Common
Fallacies
Used to Defend a
Belief in God
Fallacy: "from
Latin
fallcia,
deceit ~
A statement or
an argument
based on a false
or invalid
inference. "
I have given
names to most of
the fallacies
myself.
Any fallacy that
does not fall
within a
traditional
category is
usually referred
to as a Non
sequitur.
For a broad
descriptions of
various
fallacies please
click
here.
For a broad
descriptions of
fallacies as
used in religion
please click
here.
Sophistry
Meaning #1:
a deliberately
invalid argument
displaying
ingenuity in
reasoning in the
hope of
deceiving
someone
Synonyms:
sophism,
sophistication
Fallacy of the
Prime Mover
Aristotle and
later
St.
Thomas Aquinas'
Prime Mover
argument
Reasoning:
Everything
requires a
cause.
Causality could
not have gone on
forever.
Therefore, there
must have been
an uncaused
first cause.
* Added
assumption:
Since everything
we understand
must have had a
cause, the
initial cause
must be
incomprehensible
-- ergo, an
incomprehensible
prime mover
taken to be God.
The logic
above suggests
that the
premises must be
true taken
separately, but
cannot be true
taken together;
therefore, the
conclusion must
be one of
irrationality,
something beyond
our
understanding.
Problem 1:
While the
argument may
seem to lead to a prime
mover, the main
problem with
this logic is
that it's not true
logic in that
the
conclusion
invalidates the
first premise,
rendering it to
not be a
universal truth.
If we take both
premises to be
true, as we must
for the argument
to remain valid,
we need to find
a way to
reconcile the
two premises,
rather than
"qualify" one as
not always being
true. For both
premises to
remain true we
must maintain
that all things
do indeed need a
cause, and that
there
is no such thing
as "forever."
Conclusion:
Causality must
cause
itself in a
perennial loop
of finite time.
Problem 2: Even
if it were
valid, It alone
could never lead
to the God of
the Bible, but
only lead to an
incomprehensible
beginning to the
universe.
Problem 3: The
prime mover
concept is
contrary to
free-will,
original sin,
and atonement;
since any
intelligent
prime mover
would have to be
the knowing
ultimate cause
of all that
occurs.
Problem 4: If
the first cause
is causeless, it
must have always
existed.
Therefore, the
effect (being
the universe)
should have
always existed
as well.
The existence of
the Big Bang
actually opposes
the notion of an
uncaused first
cause, rather
than support it.
If on the the
other hand, the
universe had
always
co-existed with
its eternal
cause, then for
all intents and
purposes it
would be eternal
itself, and
therefore would
not need a
cause; thus the
prime mover
concept creates
a paradox in
that if it
actually exists,
it would not be
needed.
Problem 5:
No logical
deduction can
justly take us
to a place of
incomprehensibility.
Viewing the two
premises as not
being
reconcilable
automatically
invalidates the
argument,
rendering any
conclusion to
not be sound.
Since this would
always be the
case in trying
to prove
irrational
things, it
becomes apparent
there can be no
logical argument
that can lead to
an irrational
conclusion.
The two are
mutually
exclusive.
This is
supported by the
view that
all
logical
arguments must
"make progress"
or be enlightening.
Going from "I
don't know" to
"It's impossible
to understand"
doesn't
intellectually advance us,
thus it cannot
be a proper
deduction.
And, going to "something
that is
impossible to
understand" is
committing the
fallacy that one
might call
"appeal to
imagination" --
where having an
entity that
cannot be
explained, thus
need not be
explained,
is
accepted because
it's emotionally
satisfying.
Adjusted
Reasoning:
Everything
rational requires a
cause.
Causality could
not have gone on
forever.
Therefore, there
must have been
an irrational uncaused
first cause.
Problem:
As you see I'm
trying to make
this work to the
best of my
ability to try
to get to the
truth of the
issue.
Yes, everything
we understand
does require a
cause, and yes
causality could
not have gone on
forever.
Those are both
absolutely true
statements.
But, "forever"
is the
misleading word
here. What
this really
tells us is that
time itself is
contingent upon
something else,
not that there
was an
irrational first
cause.
Causality could
go on infinitely
as long as it is
not subject to
time. It's
only time that
could not have
gone on forever,
not causality.
Something
outside of time
caused time to
begin.
This may point
to a cycle of
the period of
time that
continues over
and over.
The following is
one of the most
interesting
discussions that
I have ever run
across
concerning this
issue, so I have
taken the
liberty of
reposting it
here:
Fallacy of false
equality
This is a
fallacy where
one falsely assumes
equality in
one's own and an
opponent's
argument.
Example:
"I believe
in God and you
can’t disprove
it. You don’t
believe in God,
and I can’t
prove it"
implying it's ok
to believe in
something as
long as you
can't disprove
it, or that it
is at least a
draw, so it
doesn't matter.
see
"Appeal to
ignorance" ~
Believing that
something is
true because the
converse can't
be proven.
This
is false, since
proof is the
reason we
believe in
anything.
The burden of
proof always
lies upon the
one making an
assertion. A
fundamental
axiom of logic
is: "In the
absence of
compelling
reasons to
believe,
unbelief should
be preferred."
The fact is, is
that if
something cannot
even in theory
be disproven,
then the claim
itself cannot be
considered
valid. Any
claim must in
theory be
falsifiable.
Consequently,
the claim that "you
can't prove a
negative" in
reference to the
support in the
belief in God,
is completely
self-defeating:
if you can't
prove the
negative
position, then
the positive
position is
rendered
invalid.
Second
Example:
"I believe
in a religion
and you say I
shouldn’t
because it’s
based on faith.
However, you
believe in
strange and
unproven
things like a
singularity that
contains the
whole universe,
or the “String
theory” of the
universe that
says there could
be unlimited
universes. Your
belief is no
less of a
religion than
mine."
This
is false, since
believing in
anything that’s
based upon
observation and
prediction is
far less
hypothetical
than believing
in something
because of faith
only, no matter
how strange it
may seem.
Further,
believing due to
faith is not
correctable,
whereas
scientific
theories can be
abandoned or
modified to fit
new date. For
example, the
“Steady-State
theory” of the
universe has
been abandoned
because such a
universe could
not have
produced some of
the heavier
elements.
Science is not
claimed to be
inerrant, but it
is
self-correcting;
while religion
IS felt to be
inerrant, so if
it actually
isn’t we are
doomed to being
mislead by it
for as long as
we believe in
it.
Burden of Proof
used as a
fallacy
This is a
fallacy where
one falsely
assumes the
burden of proof
lies upon the
"outsider," or
the one going
against the
majority
opinion.
Example 1:
"Most people
believe in God,
so it is up to
atheists to
disprove it."
"Most people
believe there is
life on other
planets, so it
is up to
fundamental
Christians to
disprove it,
since they often
assert life on
earth is God's
special and
unique
creation."
While this
may be true in
practice, it is
logically false.
Majority opinion
is not a valid
argument to
support the
acceptance of a
belief.
The burden of
proof always,
logically
speaking, lies
upon the one
making an
assertion as to
the existence of
something.
Creationists
must prove
creation.
Evolutionists
must prove
evolution.
Astronomers must
prove there is
life on other
planets. Theists
must prove God.
However,
atheists need
not disprove
God.
Fallacy due to
“Wanting to have
your
cake and eat
it too,” or
"Having it both
ways."
This is a
fallacy of where
one instance of
presumed
evidence
contradicts
another, but the
contradiction is
ignored.
Examples:
"There must
be a God because
the design of
things is so
complex,
intelligence is
required."
"There
must be a God
because there is
no explanation
of gravity, the
nuclear force,
etc. Or,
The whale's
brain is much
larger than a
person's, but
humans are much
smarter than
whales."
The
first argument
depends upon on
things working
according to
great designs.
The
second argument
depends upon
things working
according to
miracles.
You
can’t have it
both
ways. Miracles
needed shows
lack of design,
and
intelligent design
would exclude
miracles as
being
necessary. Belief
in one argument
weakens the
other argument
as being
evidence for
God.
