50 Recognizing an argument (Atheism - Constructing a Logical Argument)
Description
This article is from the Atheism FAQ, by mathew meta@pobox.com with numerous contributions by others.
50 Recognizing an argument (Atheism - Constructing a Logical Argument)
Sometimes arguments won't follow the order described above. For
instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises
stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly
valid, if sometimes a little confusing.
Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Lots
of people shower their writing with assertions, without ever producing
anything you might reasonably call an argument.
To make the situation worse, some statements look like arguments but
aren't. For example:
"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an
evil liar, or the Son of God."
The statement above isn't an argument; it's a conditional statement.
It doesn't assert the premises which are needed to support what looks
like its conclusion. (Even if you add those assertions, it still
suffers from a number of other logical flaws -- see the section on
this argument in the "Atheist Arguments" document.)
Here's another example:
"God created you; therefore obey and worship God."
The phrase "obey and worship God" is neither true nor false. Therefore
it isn't a proposition, and the sentence isn't an argument.
Causality is important as well. Suppose we're trying to argue that
there's something wrong with the engine of a car. Let's look at two
statements of the form "A because B". Here's the first:
"The car won't start because there's something wrong with the
engine."
That's not an argument for there being something wrong with the
engine; it's an explanation of why the car won't start. We're
explaining A, using B as the explanation.
Now consider a second statement:
"There must be something wrong with the engine of the car, because
it won't start."
Here we're arguing for A, giving B as evidence. The statement "A
because B" is an argument.
The difference between the two cases might not be completely clear.
So, remember that "A because B" is equivalent to "B therefore A". The
two statements then become:
"There's something wrong with the engine, therefore the car won't
start."
And:
"The car won't start, therefore there's something wrong with the
engine."
We're supposed to be arguing that there's something wrong with the
engine, but now it's plain that the first statement doesn't do that at
all. Only the second statement is arguing that there's something wrong
with the engine.
Continue to:
My Books
