The WT's favorite "reasoning" method - the false dilemma

by sir82 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  As defined here: http://skepdic.com/falsedilemma.html

  The false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a fallacy of reasoning that omits consideration of all reasonable alternatives. Sometimes called the either-or fallacy, one poses what looks like a true dilemma--I must pick one or the other--when, in fact, there are other viable alternatives. (There can be false trilemmas, etc.)

  This is becoming increasingly common in JW literature. The February Awake (cover article: Earth - Designed for Life) is full of them.

  The approach is very formulaic:

  1) Present some marvelous feature of nature

  2) Present the question "Did this come about by blind chance, or was it Designed by a Loving God?"

  This sequence is presented 4 times in the 7 pages of the series of articles. It is presented numerous more times in the book "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?"

  Of course, the problem is that no reasonable educated person, anywhere, ever makes the claim that anything related to nature arose from "blind chance". There are more than just those 2 options. But the WT is counting on the ignorance of its readers in not recognizing that.

  Incidentally, it's not just JWs who use this technique. It seems to be a favorite of fundamentalist Christians everywhere. In our local paper, there is an "advice column" ghost-written in the name of Billy Graham. Yesterday's topic was on "Is there really a devil?" The answer said, in part, "it takes far more faith to believe that all of the evil in the world arises from chance than from the devil."

  Umm, hello? Who says those are the only 2 options?

  Even C.S. Lewis fell into the trap, regarding Jesus:

  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse...

  At the risk of being annoyingly repetitive, hello? Who says those are the only choices?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  That fallacy is very popular on X-JW boards also. It is not unique to fundie Christians either, I frequently see atheists engaging in this little intellectual sleight of hand without realizing it. A good example is the well known "Atheist's Wager".

  BTS
• 

  VM44

  Add to "false dilemma" the "Strawman" argument and you have a good part of The Watchtower's receipe for writing their Propaganda!
• 

  Alpaca

  For those of you interested in formal logic and logical fallacies in argument there is a great book called, "How to Think About Weird Things."

  It is a great read and very well written. It discusses, in depth, all of the logical fallacies.
• 

  Fadeout

  Where did they learn that from?

  He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters. -Matt 12:30

  Oops.
• 

  Gladring

  But Jesus said to him: “Do not YOU men try to prevent [him], for he that is not against YOU is for YOU .” - Luk 9: 50

  go figure
• 

  Jankyn

  "False dilemma" is also common in fundie political reasoning ("We've got to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here," with its assumption that "fighting" them is a given and that there are no other options). (And before you jump all over me, that was just the first example that came to mind--I'm sure there are just as many logical fallacies in fundie leftist political reasoning! The problem isn't the political bent; it's the lack of logic.)

  And just because some Bible passages contain logical fallacies doesn't make them perfectly OK (in fact, that reasoning represents a logical fallacy of a different kind!).

  Jankyn
• 

  quietlyleaving

  its a form of sophistry. misleading and fallacious argumentation
• 

  Farkel

  Interestingly enough, the WT magazine devoted an entire article on logical fallacies. I believe Ray Franz showed scans of it in ISOCF. It was accurate in describing the various logical fallacious and hilarious in its duplicity!

  The false dilemma is certainly one of the WT favorites, but as has already been pointed out, the strawman when properly used, is much more deceptive because it demolishes arguments from WT enemies that weren't made, while purporting to demolish arguments that WERE made! It's also a favorite of politicians, so that tells you how evil it can be!

  In field service, the slippery slope is probably the most common: "the way things are going today, in just a few years, the world will be in total chaos....." When confronted with a WT opposer, the ad hominem or its derivative, the tu quoque is common: "You are an apostate, so everything you say is a lie";"You believe in humans killing in wars, so what's wrong with God killing at the war of Armageddon?"

  Blah, blah, blah. Different day or a different dub, but always the same logical fallacies.

  Farkel
• 

  kurtbethel

  I have met the flip side of this kind of reasoning during a study. If I say something that expresses doubt about the GB and their scholarly abilities, I have been met with, "Are you saying they are worthless?"

  "No, I did not say that and I do not know where you would get the idea that is what I said. They could have some other value than the matter which they have done poorly with."

  Good grief! No wonder I have made such slow progress with that kind of "reasoning".