Fallacy due to
"not being able
to see the
forest for the
trees"
This is an
age-old adage
that tells us we
often can't see
the obvious when
we get lost in
the details.
Debaters
sometimes like
to get their
opponents away
from the obvious
by use of
complex details
to cloud the
issue. The
person may very
well have
clouded his own
mind by doing
this.
Example:
"Yes, Ok God
made Adam and
Eve, but that
doesn't make him
responsible;
Adam and Eve
were still
responsible for
their sin.
After all, we
don't hold God
responsible for
the behavior of
all people.
We punish the
individual, not
his parents.
We don't try to
offend God in
some way so as
to punish him
for the behavior
of someone.
How could we
ever punish
anyone if it's
all God's fault?
And anyway they
had free-will to
choose.
... "
The arguer
has dragged his
opponent off
into the trees
of confusion,
where the forest
as a whole can
no longer be
clearly seen.
One must now go
through a
lengthy
discussion of
trying to
explain
application of
punishment in
criminal law, how
we relegate
responsible in
society, what
relationship any
god would have,
what -- if
anything --
"free-will" is ... .
Clearly, we need
to accept the
obvious first,
and then just
realize that
while having all
the other
explanations
might be
interesting,
there can never
be an
explanations
contained in the more complex
issues that will
defeat the
axiomatic
reality of where
we started --
in this case, that a
product acts in
accordance with
how it is
designed, so the designer
is first and
foremost
responsible for
how his design
functions.
Fallacy by
assumed
nullification
through
contradiction
This is a
fallacy were
evidence
contrary to your
belief is
thought to be
nullified by
your own
evidence.
Example:
"Stalactites can
form in far less
time than the
millions of
years that
people believe.
The oldest
living organism
is a tree that
is four-thousand
years old.
The moon moves
away from the
earth at a rate
of two-inches
per year, so it
can only be a
few thousand
years old at
most.
Therefore, we
have ample
evidence to
conclude that
the universe was
created just a few
thousand years
old, which must
mean that the
size of the universe
being many billions
of light-years
across and
requiring light
to have had to
take millions of
years to reach
earth must be
wrong -- maybe
God just makes
it look that way."
No credible
evidence can
nullify any
other credible
evidence.
Any explanation
must be
formulated or modified
so as to explain
ALL the
evidence.
The true age of
the earth is
accurately
calculated by
examining
radioactive
decay in rocks:
Analogies
An analogy is an
inference that
if things agree
in some respects
they probably
agree in others.
One item is the
source and one
is the target.
False analogy
A false or weak
analogy is one
where the source
and the target
do not have
enough in common
to make a valid
comparison, thus
there can be no
logical transfer
of
characteristics
from the source
to the target.
Example:
"Believing in
evolution is
like believing
you could put
the parts of a
watch in a box,
shake it, and
eventually get a
watch out.
Watches and
living things
are so
manifestly
different all
the way down to
their
constituent
parts that no
transfer of
characteristics
can be made from
how a watch is
made to how a
living creature
is made.
Fallacy of using
analogy as proof
No form of
reasoning is
valid as proof
if the outcome
of the reasoning
is contained
within the
pretext of the
reasoning -
being circular
logic: An valid
argument must
make progress.
An analogy
cannot be used
as proof because
all analogies
presuppose the
outcome in what
is being
compared.
The most valid
use of an
analogy is to
demonstrate
something that
is obviously
true, but just
difficult to
understand.
"Dad, how
does a rocket
engine work?"
"Well, remember
how when you let
the air out of
your balloon and
it flew around
the room?
It's the same
idea."
"Thanks dad, now
I understand."
"No problem."
The analogy
helps to
simplify
something that
is known to be
true, but
difficult to
understand.
Though an analogy can't
advance an
argument toward
proof, it can
validate through
illumination;
where the similarities
between the
source and
target are
in fact the
only points in
contention,
making
differences
irrelevant.
Example:
"Should
the Ford Pinto
be recalled
because the door
handles always
beak?
