An argument contains a False Dichotomy when it claims that only two options are possible when there is in fact a third option, or perhaps more.
False Dichotomies are routinely used by Christians when they present the alternative of "chance vs design". Since chance can be easily shown to explain nothing, the Christian then thinks he's proven that there must be a god behind everything.
Unfortunately for this tactic, we know there is one higher alternative : the power of natural law, as presented by science. From the orbits of planets to earthquakes to the birth of stars, it is natural law, not "chance" or design,. which explains facts. Therefore, to prove his assertion of divine design, the Christian must disprove natural law as a solution, which is impossible.
4. Lack of Specificity.
Lack of specificity occurs when the deductions are not sufficiently specific to arrive to the conclusion given. That is to say, the argument does not prove specifically what it says it proves, but rather proves a much more general conclusion. This fallacy is the most common : it occurs in virtually all classical arguments, with a couple of minor exceptions (such as arguments which specifically use the idea of God).
A simple example of this fallacy in classical arguments would be to say that God exists because the universe was created. But if the universe was in fact created, then all that this proves is the existence of a creative agent or force. This does not need to be a god, or even a being at all.
The jump from "the universe was created" to "God exists" is a non sequitur. The fact that the Christian believes that God created the universe does not make the argument magically valid : it is not specific enough, regardless of the Christian's personal assumptions.
The ontological arguments also commit lack of specificity, although it might be less obvious. Their premise is that God is defined as perfect, and that therefore it must necessarily exist. But we can define anything as perfect. The ontological arguments work just as well with, say, a "space unicorn". If we define a giant waffle as perfect, then this "space unicorn" must necessarily exist.
These fallacies only address classical arguments. There are, of course, other kinds of arguments out there. Evidential arguments are arguments which proceeds from facts about the Bible. Those are arguments of the type :
1. "the Bible says X, therefore X"
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Francois Tremblay's Atheism topic, please visit the Discussions page.