Bifurcation and Accusation

Let's consider this argument:

1. Polly is either a [Cat] or a [Dog]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. Polly is not a [Dog]. (Not [B])
3. Therefore Polly is a [Cat].  (Therefore [A])

This sounds reasonable, right?

But what if Polly is actually a parrot?  In such a case, this argument would be untrue because it fails to consider that other options exist.

I bring this example of logical fallacy up because it seems to be common in today's debate on moral and political issues in an "Either with us or with the enemy" mindset.  If one extreme is not true, the other extreme must be true.

Thus we see homosexual activists label whoever believes homosexual acts are wrong support the "persecution" of homosexuals.  Whoever opposes Pastor Terry Jones in his burning of the Koran must therefore think Islam is as good as Christianity.

Contradictory and Contrary Statements

Such an argument confuses Contradictory statements with Contrary Statements.

A Contrary statement would be: It is Either Hot or Cold.

A Contradictory statement would be: it is either Hot or not Hot.

With contrary statements, there is the possibility of it being neither one or the other – that is — both can be false.  With contradictory statements,  only one can be true, and one must be true.

Denouncing False Accusations

Opposition to a certain belief is not endorsement of the opposite.  Opposition to homosexual acts is not favoring the persecution of homosexuals.  Opposing Pastor Terry Jones is not thinking Islam is equally valid with Christianity.  Opposing Democrats does not mean one supports Republicans.  Opposing remarriage when a prior marriage is seen as valid is not "wanting people to suffer."  The Church not excommunicating a dissenter does not mean supporting the dissent.

See the principle here?

When a person says [Not B], it is wrong to accuse them of supporting  [A].  Saying [Not B] merely means opposition to [B].  Saying such a person supports [A] on these grounds is to put words into their mouth without the right to do so.

Discernment is Necessary

Now of course we need to distinguish between bifurcation and real dilemmas.  Sometimes there are really demonstrably two choices.  Either 2+2 is 4, or 2+2 is 5. 

1. Either 2+2 Is [4] or is [5]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. 2+2 is [4]. ([A])
3. Therefore 2+2 is not [5] (Therefore not [B])

In such a statement, we are not reasoning from what is not to what is.  Rather we are taking what is and excluding what is not.

Likewise, if the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human" to hold what the Church teaches, anyone who holds that "Jesus is a mere man" is not holding to what the Catholic Church teaches.

1. Either The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] or [Jesus is a mere man] (Either [A] or [B])
2. The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] ([A])
3. Therefore [Jesus is a mere man] is not the Catholic position. (Therefore Not [B])

The difference is again, we take what is true [A] and therefore reject [B] since A ≠ B, while Bifurcation argues that [Not B] means [A]

In short, we must discern whether an "Either-Or" situation does accurately limit the situation to two choices where the acceptance of one means the rejection of the other, or whether one claims the denial of one means the acceptance of the other.

• "Either homosexual acts are wrong or they are not wrong" does limit accurately to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [Not A])
• "Either one supports gay marriage or they are homophobic" does NOT accurately limit to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [B]).

The first does accurately divide.  The second does not.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize the fallacy of Bifurcation because it can easily be used to twist things around to either sanctify one's own position or demonize an opponent.  With the recent rhetoric in the media over "gay marriage," over political agendas and other things, we need to be on guard.  The Christian needs to especially be on guard as moral issues under attack will often be used to demonize us based on the claim that because we don't support [B], it must mean we support [A] – even though [A] is also against our beliefs as Christians.

Bifurcation and Accusation

Let's consider this argument:

1. Polly is either a [Cat] or a [Dog]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. Polly is not a [Dog]. (Not [B])
3. Therefore Polly is a [Cat].  (Therefore [A])

This sounds reasonable, right?

But what if Polly is actually a parrot?  In such a case, this argument would be untrue because it fails to consider that other options exist.

I bring this example of logical fallacy up because it seems to be common in today's debate on moral and political issues in an "Either with us or with the enemy" mindset.  If one extreme is not true, the other extreme must be true.

Thus we see homosexual activists label whoever believes homosexual acts are wrong support the "persecution" of homosexuals.  Whoever opposes Pastor Terry Jones in his burning of the Koran must therefore think Islam is as good as Christianity.

Contradictory and Contrary Statements

Such an argument confuses Contradictory statements with Contrary Statements.

A Contrary statement would be: It is Either Hot or Cold.

A Contradictory statement would be: it is either Hot or not Hot.

With contrary statements, there is the possibility of it being neither one or the other – that is — both can be false.  With contradictory statements,  only one can be true, and one must be true.

Denouncing False Accusations

Opposition to a certain belief is not endorsement of the opposite.  Opposition to homosexual acts is not favoring the persecution of homosexuals.  Opposing Pastor Terry Jones is not thinking Islam is equally valid with Christianity.  Opposing Democrats does not mean one supports Republicans.  Opposing remarriage when a prior marriage is seen as valid is not "wanting people to suffer."  The Church not excommunicating a dissenter does not mean supporting the dissent.

See the principle here?