Well, yes of
course, the Ford
Escort was
recalled because
it had the same
problem with the
exact same type
of door
handles."
"I believe that
God created Adam
and Eve and Adam
and Eve were
responsible for
their own
actions in
disobeying God
and eating the
forbidden
fruit." "Ok, I have a
television here
in the room.
If it fails to
work properly,
am I going to
place the blame
on the TV or the
manufacturer?"
In this
analogy, any
differences
between people
and a TV are of
no significance
because the
relationship of
maker to
product in
both source and
target is
the only thing
in question.
So, what is true
for one must be
true of the
other.
Here the
circularity of
the analogy
structure is
what makes the
point:
A maker of a
product is
responsible for
the product
because
a maker of a
product is
responsible for
the product.
Like
in the example
about the rocket
engine, the
analogy works
because it makes
something easier
to understand,
but unlike the
previous example
where a balloon
and a rocket
engine could
work by somewhat
different
principles
(after all, a
rocket engine
doesn't compress
to squeeze the
gasses out the
back), the exact
sameness here
should compel
one to transfer
his view of who
is responsible
from the source
to the target.
This kind of
validating
analogy is often
used in law to
show who must be
held accountable
in civil suits,
by drawing an
inescapable
parallel.
Fallacy due to
limited
perspective
This is a
fallacy that
occurs from only
being able to
view things as
to how they
relate to us.
Example:
"There must
be a God because
I have all the
things I need to
survive. He
gave me oxygen
to breath, food
to eat, water to
drink … ."
This is a false
assumption
because if such
things did not
exist you would
not be around to
say otherwise.
Having any other
view would
constitute a
paradox in that
it would require
those beings
that have never
come into
existence to
somehow exist to
state an
opposing view.
No matter what
the situation,
any living
thing produced
is going to
think things are
well designed
for it.
Fallacy due to
use of maxim
structure
This is a
fallacy that
occurs by saying
something in a
way structured
so as to make it
appear as a
valid maxim,
where in fact
there is no
rationale to the
statement.
Examples:
"In order
to have a future
you must have a
past."
This
sounds good, but
there is
actually no
connection.
People with
amnesia can have
a future even if
they have
forgotten their
past. A
past is just not
a prerequisite for
having a future.
"In order
to have life you
must give life."
This is
sometimes used to
try to explain
how the
sacrifice of
Jesus has some
connection to
our redemption
and attainment
of everlasting
life.
There is
actually no
logical
connection
between the
parts of the
sentence.
There is no
reason to think
that something
has to die, so
something else
can live.
Fallacy due to
use of
inappropriate maxim.
"A design needs
a designer."
True,
a design is by
definition
something that
is planned, so
the statement
has to be true.
The question is,
"Are the
structures we
see in nature,
designs?"
While an artist
can plan an
image of a
sunset and paint
his design, a
sunset itself is
not a design --
it occurs with
no planning.
Not even a
theist would say
God actually
designs sunsets.
Structures in
nature are
"patterns" not
designs, and
patterns are not
contingent upon
being designed,
though can be.
Patterns are
contingent upon
repetition and
variation, which
is what natural
forces can and
do
produce.
Virtually all
the parts of an
automobile are
quite different
in size and
shape, and to a
large degree
material.
All the parts of
a human are
similar -- We
are made up of
trillions of
similar cells
that just have
variation.
All living
things show
striking
patterns of
similarity,
while
manufactured
objects do not.
Fallacy due to
use of vague
word
This is a
fallacy due to
the belief that
within the
meaning of a
vague word there
is an
explanation that
can defeat an
otherwise
illogical
concept.
Such
words include:
"free will" and
" providence"
Examples:
"Humans
are responsible
for their
actions because
we have free
will."
In
behavioral
psychology and
deterministic
theory, every
action must have
a cause
dependant upon
antecedent
factors which
would place the
true blame for
all behavior,
including undesirable
behavior, upon
many factors in
a person's life.
