"No Christian should watch the Saw movies because they will make people commit violent acts."
"If we allow public nudity, people will start having sex in public! It is clear we shouldn't allow nudity in the community."
The slippery slope fallacy tries to persuade people to avoid something because of what it may lead to, not because that thing is inherently evil. As such, slippery slope arguments are unreliable, erroneous, and highly illogical. They shift a debate or conversation away from attempting to prove something is objectively wrong and instead try to promote fear or suspicion of a possible outcome that does not necessarily have anything to do with the issue in question. I love the Saw movies and viewing them has not triggered some desire to kidnap and torture people. Actually, viewing a movie or playing a video game cannot make someone do anything. Entertainment often gets blamed for the ridiculous behavior of sentient, volitional beings, but it cannot make someone do anything whatsoever. As for the second example, exposure to nudity cannot create lust or force someone to objectify another person. Those attitudes are chosen by the one who lusts or objectifies. Nudity in and of itself has nothing at all to do with sex, though it can be sensual or sexual if people make it that way. If Jesus is correct (Mark 7), evil emerges from inside the human heart and thus people's actions are not caused by an external source like a violent film or an attractive body, though our race excels at blaming its corrupt actions on others or on outside events.
Fallacy of Composition
"All Christians are anti-intellectual and don't care about science or reason! I know because I've talked to some of them!"
This is a common attack on Christians used by internet atheists. Notice that the stupidity or ignorance of Christians has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity itself is true. The fallacy of composition on display here incorrectly assumes that if a part of something is one way, the whole will be that way also. Some Christians are indeed stupid and conversation with them is unprofitable, but not all of them are like this--otherwise this blog would not even exist. Anyone who makes universal statements based on limited data is unjustifiably extrapolating true information about a single or relatively minor portion of a greater whole and using it to prematurely make conclusions about the whole itself (or taking a few portions and extrapolating from them). Anyone who judges an ethnicity based on a small sample of individuals commits this fallacy, for instance. To the untrained mind this is an easy error to succumb to.
Moralistic Fallacy
"Women in our country have always remained in the home instead of entering the workplace. Clearly, this is how things should be."
The moralistic fallacy is often used to attempt to persuade people or a society not to alter their ways because in the past they have always practiced certain things or lived a specific way or in the present they have adopted a particular lifestyle they view as moral. It is a fallacy because such claims assert that the way things are is the way they should be, a position which would have hindered every moral reformer in previous millennia. No society would have ever stopped implementing misogyny, racism, hypocrisy, infliction of cruel punishments, militarism, or any other evil if people merely accepted the current reality as moral perfection. This fallacy may sometimes be paired with a utilitarian approach to ethics.
Appeal to Ignorance
"You can't prove God doesn't exist, so I'm justified in believing he does."
"Until you can prove God exists I am justified in believing he isn't real."
I have heard both of the statements above far too many times. When pressed for evidence or proof, people can sometimes resort to simply declaring that they are justified in their beliefs just because the opposing side cannot prove their position. Not only would consistently living this way lead to the death of rationality and stagnation of all learning, it simply does not follow that just because something is unverified or unprovable that a competing claim is therefore true. This is illicit reasoning in, unfortunately, one of its most prominent and common forms.
False Dilemma
"What you've been telling me is either the whole truth or a complete lie!"
A false dilemma, such as the one illustrated above, presents two opposing options as if they are the only ones that exist. Sometimes there are only two possibilities with regards to an idea. For instance, God either exists or doesn't; there is no possible middle ground. A claim is ultimately either true or false; there is no third option. But what about other issues? Are humans good or evil? Clearly another answer is possible: humans are both good and evil. To say people are either just good or just evil is a drastic oversimplification of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment