Over at The Fallacy Files, the article
The Arguments That Failed discusses the Boston Review Article
God; Philosophers Weigh In by Alex Byrne. Both demonstrate the problems with Anselm's "Ontological" Argument, The Design Argument and The "Fine-Tuning" Argument.
When you don't have a good argument, just use the Hitler Analogy!
I love the blog The NonSequitur. It is a logical analysis of political Media. While most of the politics is over my head (since I'm not much of fan of politics) I do enjoy seeing a fallacy get a good rogering! One day this week they talked about Nazi Analogies in the political sphere.
Earlier this month I posted an article on eight reasons why it was a fallacy as used by Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor while discussing governments ruled by reason alone.
Anne Applebaum in her Washington Post column said the following about it.
The Hitler Analogy
No, I am not drawing comparisons between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, two vastly different men, by citing these statements. Nevertheless, it is clear from the above that Bush and Putin, despite their vast differences, share a common contemporary ailment: Each suffers from the inexplicable need to inject the Nazis into current political debate, whether they belong there or not.
True, it seems that Nazi analogies can be used with almost infinite flexibility.
It is so widespread that it is listed in the taxonomy of Fallacies over at the The Fallacy Files.
"The Hitler Card" from The Fallacy Files
And like a cool breeze on a warm summers day, Jamie Steele uses it in my article on "Brains 'Trust Machinery' Identified".
To which Evan pointed out this was predicted by Godwins Law
Hoist up the Jolly Roger, let out the sails! Catch that breeze and muster up ramming speed MATEYS, HAR!
Which fallacies are the good cardinal guilty of and why?
...he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme why he thought it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone. He said that "supposedly faithless societies" ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin, ripe for "terror and oppression". Full Story
These are the ones I identified in the course of five minutes. Can you identify any others?
* Part to whole Comparison fallacy - If its true that societies created by Hitler and Stalin were "supposedly faithless", that doesn't mean that all "supposedly faithless" society are like Hitler and Stalins or that "supposedly faithless societies" necessarily will end up like Hitler and Stalins.
* Faulty Analogy - Hitler and Stalins societies had more going on in them than just being "supposedly faithless".
* Causal Oversimplification - Ignores qualifiers that made Hitlers and Stalins societies "ripe for terror and oppression".
* Unrepresentative Sample - Stipulating that the two examples are valid, two bad examples are not enough examples to show a trend that "supposedly faithless" societies are likely to be "ripe for terror and oppression".
* Special Pleading - Because not only "supposedly faithless societies" were ripe for "terror and oppression". I know that a few in the catholic church leadership over the centuries have quite a bit of blood on thier hands.
* Appeal to Consequences - Simply asserts that "supposedly faithless societies" are "ripe for terror and oppression" without saying why.
* Appeal to Emotion - Trying to evoke strong negative emotions in relation to a society ruled by "reason alone"
* Non-Sequitur - Because I don't think that any rational person would say that Hitler "governed by reason alone". In my view, Hitler was a little insane.
Faulty reasoning in leadership is scary.
Its also interesting to note that his motivation to respect atheists seems to be driven by his "concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life".
Hone your skills over at the LSAT Logic in Everyday Life podcast.