Is this fallacious, or do I just disagree with one of the premises?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I am writing a response to this statement: "Interfaith engagement leads to relativism and syncretism - both are undermining the truth of the Christian faith, which states that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Therefore, it is better not to engage in interfaith dialogue."
I have presented this as a syllogism of the argument:
1. Interfaith engagement leads to relativism and syncretism.
2. Relativism and syncretism undermine the truth of the Christian faith.
3. (Implied) It is better not to undermine the truth of the Christian faith.
4. Therefore, it is better not to engage in interfaith dialogue.
It seems like there might be some sort of begging the question or similar, since to determine the whether or not the Christian faith is true would require some form of interfaith dialogue. Else, what is there to say whether or not it is, in fact, true?
But I also feel as if that may simply be an objection to one of the premises (probably the first?), because nothing is immediately popping out to me as fallacious when looking at the syllogism.
So, is this argument fallacious, or do I just disagree with one of the premises?
Thanks,
Zach
Comments on Question
Answers
5The form looks fine to me. Non-Christians would, of course, take issue with premises #2 and #3. Premise #1 might be a claim that can be verified or debunked within the social sciences.
Unfortunately, I have real life experience regarding this hypothetical purely academic theologicall question, which disqualfies me from answering it .
Robert W. Armijo
In addition to the premises and logical format, I think cognitive dissonance and backfire play a significant part whenever two people discuss religion. Ergo, unless the rules are set forth in advance, and the participants abide by the rules, such a discussion is a fast way to lose a friend.
I do see a fallacy here; however, I'm not able to give it a name.
As with a number of other arguments that have appeared on the site, the premises lack quantifiers so it's possible to read them as "always", "sometimes", "when conditions are correct", or ... . Therefore, it's very possible for a person arguing for one outcome to consider one quantifier when the person arguing for another outcome can consider a different quantifies ... and arrive at very different conclusions, logically.
For example, if Person A understood premise 1 to be "Interfaith engagement always leads to ..." while Person B understood that same premise to be "Interfaith engagement can sometimes leads to ...", it would seem less likely that we'd have much of a difference in conclusions -- and we'd probably have an easier job of determining if the premises were correct or not.
The two (revised) syllogisms below would likely be assessed at different positions on the "fallacy scale":
Revision 1:
1. Interfaith engagement always leads to relativism and syncretism.
2. Relativism and syncretism always undermine the truth of the Christian faith.
3. (Implied) It is always better not to undermine the truth of the Christian faith.
4. Therefore, it is always better not to engage in interfaith dialogue.
Revision 2:
1. Interfaith engagement sometimes leads to relativism and syncretism.
2. Relativism and syncretism sometimes undermine the truth of the Christian faith.
3. (Implied) It is sometimes better not to undermine the truth of the Christian faith.
4. Therefore, it is sometimes better not to engage in interfaith dialogue. (with the implication that sometimes engaging in interfaith dialogue might be a good thing)
Of course, perhaps I'm making the error of assuming that open, clear, intellectual discussion can at times strengthen understanding of a topic or concept, even if much of the discussion opposes one's originally-held views.
Have you tried venn diagrams to reduce your argument?
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I experienced such an encouter in college during a campus crusade for Christ among many divergent sects of Christianity, which reminded me of the diversity andadivision among the deciples of Christ -- Let's see what the Dead Sea Scolls have to say before we close this case, eh.