Mission, Process and Argument
I’d like you to watch the above video. It’s important. Not because I agree with it, but because it represents something.
Let me explain – I thought these kind of arguments had been killed and buried at the end of the 80s, but actually they are making a big resurgence. Increasingly as I wade through the internet I find myself embroiled in this sort of debate (I know! I know! I should just close the lid of the laptop and walk away!)
It seems that in the light of the past few years’ worth of military and political activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, for some spirituality has become something to “tackle” as harmless nonsense, and religion as organised dangerous nonsense. I know most readers of this blog would make the distinction between religious and spirituality, but for many people that I come across, they are considered to be two sides of the same coin.
However, in my interactions with these sorts of arguments, I’ve come to realise that both “sides” (myself included) can be guilty of what I’m going to call “bad argument”. These “bad arguments” tend to take a number of forms and I’m going to share what I think are the biggest sins in this area. If we disagree with someone, we disagree with someone. There’s no getting around that. But if we’re going to do so, then missionally it makes sense to do this fairly and without coercion, whilst also recognising when we are being coerced, for the sake of credibility. So here are the definitions of classic bad argument, in no particular order:
Please Note: None of the examples are intended to show any of the points of view presented are wrong, or belittle any religious or political belief. Please concentrate on the structure of the argument rather than the subject matter. I could just have easily have presented a false argument from the opposite position.
You’re an idiot, so you must be wrong (ad hominem)
Where you attack the speaker and not what he’s saying. If someone has to resort to this technique, you’ll often find they haven’t thought through their position very well. This form of argument goes on all the time in political circles.
Eg: “Rowan Wiliams/Richard Dawkins/George Bush is a complete twit, so his argument is completely false.”
The Bible says it’s true, so it must be true (argumentum ad verecundiam )
This is also known as an “appeal to authority” and is very common. Just because a statement supposedly comes from a credible source, doesn’t mean it’s true.
Most of us rely on this one more often than we probably should. We’re unlikely to investigate too thoroughly whether what a doctor says about our health is true, for example. He’s a doctor, so we just assume he’s right.
Because this is such a powerful form of poor argument, it’s often used to trick people into believing something that may be false. Advertisers use scientific terms to sell their products, for example.
You can usually spot someone who’s using this to cover up a weak position by pushing them to provide some evidence other than the authority to back up their claims.
All models are tall, Sally is tall, therefore Sally must be a model (affirming the consequent)
This is when you say an assumption works in both directions, even if there’s no reason to believe so. Just because X means Y, doesn’t mean Y means X, in other words. This can be a very subtle argument to catch out.
Example: “If my business partner was stealing from me, he’d probably buy himself a fancy car. He just bought a Mercedes, so he’s probably stealing from me.”
Evolution says men come from baboons – only an idiot would believe something like that! (straw man)
This is a very common form of poor argument. It involves misrepresenting your opponent’s position, by pretending it’s something that sounds similar but is easy to refute. This is used a lot in political or religious arguments.
Example: “The only reason you want to stop companies offshoring jobs to India is because you’re a racist. No decent person can take such an argument seriously”.
Britney Spears is the most popular singer in the world, so she must be very talented (argumentum ad populum )
This is the appeal to the majority argument. If enough people believe something to be true, then it must be, in other words. The problem is, history is full of examples of sincere majority beliefs eventually being proven false. Just because a lot of people think something, doesn’t make it right.
It’s hot and the crime rate is up – therefore heat causes crime (correlation implies causation )
This is an easy one to catch people out with. Just because two things happen at the same time or in the same place, doesn’t mean there’s any kind of cause and effect going on. It may just be coincidence.
Example: “Every time Frank is on duty in the store something goes missing. That guy must be a thief”.
Killing is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong (petitio principii)
This is a type of circular argument. Basically, it takes the form of putting the proof of your argument into one of the assumptions. The conclusion appears at the beginning and the end of the argument, so nothing of any substance is really created. It basically says X is true, because X is true. It can also take the form X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because X is true.
Example: “Only a loving God could have created such a wonderful world, therefore our world was created by a loving God”.
I have quoted this almost precisely from a great website called Paul’s Tips, and I’m very grateful to that website for such a concise rendering. Please go and check out the many other brilliant things there.
technorati tags:mission, process, dawkins, bad argument, moot, ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam, straw man, affirming the consequent, argumentum ad populum, correlation implies causation, petitio principii, moot comunity, atheist
