Atheist Armaments

I have read in a number of places that in a formal debate, if either party knowingly uses a logical fallacy, the debate is essentially over. It’s sort of an unwritten rule that debators stick with the facts, the issues, and not personalize the whole affair.

That said, debating an issue that has been tied into an individuals faith will inevitably turn personal for them. It’s unfortunate that religious organizations (such as creationist supergroup extraordinaire AiG) have intentionally tried to tie issues of science (old earth, evolution, abiogenesis, etc.) tightly to the reins of their Holy text. It is important to remember that, when arguing these issues, it is quite easy to degenerate to a battle of gainsaying. There are as many, if not more, websites and materials out there that a YEC will use as support for their argument, and often it can take an inordinate amount of time to de-tangle exactly why the source they are referencing is incorrect. Sometimes you get lucky with an explicit refutation, but more often than not, a counter-refutation will be found somewhere else.

Bottom line — sticking with the issues is often a fruitless attempt when debating YEC’s. Remember, we are not dealing with a rationally minded group of people here. It can often be more effective, depending on their method of arguing, to establish logically why their arguments are incorrect. The goal is to clear up the misrepresentation that their beliefs are based on anything except their faith. (Note: for more information, check out my page about logical fallacies.)

One other point, before we begin, is that learning how to spot logical fallacies can help you avoid them yourself. It’s very embarrassing to point out someone else’s fallacy and then have them (or a bystander) point out that you had unknowingly used the same fallacy yourself. Just remember that the point of spotting fallacies isn’t to specifically to attack your opponent, but rather to level the playing field.

Some favorites, as arbitrarily assessed by my experience:

Argumentum ad Consequentiam (Appeal to Consequences)

This is an extremely difficult one to spot, so you should really try to understand it as thoroughly as possible. At the surface level, it looks like good logic, since it seems to “make sense”. The abstract form, from Wikipedia, is:

If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

Understand? In other words: “If P happened, it would be bad, therefore it’s not true.” (This argument also works in an affirmative form: If P happened, it would be good, therfore it IS true.”)
Some examples of an Appeal to Consequences (the first three from WP):

• Atheism must be erroneous: it denies eternal happiness after death
• Religion must be false: if it were true, nobody would have free will
• Free will must exist: if it didn’t we would all be machines.
• Humans are not animals: if they were, they would have no reason to be moral.
• You must accept Jesus as your salvation: if you don’t, you’ll go to Hell! [*]

See what I mean? It’s sneaky, and it’s certainly easy to do these yourself. The important thing to remember about this is: just because something is bad doesn’t necessarily make it false.
[* This is technically an Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to Force, which says “P must be true because otherwise I will be punished for not accepting it.”]

Countering This Argument:

Pointing out the lack of connection between truth and consequences is usually sufficient. Particularly with the Appeal to Force. “Believe what I say or you’ll be sorry.” Appeal to Consequences is very similar to the notion of “Wishful thinking.”

Sometimes, like in the case of example #4 (Humans/Animals) pointing out the fallacy isn’t sufficient. In cases like that, it can be helpful to cite specific examples that both show morality in animals and examples of humans being immoral.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc (After it, therefore because of it)

This one is a bit easier than Appeal to Consequences. The general form, from WP, is:

A occurred, then B occurred
Therefore, A caused B

Post Hoc fallacies don’t necessarily falsify a proposition, but it is an insufficient proposition, and must be further substantiated. Some examples:

• I wore my lucky shoes, and our team won! It must have been because of my shoes!
• I prayed for rain, and a week later it rained! Prayer works!
• Immorality has been on the rise ever since the Scopes Monkey Trials; Evolutionary Thinking is the cause of immorality!

This is commonly the cause of Superstition. The third example is one that can be difficult to fight, since the opponent will likely ask for “proof” that Evolution is not the cause of immorality. (Refer them to the “Burden of Proof” fallacy, at that point)

Countering the Argument

It can be helpful to specifically point out the logical fallacy and ask for them to substantiate their claim a little more. Be specific in your request and point out other possible alternatives. The most frequent case of Post Hoc that I’ve seen is usually with reference to prayer and pseudoscience claims. You would be contesting the CONCLUSION (”Prayer works”) rather than the FACTS (”I prayed, rain came”) since the conclusion is invalid. This isn’t an issue of Proving or Not proving, and ultimately they will likely fall back on the “well I believe it works!” and you would be well-served to leave it at that.

Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Antiquatem (Appeal to Popularity / Tradition)

I lump these together because they are easily dismissed.

“Appealing to Popularity” [WP] is the “Everyone else is doing it” fallacy: “Christianity must be correct because there are millions of Christians worldwide, and that many people can’t be wrong!”

“Appealing to Tradition/Antiquity” [WP] is the “It’s the way we’ve always done it,” fallacy: “Christianity must be correct because it’s nearly 2,000 years old.”

Countering this argument:

Point it out. That’s usually enough. Explain it, if necessary. Cite examples (Flat earth, Geocentric universe, stick with examples that both you and your opponent can agree are true.) For appeal to popularity, you could cite the Nazi’s, but expect to have that thrown in your face with a morality argument. It’s better to stick with issues that are not emotionally charged.

No True Scotsman

From WP:

Argument: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Reply: “But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge.”
Rebuttal: “Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

This one is most commonly seen after citing Old Earth creationists as an argument to support Old Earth chronology. “They aren’t true Christians.” It’s a silly argument, even at face value, and is wholly based on opinion. Call it for what it is, and move onwards.