This is
rationally true,
but in order to
defeat this
reality, the
term "free-will"
is often
employed to make
it still seem
that all
behavior is just
de facto
the
responsibility
of the
individual, thus
shielding God --
the designer and
maker -- from
responsibility.
"God rules
us by
providence."
In rational
thought, God
must have
understandable
reasons for
making
decisions.
However, God
appears to
function
irrationally
much of the
time, such as by
not intervening
to stop horrific
events, or what
may seem to be
an inexplicable
welcomed
intervention --
"The tornado
skipped over our
house!" In
order to explain
God not acting
in accordance
with what logic
would dictate,
the term
"providence" is
often use.
The Granddaddy
of them all ~
"Rationalizing"
- We
rationalize
when we
inauthentically
offer
reasons to
support our
claim --
Giving false
reasons for
doing or
believing in
something,
rather than
the real
reason.
This is
different
than just
lying, in
that the
rationalizer
also lies to
himself.
He
convinces
himself the
lie is true.
Examples:
"Why should I
stop smoking?
I could just
step off the
curb tomorrow
and get ran over
by a bus
anyway."
Obviously,
one should try
to limit all
dangers to one's
life.
Saying it is ok
to allow one
danger because
another danger
exists only
makes the total
threat worse.
The person isn't
continuing to
smoke because he
really thinks he
might get hit by
a bus. He
is continuing
because he's
addicted and
doesn't want to
admit it.
"The
reasons why
people don't
want to believe
in god is
because they
don't want to be
held accountable
to him."
This is
classic
rationalizing.
It just ignores
what is
obviously the
real reason for
not believing in
God, being that
the concept is
one of a
supernatural
being,
and that anyone
should be
skeptical of
something that
is supernatural; and substitutes
in a far less
likely, but far
more
accommodating
reason.
The term "rationalizing" is
often extended
in common
language to any
use of fallacy,
and particularly
where people
defend a
belief
by making up
scenario, or
slanting
evidence (though
technically
these are
the
fallacies of
"Ad Hoc Rescue"
and
"Slanting."
Once the realm
of reality is
left by assuming
what has not
been proven, to be
actually true;
it becomes
impossible to
validly surmise
more details
centered around
the belief or
objectively
examine evidence.
Examples:
"I prayed
and prayed, but
it didn't work!"
"Well, maybe you
weren't sincere
enough."
This is Ad
Hoc Rescue
where the proposing
of an explanation
is done for the
express purpose
of rescuing the
initial belief.
"In
Matthew it says
Judas hanged
himself, and in
Acts it says he
fell head-long
into a field and
his guts burst
out. Well,
what really
happened is that
after he hanged
himself his body
decayed and
eventually the
rope broke and
his decayed
corpse fell onto
a rock causing
his insides to
burst out."
This is
unbelievably
exactly what
Christians say
and is a grand
example of Ad
Hoc Rescue.
There is nothing
in either
account that
even hints at a
body decaying, a
rope breaking,
or a corpse
falling onto a
rock. All
these extra
details are just
completely
made-up in an
attempt to make
the
contradiction go
away -- but
still fails to
explain how he
could have
fallen
"head-long" into
the field.
The details are
added for the
express purpose
of rescuing the
initial belief
that everything
in the Bible
must be true.
"No one can
escape from
hell.
Since nothing
can escape from
a black hole,
then maybe
that's where
hell is."
Since no
one has
proven Hell to
factually exist,
it becomes
absurd to try to
figure out where
it might be
located.
One just delves
deeper into
illogical
thought.
The rationalizer
is really just using
the idea of a
black hole as a
way of making it
seem more
plausible that
hell could
actually exist.
"Maybe God
helped Noah get
the animals on
the ark."
Since we
haven't proven
an ark even
existed, we
can't begin to
surmise how Noah
got the animals
on it.
Imagining God
helped is just
done to try to
make the story
plausible and
another example
of Ad Hoc Rescue.
"Since God
would have known
that Adam and
Eve would sin,
he must have
turned off his
power to know
the future."
Since
there is no real
proof the story
is even true, we
cannot go
further in
assuming that
God turned his
power off.
