Married folks are no strangers to non-sequiturs, even though many of them may not be familiar with the fancy Latin term. In plain English, it means ‘It does not follow’, a sentiment that one cannot help feeling when something from one’s significant other in no way or form follows from what has preceded. Close observation of such situations reveals that if one is reckless enough to give voice to the thought, what follows is even less related to what has gone before. Prudence therefore demands that the sentiment remains unexpressed– in Latin, in English or in any other tongue for that matter. Discretion, after all, is the better part of valour.
But non-sequiturs are hardly confined to arguments between married couples. They are ubiquitous– in political speeches, in interviews, in heated religious discussions and in casual conversations; in public places, drawing rooms and on social media alike. Pointing out that your opponent has been guilty of a ranked non-sequitur is resented in these settings too; but nowhere else is the hazard involved comparable to the risk if one is foolish enough to express it to one’s better half.
While it is true that in some cases it is a planned, tactical move; in most cases, non-sequiturs are employed unconsciously. That is, individuals do it while sincerely believing that they could not have been any more logical. There is no shortage therefore of courage of conviction on their part. Which makes the task of trying and making them review their reasoning that much more challenging.
Outside marital arguments (our no-go zone), the non-sequitur arguably appears most frequently in arguments that propose to ‘prove’ the non-existence of God. Certainly not all, but many atheists who rely on such arguments genuinely believe them to be valid. What makes the situation even more unfortunate is that many of their theist adversaries also fail to spot the flaw in the reasoning. Once that happens, they find themselves facing the dilemma of having to either publicly acknowledge that their belief in God was misplaced, or else resort to desperate apologies for a belief that has been thoroughly shaken on the inside. Talk about finding oneself between a rock and a hard place.
Unless one subjects them to careful scrutiny, these arguments typically sound mighty impressive. For such, usually, is the appearance of these arguments that it is not easy– for the one presenting it as well as the one who is obliged to respond to it– to see that the conclusion drawn is unwarranted. That, while the argument (if purged of its non-sequitur) could legitimately prove many things, it falls short of leading to the conclusion that is being presented. It rarely occurs to either side that in its present form, the argument is little more than a mere slogan. It is safe to say about all the popular ‘arguments’ against the existence of God that those who present them have not thought them through. But they keep believing them and peddling them around because they sound so convincing. And they sound convincing precisely because they have not been thought through.
The whole exercise, whether intentional or unconscious, smacks of the straw man fallacy. That is, to define, quite arbitrarily, a particular God (from straw, so to speak)– a ‘God’ any sensible theist would be the first to reject– and then to blow it to pieces.
For whatever it is worth, and since the existence of God is a serious matter, I will list some of the more common variations of relevant non-sequiturs that keep doing the rounds. A complete survey would be impossible. However, since there is a common theme to all (which the perceptive reader will identify straightaway), a complete list is quite unnecessary. So, here goes:
God cannot be observed or perceived scientifically; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘There is a lot of disease, death and destruction in the world; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘There is much evil in the world; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘What with galaxy upon uninhabited galaxy, and stars exploding all around, there is great wastefulness and/or pointless violence in the universe; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘Earth is an insignificant dot in the scheme of the whole cosmos; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘Science explains the phenomena of rain earthquakes, floods, and the like; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘Biology describes how life evolved into higher forms; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘Sociology and medicine make clear that murder, incest, and the like, are not good for the species; therefore, God does not exist.’ ‘Anthropology and psychology explain phenomenon such as wishful thinking, fear of death, and group coherence, which in turn account for the human need to invent God. Therefore, God does not exist.’
The non-sequiturs are obvious even if all the premises are accepted as true. All these arguments assume an identical three-step form: First, a certain kind of God is presumed (from pure imagination); Using some fact or observation, the same is then negated. This is followed by the conclusion: ‘Therefore God does not exist’. In sheer enthusiasm, it does not occur to the atheist that the theist probably does not accept that definition of God to start with. However, some of the theists, on their part, are too dazzled by the oratory to point out that while a particular idea of God has indeed been ruled out by the argument, that hardly justifies the blanket statement that God does not exist; that the claim is much more than what is warranted.
The whole exercise, whether intentional or unconscious, smacks of the straw man fallacy. That is, to define, quite arbitrarily, a particular God (from straw, so to speak)– a ‘God’ any sensible theist would be the first to reject– and then to blow it to pieces.
