Most people belief that the earth is round, but we can’t be certain because the Flat Earth Society insists it is flat.
Most scientists think that global warming is accelerated by CO2 emissions, but we can’t know for sure because others say it is not.
The preceding two sentences are examples of a logical fallacy known as a false equivalency, sometimes called the “both sides” argument. (See the definition and explanation below as well as here and here).
The logical fallacy known as a false equivalency presents two different positions, or different sides of an argument, as if they were equally valid when, in fact, they are not. This highly illogical way of looking at the world has become increasingly common in both news and social media.
Sometimes it appears innocently when a person, such as a reporter, is unclear about the facts of a case and wants their presentation to appear unbiased. In this instance, an honest reporter will admit his ignorance as he gives both sides of a possible explanation.
More often, however, false equivalencies are intentionally used to mislead and to misinform. It is a common rhetorical trick deployed in political propaganda.
I recently heard an outrageous example of false equivalency on the radio while I was listening to a conservative call-in program (driving cross-country looking to trap a little falcon called a merlin).
A Trump-voter had called the program and was deriding Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (NOTE: I am NOT a fan of either!!!) while insisting that the recent presidential election was fraudulent.
(Heads up on another false equivalency: many say Biden won the election, but many Trump supporters say the election way rigged. Therefore, we can’t know the actually winner).
The pro-Trump caller noted that while Democrats applauded Kamala Harris because she and Biden intended TO UNIFY the country, he knew that both were avid communists intent on destroying America.
How did he know this?
Well, he cited a specific page from Karl Marx’s work, The Communist Manifesto. Marx urges his fellow revolutionaries “TO UNIFY” the proletariat (that is, the workers) in their pursuit of radical, political transformation.
In other words — according to this caller’s logic — whereas some people thought the Democratic presidential ticket was hoping to heal the nation (Ahem: if you really believe that, I’ve got a good deal on a piece of swamp land in Florida to sell you), he knew that the Democrats were really closet Communists planning a socialist revolution to destroy America.
How did he know this?
Well, both Harris and Marx talked about uniting the common people.
Of course, the host of the call-in program did not point out this whopping, outrageous instance false equivalency. In fact, he thanked the caller for his historical insight and let the comparison stand, thereby giving it his official, radio stamp of approval!
That is how propaganda works. And I hope my readers can see for themselves how very malicious such false equivalencies can be.
But false equivalencies are also used by people like politicians and church pastors who are afraid of losing part of their audience.
Rather than taking a position on a controversial issue; rather than calling out falsehoods and misinformation; rather than explaining why one position is clearly illegitimate while another is the ethical position required by good citizenship or Christian faith, these “leaders” will describe a variety of positions as all equally legitimate possibilities.
For instance, the Black Lives Matters movement sparked a deluge of bogus false equivalency arguments from conservative church leaders, though I don’t have space to describe them all here.
We see that the question boils down to a matter of discernment. How do we know the truth of a matter? Of all people in this world, Christians ought to have an especially deep allegiance to knowing the truth.
So, here are a few key ingredients to help us in pursuing the truth in public debate:
- Do your research. What are the facts? What is the relative expertise of the supposed “experts” whose conclusions disagree? Are there reasons for either side to be biased in its conclusions? (For instance, when the work of “scientists” who minimize the dangers of global warming is funded by the fossil fuel industry, their arguments are HIGHLY suspect). Who is paying for these people to say the things they say? Are there other vested interests at stake in the argument? What is the background, education, professional history of the various people making these claims?
- Yes, this type of research takes time, so admit ignorance when necessary. What? You say you don’t have that much time to spare? If that is the case, then – to put it bluntly – stop talking. If I don’t have the time to educated myself about a subject, then I shouldn’t be making pronouncements about it. That doesn’t mean I can’t discuss it, but it does mean that I must speak with hesitation and humility. Drop the pretense of self-confidence. Learn to say, “I’m not sure. I don’t know. This is only my opinion.”
- Grow a spine. This point is especially pertinent to people who call themselves Christians. NOT ALL POSITIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID OR ACCEPTABLE. Thus, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and immorality must be identified and condemned wherever you see them.
All politics involves moral judgment. Pastors who say they won’t allow politics into their church are deluding themselves. The real question is, What sort of politics are you encouraging your people to embrace (whether explicitly or implicitly, by promotion or silence)?
Every Christian must be committed to exemplifying Christ-like morality. And that includes politics.
It only follows, then, that many political positions/decisions must be rejected by God’s people, since not all conflicting positions can be equally ethical, true, or Christ-like.
The basis for a Christian’s political decisions must always be the life, character, and teaching of Jesus Christ. (No, Jesus may not have an opinion on every policy, but he does have an opinion on the over-arching moral effects of our politics).
Any supposed church leader who either (a) fails to apply this “Jesus test” to their politics, or (b) says that any and all political views are equally permissible within the church – in other words, there are no truly “false” equivalencies, only diverse equivalencies – is either lazy, dull-witted, or cowardly.
The gospel witness of Christ’s church can only suffer when leaders either employ or tolerate these sorts of false equivalencies. Yet, they are rampant within today’s political discourse.
Where is the church’s influence in combating this sort of propaganda?
Where is the church taking a stand for TRUTH in public discourse?
From what I can see, the church is not very different from the polarized, partisan public that draws life from the popularization of of malicious and illogical false equivalencies.
As I see it, baptizing this brand of sloppy thinking is merely the lazy person’s way of appearing tolerant.