When a person says [Not B], it is wrong to accuse them of supporting  [A].  Saying [Not B] merely means opposition to [B].  Saying such a person supports [A] on these grounds is to put words into their mouth without the right to do so.

Discernment is Necessary

Now of course we need to distinguish between bifurcation and real dilemmas.  Sometimes there are really demonstrably two choices.  Either 2+2 is 4, or 2+2 is 5. 

1. Either 2+2 Is [4] or is [5]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. 2+2 is [4]. ([A])
3. Therefore 2+2 is not [5] (Therefore not [B])

In such a statement, we are not reasoning from what is not to what is.  Rather we are taking what is and excluding what is not.

Likewise, if the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human" to hold what the Church teaches, anyone who holds that "Jesus is a mere man" is not holding to what the Catholic Church teaches.

1. Either The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] or [Jesus is a mere man] (Either [A] or [B])
2. The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] ([A])
3. Therefore [Jesus is a mere man] is not the Catholic position. (Therefore Not [B])

The difference is again, we take what is true [A] and therefore reject [B] since A ≠ B, while Bifurcation argues that [Not B] means [A]

In short, we must discern whether an "Either-Or" situation does accurately limit the situation to two choices where the acceptance of one means the rejection of the other, or whether one claims the denial of one means the acceptance of the other.

• "Either homosexual acts are wrong or they are not wrong" does limit accurately to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [Not A])
• "Either one supports gay marriage or they are homophobic" does NOT accurately limit to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [B]).

The first does accurately divide.  The second does not.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize the fallacy of Bifurcation because it can easily be used to twist things around to either sanctify one's own position or demonize an opponent.  With the recent rhetoric in the media over "gay marriage," over political agendas and other things, we need to be on guard.  The Christian needs to especially be on guard as moral issues under attack will often be used to demonize us based on the claim that because we don't support [B], it must mean we support [A] – even though [A] is also against our beliefs as Christians.

Musings on an Email Received

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

— G.K. Chesterton

We should be tolerant towards our fellow men, whatever be their mistakes, provided their mistakes be not injurious to the common good, or to the peace of society.  But such tolerance does not oblige us to admit that their mistakes are not mistakes.  Truth excludes error.  And he who wants the truth will not get it by tolerating error.  Tolerance does not mean that one must agree that the ideas of others are right when he believes them to be wrong.'

— Fathers Rumble and McCarthy.  (Radio Replies vol. 3.  Page 52)

I received an email I have seen come and go during the years, which makes the rounds on "Whether a Muslim can be a Good American."  The anonymous author of the piece argued they could not, listing several grounds, largely based on how Islam is a foreign religion with foreign loyalties.

I felt a sense of déjà vu when reading these statements – These statements were commonly used up to 1960 (and are still used by a minority today) as reasons to claim that a Catholic could not be a good American. 

I feel no need to defend Islam, which I believe to be contradictory to the Revelation of Christ and therefore false.

However, it is disturbing that some individuals cannot distinguish between the error of Islam and the people who practice it and whom we are commanded to love by our Lord even if some of them hate us.  It is not acceptance of Islam as equal to Christianity to state that we must treat persons who believe in Islam the way God commands us to.

As Christians, we are forbidden to bear false witness against our neighbors.  Therefore we must determine whether an accusation is true, not merely assume the worst of those who do not share our faith.

Musings on an Email Received

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

— G.K. Chesterton

We should be tolerant towards our fellow men, whatever be their mistakes, provided their mistakes be not injurious to the common good, or to the peace of society.  But such tolerance does not oblige us to admit that their mistakes are not mistakes.  Truth excludes error.  And he who wants the truth will not get it by tolerating error.  Tolerance does not mean that one must agree that the ideas of others are right when he believes them to be wrong.'

— Fathers Rumble and McCarthy.  (Radio Replies vol. 3.  Page 52)

I received an email I have seen come and go during the years, which makes the rounds on "Whether a Muslim can be a Good American."  The anonymous author of the piece argued they could not, listing several grounds, largely based on how Islam is a foreign religion with foreign loyalties.

I felt a sense of déjà vu when reading these statements – These statements were commonly used up to 1960 (and are still used by a minority today) as reasons to claim that a Catholic could not be a good American. 

I feel no need to defend Islam, which I believe to be contradictory to the Revelation of Christ and therefore false.

However, it is disturbing that some individuals cannot distinguish between the error of Islam and the people who practice it and whom we are commanded to love by our Lord even if some of them hate us.  It is not acceptance of Islam as equal to Christianity to state that we must treat persons who believe in Islam the way God commands us to.

As Christians, we are forbidden to bear false witness against our neighbors.  Therefore we must determine whether an accusation is true, not merely assume the worst of those who do not share our faith.

After You, Malik

Sources: Pakistani Minister calls on Interpol and the Pope to condemn Florida Koran burning, Pakistani minister wants international action against Florida pastor who burned Qur'an

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik is calling for legal action to be taken against the Florida idiot pastor who burned a copy of the Koran.

Let's think about this.  On one hand, we have an individual bigot who burned a copy of the Koran.

