The debate between Dr. James White and Chris Pinto over whether or not Codex-Sinaiticus is a modern day forgery was one that disappointed me. I explained the reason why in my article Disappointment with the White vs. Pinto Debate, and it had nothing to do with Dr. White presenting false information, but with his use of fallacious reasoning. Yet I have received criticism for pointing out that Dr. White’s argumentation in that debate is fallacious.
I think there are many reasons for this, but I’ll just keep it to the one reason I think is very significant. Understanding and properly using the laws of logical inference is not something that the world encourages us to engage in. Sadly, this is also true for many Christian churches. The contemporary assault on theological truths that are derived from clear passages of Scripture is, for instance, very common in our time – and this is so despite the fact that Scripture teaches us to know God through the reading, analysis, and comprehension of God’s Word and the propositions necessarily derived from those passages!
Consequently, many today mistakenly think that identifying an argument as fallacious is equivalent to identifying that argument’s conclusion as false. However, this is not at all the case. In fact, identifying an argument’s conclusion as false because its structure is invalid/fallacious is, ironically, itself a fallacy known as an argumentum ad logicam, or the argument from fallacy.
Identifying that your opponent’s argument is fallacious allows you say that their conclusion has not been proven or adequately defended. It allows you to say, along with Dr. James White, that “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.” But that is not equivalent to saying that the conclusion one draws from a fallacious argument is false.
Consider the following example:
If it is raining outside, my sink will be dry.
My sink is dry.
Therefore, it is raining outside.
This is a hypothetical syllogism (i.e. a three part argument taking the form of If p, then Q; Q; therefore, p). Ignoring the absurd connection between the rainfall outside and my sink’s wetness or dryness, even if there were some weird connection there, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. My sink could be dry for an infinite number of reasons. Therefore, it may be not the case that it is raining outside. The technical name for this fallacy is “Affirming the Consequent,” and it is the fallacy scientists commit whenever they test a hypothesis. This means that their arguments do not prove their conclusions; however, it does not mean that their conclusions are false.
The fallaciousness of the argument in my example, therefore, does not indicate that its conclusion is false. It could be raining outside, despite the fallacious argumentation I try to use to prove that it is raining outside.
Fallacies and falsities are not identical.
When I say that an argument is fallacious, I am saying that the statement “Argument p proves conclusion q” is false; in other words, I am saying that “It is not true that Dr. White’s argument proved his points.” However, I am not thereby saying that the conclusion q is false; or, once more, I am not saying that “Dr White’s points are false.”
The difference should be taken into consideration here and remembered so that we can argue more clearly against the enemies of the faith, and so honor Christ our God.
Soli Deo Gloria
-h.
A : A 