you're misusing an analogy. Satan is like a roaring lion, in that he wants to go around,  devouring and destroying people. Jesus is like a lion in the sense that he's brave and great 

and strong and courageous, but not in a sense that he just wants to destroy a rock thing. So  the point of the analogy and using it in regard to Satan is different from the way lion is used in relation to Jesus. And it would be a faulty analogy to say that just because both of them are  compared to a lion, therefore, they're ultimately alike. A faulty analogy can lead us in all sorts  of trouble. And yet people think in word pictures, and draw lots of wrong conclusions from  them. undistributed middle term means that basically, you can't use the premise to reach the  conclusion, all murderers are sinful. Kyle is sinful. Therefore, Kyle is a murderer. See what's  wrong with the logic of that? If it said that Kyle is a murderer, then you could conclude that  Kyle is sinful, but you can't conclude from it that they're that just because all murderers are  sinful and Kyle is sinful. Therefore, he's got to be a murderer, he may have other sins. All true  Christians love others. Janet loves others. Therefore, Janet is a true Christian. Not necessarily  just because all true Christians love others. There might be other people who love others, as  well. And it doesn't prove that they're a Christian. All men are primates. All monkeys are  primates. Therefore, all men are monkeys. Bad reasoning. That's just not a logical conclusion.  And then you have contradictory premises. If God can do anything, he can make a stone so  heavy that he can't lift it. Well, the, the one premise is contradictory to the other. If God can  do anything well, he can't you have God can and he can't, in the same line of argument. And  CS Lewis says, nonsense is nonsense. Even if we speak it of God. God can make any stone he  wants to make. Okay, that's true. But God can't make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it.  Because God can't do anything. That's nothing. A stone that God can't lift Is a non entity, it's  nonsense. And the contradiction just doesn't hold. Here's another contradictory premise. We  must not legislate morality, people should not force their beliefs on others. laws must support  gay marriage and eliminate climate change since it's the right thing to do. There are many  people who speak that way. When they're talking about sexual morality in particular, they're  saying we must not legislate morality, people shouldn't force their beliefs on others. And yet,  what is legislated means it needs to make laws. If they want laws to support gay marriage,  then they want that legislated and they think that gay marriage is moral. So they want that  mortality to be legislated. They want laws to limit climate change, they want to force their  beliefs about climate change, on other people, because it's the right thing to do. The right  thing to do is another phrase, that means morality. You see what I'm pointing out? If you don't want legislation of morality, then you can't make laws based on what's the right thing to do.  And if you don't want to force beliefs on others, you can't have laws that are enforced at all.  It's contradictory to say, no legislating of morality, let's make laws about the right thing to do. Special Pleading is one more fallacy that I'm going to address in this talk. Special Pleading is  changing the rules, when it suits you. Everything must have a beginning and a cause outside  of itself. Therefore, God must exist. And he must have created the world. What? Well, then  who created God? God is eternal and unchanging. He has no beginning or cause outside  himself. Yeah, but I just thought you said everything must have a beginning and a cause  outside itself. You see how there's special pleading there, they're making a case where your  conclusion that you want to reach is a special exception. But then you can't use that special  exception and claim to Everything has a beginning or cause outside itself if the thing you're  trying to prove doesn't. Another case of Special Pleading is the kind of person who goes to  court and says, Yes, Judge, my son, I know that drunk driving is wrong and dangerous. But my  son's a special boy. And I know most drunk drivers are bad, but but my son, he just made a  mistake one time. So you, you shouldn't throw the book at him. special pleading says, in  general, but here's the exception. Take another case. I knew a man who was a leader of an  important Christian ministry, and an elder in his church. And while he was an elder in his  church, he helped form a policy that that people who leave their spouse in order to take up  with another person and have an affair with them should be subject to church discipline. And  he formed the policy on that which stated the steps of the discipline that would occur when  someone committed adultery in that way. And then he left his wife and committed adultery  and was upset that the guidelines were applied to him. And he was placed under church  discipline because in his case, there were extenuating circumstances. There were reasons  why adultery was okay for him. So it's a special pleading is, is carving out a little space for  your own little pet argument, and then applying a different standard to the rest of the 

argument. Well, those are number of fallacies and again in our writing, and in our speaking,  we want to avoid the kinds of poor arguments and be able to base our arguments on sound  evidence and sound methods of reasoning.