On the other hand, we have a nation where Christians have been martyred recently.  A nation where Christians are sentenced to death for "Blasphemy."  A nation where churches are burned in disproportionate response.

Which is the more serious offense in the eyes of God?

Let Pakistan put an end to the barbarism done in that nation before attempting to treat this idiot's act as an international affront.

I do condemn Terry Jones' action, but lets have a sense of proportion here.  The burning of the Koran does not justify murder, arson, rioting or sentencing Christians to death.

If Jones' action is an outrage, then what do you call the actions in Pakistan, Minister Malik?

After You, Malik

Sources: Pakistani Minister calls on Interpol and the Pope to condemn Florida Koran burning, Pakistani minister wants international action against Florida pastor who burned Qur'an

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik is calling for legal action to be taken against the Florida idiot pastor who burned a copy of the Koran.

Let's think about this.  On one hand, we have an individual bigot who burned a copy of the Koran.

On the other hand, we have a nation where Christians have been martyred recently.  A nation where Christians are sentenced to death for "Blasphemy."  A nation where churches are burned in disproportionate response.

Which is the more serious offense in the eyes of God?

Let Pakistan put an end to the barbarism done in that nation before attempting to treat this idiot's act as an international affront.

I do condemn Terry Jones' action, but lets have a sense of proportion here.  The burning of the Koran does not justify murder, arson, rioting or sentencing Christians to death.

If Jones' action is an outrage, then what do you call the actions in Pakistan, Minister Malik?

No Swans are Black: Reflections on Agnosticism

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

—Attributed to Albert Einstein

Introduction

I have encountered several types of agnostics who range in opinion from claiming we can know nothing at all to those who deny we can know religious knowledge.  The agnostic differs from the atheist in the sense that atheists claim to know there is no God while the agnostic claims that nobody can know whether there is a God or not.  (Some atheists tend towards agnostic arguments, saying that one cannot know one way or another, but it is more reasonable to assume not).

However, while agnostics do differ in what they claim to be unknowable, they do have one thing in common.  Whatever they claim is unknowable, they effectively claim to know where this boundary line is.  It is a claim to know we can't know.  The problem is, once the claim is given "We know," one can ask the reasons "how does one know?"

Ipse Dixit

Now at the level of total agnosticism ("We can't know anything"). such a claim is a self-contradiction.  At lesser levels of denial, we have a right to ask what sort of "proof" is desired and whether such a demand is reasonable.  For example, to demand physical proof of something which is not made of matter is unreasonable.  For example: think of your eye color.  Now physically prove that thought exists in a way which does not involve ipse dixit.

I do not ask this question out of mere argument.  Just as unbelievers ask Christians for "proof" about our faith, we do have the right to ask for their justification to claim we can definitively know some things cannot be known.  Moreover, if one insists on limiting proof to certain areas, we can ask them to practice what they preach and limit themselves to the same areas.

There is a difference however between the one who says "I do not know" and the person who says "This cannot be known."  The former still searches for knowledge.  The latter has stopped searching, claiming to know further searching is futile.

Limitation of Individual Knowledge is not an Absolute Limit to Knowledge

Unfortunately, this kind of knowledge is not an acknowledgement of the limitation of the knowledge of all persons.  It is based on the limitation of knowledge by an individual with the claim that because one person has a limitation of knowledge, no person can ever know what this individual does not.  It does not consider the possibility of personal deficiency of knowledge for example.  It does not consider the possibility of misunderstanding what another claims to experience.

Falsifiability

It is essentially the old claim of "No swans are black."  Prior to their discovery in the 17th century, Europeans thought they did not exist.  So the assumption was:

1. Nothing in the Past demonstrates Black Swans exist.
2. Therefore we cannot know black swans exist.

The problem is: our lack of knowledge does not mean that nobody can know they exist.  If we see a white swan, it is reasonable to say "This swan is not black."  It is not reasonable to say either "no black swans exist" or "we cannot know that black swans exist."  Such an assertion is limited by geography and experience.  In fact, once black swans were discovered, it was no longer reasonable to deny that black swans existed or to claim that knowledge of black swans could not be known

So to base the possibility to know based on what has been known in the past is to make an assertion which is necessary limited, and if it is too limited, cannot be considered reliable.

This is why just because one, two, ten, a hundred claims to knowledge does not satisfy a person as being adequate, it does not follow that no claims to know are true or can be known.

Conclusion

The difference between agnosticism and saying "I do not know" is a difference between making a declaration of knowledge in general and one who admits one's own deficiency.  The Agnostic says "I cannot know… and neither can you!"  The person who says "I do not know" but does not assume his lack of knowledge is shared by all.

Of course not all agnostics are arrogant.  Some are sincere, but become frustrated by their lack of progress and can end up saying "I tried, I can't get anywhere.  It can't be known."  (Former atheist Jennifer Fulwiler describes hitting this wall in her testimony).  To such a person, I would hope to encourage by saying that just because one hits a wall does not mean there is no way around it.  I won't claim it is easy to find the answers, and I know it can be frustrating not to have an answer one can understand.

However, the ultimate defeat comes not from not knowing but from giving up and stopping the search all together.