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (Appeal to Ignorance)

[WP] This is tricky business. It’s easy to spot these, but it can be quite messy. First and foremost, you cannot use this argument with regard to the existence of a Deity. Doing so wastes breath or bandwidth. While true that the existence of God is an assertion, there is no way to explicitly prove or disprove that assertion, hence why it is taken on faith. Using this argument specifically with unsubstantiated claims about the real world is certainly acceptable though.

At it’s core, it is effectively asserting that an argument is true strictly because it has not yet been disproved. A really simple (and popular, right now) example is the notion of Intelligent Design, as advocated by the Discovery Institute, which says that “Life is so complex there has to be a designer.” The notions of irreducible complexity further extends this ignorance by positing that “since we can’t imagine how this could possibly operate without all of its bare components, it must be irreducibly complex.” Hogwash.

Remember that this only applies when someone is stating a conclusion from their own ignorance. Simply stating “I don’t believe Evolutionary Theory is explained very well,” or “I don’t understand the Big Bang” are simply personal statements. This fallacy doesn’t get involved until the person asserts “Evolution is impossible, how is it possible to go from molecules to mankind?” or “There’s no way the Big Bang happened, there’s no proof!”

Which brings up another point: The issue of “burden of proof.” I have read a number of places that say “burden of proof” belongs only in the legal system — I tend to agree with them. It’s not a very good counter argument in the sense that it basically says “I’m taking my toys and going home if you can’t prove anything.” That said, there is nothing wrong with asking for an assertion to be substantiated. And again, if the claim is impossible to substantiate, then the asserter must admit they are taking it on faith.

Circular Logic

Circular logic [WP] is when someone make an assertion that is self-referential. For (a very simplistic) example: Alice says that Bob is honest, and Bob says that Alice never lies, so Alice must be honest too, because Bob said so. Circular Logic is often employed in defense of the infallible word of the Bible: The Bible is God’s word, and God is infallible [and exists at all] because the Bible says so.

Claims like these can often be difficult to spot, because they are rarely spoken in a sense that makes them overtly circular. If you get into the habit of getting your opponent’s to substantiate their claims with sources, spotting this fallacy can be a lot easier. Realistically, everything in the Biblical text must be taken on faith since it is only true through acceptance of circular logic.

Straw Man Fallacy

This fallacy [WP] is frequently seen, and is easy to overlook. Technically, it takes the form of a proper argument, except it has a hyperbolic premise. “To ’set up a straw man argument’ … is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position”Examples:

• Evolutionists want you to believe that you evolved from rocks!
• The Big Bang theory is obviously wrong, would you expect a Nuclear blast to construct a bunch of buildings?
• People against public smoking want to criminalize smokers!

Obviously, an irrational state of mind lends itself to creating straw men much more easily.

Countering this argument:

Start off by pointing out that they are using a straw man argument and explain why. Be polite about this, if possible, as people don’t always realize when they are creating a straw man argument. Give them a chance to re-phrase. You may also want to explain how their straw man is different from your argument, and re-state your argument in more simple terms.

Poisoning the Well

[WP] This is only partly a “fallacy” — it’s more of a shady rhetoric tactic that is used even by public speakers. It works on the basis of mental priming: If we develop a pre-conceived notion about something or someone, we are more likely to respond in the fashion of that notion than give the issue a fair chance. I admit to having used these before, myself. I kind of have a “if the shoe fits…” policy with respect to this one — I’m not going to say something untrue about another source, but… Some examples would be:

• Want to see a great example of AiG lying? Check out this page…
• Read this article for more information, but let me warn you that the author really hates Christians, so you probably won’t like it.
• Up next is a speaker who is most well known for his run-ins with the law, his criminal record, and his persuasive ability to convince people that they are unhappy, I present to you…

Get the idea? They’re frequently used. It’s a rather underhanded tactic, and it frequently goes unnoticed or unchecked, since people would often rather focus on the issue.

Countering this argument:

Don’t spend a whole lot of time on it — pointing it out and stating facts to the contrary is often enough to reverse the effects. If you aren’t prepared to refute the statements, then just point it out, and move on. If anything, you’ll at least show the audience that your opponent fights dirty.

Pascal’s Wager

This is a very specific fallacy. Pascal’s wager says: Since you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, you may as well do it.

This argument is wrong on a number of reasons:

1. It presumes that by simply feigning a belief in God, you will still have the eternal reward of those that are truly faithful.
2. It presumes that the correct God is worshipped.
3. It presumes that rewards & punishments are indeed eternal
4. It presumes that God is concerned solely with those who believe, rather than the deeds of that person.

Personally, I would counter with the “Atheist’s Wager“, which says:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Either way - Pascal’s wager is a fool’s wager. It’s an Appeal to Consequences (see above) and is only persuasive to those with weak minds. Don’t fall for it!

Countering the Argument

Call them out for using Pascal’s Wager and explain why Pascal’s wager is invalid. You may want to spend some time explaining it, as if you are talking with a YEC (or any believer), then you are talking with someone for whom those presumptions are already accepted as true. More than likely you’ll end up with them saying “Well, I wouldn’t risk it…” and you should just leave it there, as they are just stating their own opinion. It can be helpful to bring up the Atheist Wager though, and I think most moderate religious folk, or people who are good-hearted, would at least agree that the Atheist’s wager fits with their particular beliefs (to do good work).

That’s it for now — after this post I’m going to begin delving into very specific key points, the “Power Arguments”, and how to fight back against them. If anyone has anything to add to this list that I overlooked, please comment!