Last Friday’s article “About the Video on Atheism” drew a couple of comments which deserve response. If you remember, in that article I lamented the pitiful level of response to the video coming from hundreds upon hundreds of atheist viewers. I pointed out a logical fallacy or two which the typical responders committed.  Well, one commenter on the article objected that I myself had visited the land of la-la logic and had committed the same type of emotion-laden fallacies I accused my opponents of. This double standard on my part he calls the tu quoque fallacy, for which I apparently should be ashamed.

I sincerely thank this commenter, “PhillyChief,” for his readiness to respond with something other than the irrational emotive childishness that I criticized in the article, for his clarity in his statements, and likewise for his patience in instructing us in the layout of the “false analogy” fallacy. These are all helpful and commendable things.

Now, I have had so many insults, curses, and challenges thrown at me since I started refuting atheism that I quickly learned to let most of them pass. But this commenter is clever with his cut-and-paste keys and has used my own words against me. He urges that, in light of my alleged logical infraction, I should have “the courage and patience to deal with a true argument in all of its force,” and that if I did not post his comment and respond I would be proving that I condone censorship and hoping to hold my readers in ignorance of criticism so that they will think I am smart.

What brazen statements like this often overlook is that good apologists and researchers love tough challengers when we can find them. It would not mean the least thing to me to have to post a retraction or restatement of something I actually blundered or fumbled, in fact, it may be endearing. The hard part is finding opponents tough enough to actually effect the needed level of head-scratching. This case is not one of them.

So since PhillyChief is interested in logical fallacies, let us review a few more.

Firstly, PhillyChief accuses me of engaging in the same emotion-driven[1] fallacies as those I criticize. This he calls a “tu quoque argument,” which is an improper application of that fallacy. An argumentum tu quoque (literally “and you, too”) occurs when someone argues that a person’s own advice or argument should not be believed because that person himself lives contrary to it. Here’s an example from the lyrics of a popular 1980s song,

Your pops caught you smoking man he said, “No way!”
That hypocrite smokes two packs a day![2]

The tu quoque fallacy is basically an accusation of hypocrisy, and thus is logically irrelevant because it attacks the person instead of their argument. Maybe Pops is a chain-smoker, but that fact doesn’t invalidate the truth that smoking is harmful and illegal for minors, nor does it invalidate the fact that Pops has authority over his children to tell them what they can and can’t do, even if he himself does it.

Comparing this to what PhillyChief alleges I have done reveals a subtle difference. I was not arguing that my opponents should be disbelieved because they are hypocrites (though in some cases they are). I simply stated that most don’t pay attention and produce fallacious responses.

On the contrary, since PhillyChief is accusing me of acting hypocritically, it is PhillyChief who is now guilty of tu quoque. Even IF I was guilty of such rank hypocrisy it would be irrelevant to my original argument, because PhillyChief would be attacking my personal behavior instead of my arguments; and thus my criticism would still stand.

After this accusation, PhillyChief attacks what I relate as the “central argument of the video” and calls it a “naked assertion” as opposed to an “argument.” Then he presents this summary: “You’re essentially asserting that since Robespierre claimed to exalt reason and did bad things, then anyone who claims to exalt reason will then also do bad things, or at least be more inclined to.”

This is not what I argued at all. The fallacy here is his misrepresentation of my argument, or his “straw man.” Notice, for example, that he bothers to quote my own words when he wants a rhetorical punch but fails to quote me when it really matters. This gives him the room to stretch and exaggerate my claims when it comes to the real argument.

My point, for clarity, is not that “anyone who claims to exalt reason will then also do bad things, or at least be more inclined to” but to give an historical example that reason is no insulator against terror. The point is very simple: reason by itself is not the answer, and never has been. I am not arguing that all people who claim to claim to exalt reason will do bad things (though they may and have), because many people who claim such actually have other bases of morals on which they live. The video itself even points out this contrast saying that “Sam is nice and cares about you,” and that Robespierre “wasn’t nice like Sam.” Rather, we are saying to those who want to remove religion and stand on reason alone that reason alone will not save us. Moral laws must exist first. Reason itself will not insulate us against reigns of terror, so don’t pretend that reigns of terror are exclusively the province of religion.

So, despite his patience in spelling out for us what a “false analogy is,” PhillyChief has rendered his own argument false by (unwittingly, I think) setting up a straw man. The analogy he imputes to me, I did not draw.

Further, I am interested in PhillyChief’s comment that if I refuse to post his comment and decline to respond to it that he “will have no choice but to assume” that my “hope is to censor criticism.” Perhaps this is just more rhetorical flair, but I’m afraid that his “no choice but to assume” is itself a fallacious claim—in this case a false dilemma. Either I post and respond or I’m an intellectual coward. Did no other options occur to him? Perhaps it could have happened that his arguments were so weak as not to warrant a response at all. Perhaps an administrative assistant could have screened the comment, laughed, and deleted it just to burn his collar (this is unlikely, but possible). There are many other possibilities. In his effort to paint me into a corner he failed to notice the several doors and windows still open behind me.

PhillyChief—even with his ability to write in clear, logical prose, his ability to offer a criticism, his intellectual approach and vocabulary, and his knowledge of informal fallacies—has exemplified the point of my original article. He has not listened closely to the video or my article, and he has misrepresented the argument at hand. Not one of his criticisms, in the end, is relevant.

This phenomenon recalls apologist Cornelius Van Til’s “saw blade” analogy. He wrote of the “natural man”:

He can follow a process of reasoning intellectually. He may even have a superior intellect. But of himself he always makes the wrong use of it. A saw may be ever so shiny and sharp, but if its set is wrong it will always cut on a slant.[3]

In short, no matter how smart you are, no matter how intellectually capable, if any sort of discipline is missing from the use of reason, then there will be problems with the outcome. No matter how sharp your saw is, if it is set wrong to start, it will cut wrong. The user may even lose a few fingers, and then lose his intellectual grip altogether. This is why I argue constantly that the use of logic is an ethical endeavor, not merely intellectual, and is governed by the ninth commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Again, morality precedes and rules reason.

PhillyChief is upset with American Vision’s use of emotion-laden images—the Holocaust, etc.—which he argues (now again referencing my words) is “relying purely on emotion and the ability to distract with irrelevance.” But the video also mentions belief in evolution as a basis for society, and there is not much that is more relevant to that point than the Nazi material. Again, the critic has not analyzed the material thoroughly before criticizing it.

Besides, there is something to be said for appeals to emotion, once the facts are well set in place. Once we have the truth, I would hope that we would be passionate about it. After all, if the saw blade is set at the right angle, then it won’t hurt to saw a little harder.