Again, this is
Ad Hoc Rescue
because the
only
reason one
would believe that
God turned off
his power is to
try to make the
story plausible
-- there is
nothing
contained within
the story that
remotely hints
that God ceased
being omniscient.
"I know
that the
universe is
billions of
light years
across, so it
appears to be
billions of
years old, but
God probably
just made it
that way to
begin with.
After all, if I
made a botanical
garden I
wouldn't
just start by
planting the
seeds, I'd get
grown plants,
and put it all
together in
working order
for people to
enjoy from the
beginning."
This goes
beyond slanting
the evidence, it
is simply
ignoring the
evidence and
going the extra
mile in using Ad
Hoc Rescue.
If evidence
can't be
depended upon,
then why seek-out evidence at
all? If
the scenario
proposed were
true, then no
evidence
pertaining to
anything would
be reliable.
The list here
could go on
forever.
....... One can
simply not be
committed to a
belief in
something first
and then go
about finding
the proof -- the
evidence MUST
come first.
For theists or
Christians who
do not believe
they are
rationalizing, just try
this experiment.
Imagine that any
fairy tail of
your choosing is
factually true,
and then embark
upon your same
rational for
defending it as
you do in your
religious
beliefs.
It will be just
as easy.
Cinderella, Snow
White, or
Sleeping Beauty
would be a good place
to start.
If you believe
the story is
true, then you
can rationalize
every part of
it.
Example:
"We know that
castles exist,
and just last
week I read
about how
someone was put
into an induced
coma by doctors.
The Bible also
tells me there
are witches.
There's really
no reason to
believe that
Sleeping Beauty
couldn't have
been put to
sleep for a long
time by a wicked
witch.
We also know
that stem cells
can produce any
number of types
of tissues, so
naturally a frog
could turn into
a prince, and
anyway you can't
disprove it ...
."
Rationalizers
come back to
reality.
Reality will set
you free.
|
The Cosmological Argument relies on some very ancient contradictory assumptions about the nature of the universe. Two of those contradictory assumptions are:
1. All events occur because of a previous cause.
2. No causal chain can be infinite.
Assumption 2 violates assumption 1. This fundamental contradiction has led to the formulation of the original concept of "First Cause" which has also been called the "Prime Mover," or by those with an agenda of their own, "God."
The fact that assumption 1 and 2 are mutually contradictory, yet are fundamental to the cosmological argument, should have suggested to the great thinkers that something was wrong with the foundation of the argument itself.
Quantum Physics has directly challenged the validity of assumption 1. Things happen in the quantum world all the time with no apparent "cause" at all. Every experiment we have done seems to tell us two philosophically disturbing things about the universe.
1. Quantum events follow the laws of probability, not the laws of causality.
2. Observation of a system actually changes the nature of the actions of the system.
Both of these experimentally observed "facts" call deeply into question the whole concept of "causal chains".
The second assumption, that no causal chain can be infinite, is already on weak ground due to the whole probability and subjective/objective duality that threatens the causal conditions in assumption 1. To put it another way, the longer a causal chain becomes, and the more it is observed, the further it is likely to diverge from any predetermined outcome, which is logically identical to saying the further our current universe would have diverged from any original "intent." The universe is not a billiard table with particles moving in predetermined paths forever based on some initial motive force. Quantum fluctuations over the immense time and distances of the cosmos make it impossible to predict the final outcome of any initial cause.
Or that is what science seems to be telling us.
For this reason the whole "Prime Mover" argument appears to me to be simply a fallacious argument based on centuries old assumptions about the nature of the universe that are not holding up to current experimental analysis.
The universe is fundamentally weird in ways we have not yet figured out. And we may never figure out. But to throw up my hands and say "heck, I can't figure it out, it must be God" seems to be logically equivalent to saying "heck, I can't figure it out, it must be an illusion." or "heck, I can't figure it out, it must be the Matrix."
I generally end up admitting that the evidence only takes me to the "heck, I can't figure it out" phase, and to form any conclusions from that seems unwise."