| Persuasive Definition |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Persuasive Definition
|
Logical Fallacy of Persuasive Definition / Appeal to Definition / Appeal to the Dictionary / Definist Fallacy (type of) / Rhetorical DefinitionPersuasive definition is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This is a fallacy that superimposes another level of fallacy on top or one or more of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of persuasive definition / definist fallacy (type of) / Rhetorical Definition occurs when someone defines a word in a way that helpful in persuading the audience to believe the conclusion but doesn’t really support the conclusion. The definist fallacy can mean the fallacy of persuasive definition, the definition of one property in terms of another, or the Socratic fallacy in which terms are required to be defined before use. Here, we are only dealing with the fallacy of persuasive definition. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Persuasive Definition / Appeal to Definition / Appeal to the Dictionary / Definist Fallacy (type of) / Rhetorical Definition“Terms such as ‘natural laws’, ‘miracle’, and ‘methodological naturalism’ have been used in the public square very effectively by secularists to shut out any notion that God interacts with the real world. Some of these, such as ‘miracle’ and ‘natural laws’, were older terms given new meanings that ruled out theism. Others, such as ‘methodological naturalism’, are terms favorable to anti-Christian ideals coined to express the fundamental tenets of what scientists do in such a way that it makes science sound intrinsically anti-Christian and anti-Bible.” (read the entire article)
Atheists have begun to try to change the meaning of Atheism from a belief that God doesn’t exist to just saying that they don’t have enough evidence for God. The reason for doing this is that they have become aware that the old definition commits the fallacy of universal negative. Yet, the new definition causes quite an equivocation when they argue as one who believes God doesn’t exist, yet maintain their new definition for argument’s sake. For example, why would anyone become dogmatic, upset, or angry if they felt that they didn’t know about something? Why not be open-minded to trying to seek and to find God?
There are many problems with this argument, but using the word, religion, as the reason that they should get tax money while other religions should not is an example of the fallacy of appeal to definition.
It is very understandable why an Atheist would want to dodge any discussion of the scientific Law of Biogenesis or any questions about specifically describing how they think that the first life began, however, this is an example of the fallacy of appeal to definition. Evolution has many definitions.
Some followers of Christ use this example of the logical fallacy of appeal to definition because they are intimidated and don’t want to be called Bible-thumpers or worse. The correct premise would be something like, “Gay marriage is wrong because Jesus Christ, Who is God, says that marriage is defined as being a life-long union between one man and one woman. Marriage is holy and it is part of God’s plan for the Universe.”
This short sentence creates a misunderstanding of the word, miracle. To refer to natural “law” as a law is a metaphor. All metaphors break down at a certain point. Though they may help us to understand something complex, all metaphors break the law of non-contradiction. The word, law, refers to a stated restriction that prescribes a certain action. They can be broken. Natural laws are not that kind of law at all. Natural laws are behaviors in nature to which we see no exception. We never, for instance, see information being added to anything unless that information comes from other information. If God is the enforcer of the natural laws as He reveals that He is, then natural laws are simply how God almost always enforces that way that the Universe works. If, for some special purpose, He does something a little bit differently (heals the sick, raises the dead, gives information that can’t be gotten through observation of material objects, prepares a giant fish to swallow Jonah), that is not a violation of anything. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Ambiguous Assertion Innuendo Sly Suggestion Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Idiosyncratic Language Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Argument by Gibberish Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
