Logical Fallacies for Christians 4: Attacking the Confidence

This is part 4 of our series on what Christians should know about logical fallacies.

4: Attacking the Confidence

What is it?

When someone attacks your knowledge, experience, or qualifications instead of providing counter-evidence or argumentation to your position. Usually, it’s just a personal attack, an excuse for their failure to counter-argue, and an attempt to get you to shut up and go away.

Examples

“Who are you to argue against the Trinity? You’re not a theologian!”

“You have no idea if I’m crazy! You’re not a psychiatrist! I tell you, I am Napoleon Bonaparte!”

Discussion

A woman I once knew was what you’d call a “know-it-all”. She was always right about everything and bragged about the various qualifications she got in school, her ability to speak French (she couldn’t), how smart she was, how wonderful her life was, and how she’d be inheriting a lot of money “soon”, and so on.

Well, one night, she turned up at my house at about 1 AM, claiming that “secret agents” from the British spy agency, MI6, had been breaking into her home to install spy equipment. Moreover, that evening, the spies had assaulted her and touched her in intimate places. The police, she said, would not take her seriously, since “the CIA” had already come to “remove all the evidence.”

It was, of course, all in some way related to the alien spacecraft that had been landing in her garden.

I think that goes without saying.

In reality, she was a fantasist with a schizophrenia diagnosis. She had merely stopped taking her antipsychotic medication and had begun imagining things (again). However, when pointing out that it was likely psychosis:

“You aren’t a psychiatrist. What do you know?”

Very true! I’m not a psychiatrist! So what do I know? Maybe MI6, the CIA, and the aliens are all conspiring to spy on her. It must be most interesting to spy on her as she unpacks her shopping and vacuums her living room.

After all, I’m not qualified to say otherwise, am I?

This is an extreme example, but this logical fallacy is not unique to people having serious psychotic episodes. It’s also quite a common fallacy among arrogant and argumentative people.

Arrogant people

You see, when arrogant people cannot provide evidence for their position, they will often instead attack the person (ad hominem), and one form of this is to say:

“You aren’t qualified!”

That way, they don’t need to provide evidence or argumentation.

“Surely,” you may ask, “sometimes it’s right to ignore what an unqualified person says?”

Yes.

For example, if a complete novice told a surgeon how to perform surgery, the surgeon could reasonably say, “You are not qualified to tell me what to do.”

However, that’s not the situation we’re talking about…

The fallacy appears when a person uses your lack of qualifications as an excuse to avoid countering your evidence or arguments.

For example, if the novice said to the surgeon:

“The hospital report says 99% of your patients died on the operating table.”

And the surgeon retorts:

“Well, you aren’t qualified to read such reports!”

Yes, now we have found the fallacy.

“You aren’t qualified” becomes a magical “Get Out of Jail Free” card that can be whipped out at any moment whenever the person can’t counter-argue.

Another example:

Novice: “You removed the wrong leg on this patient!”
Surgeon: “You aren’t qualified to make medical assessments!”

Furthermore, even quoting qualified people is not allowed:

Novice: “The Medical Authority took away your license.”
Surgeon: “You know nothing about the practice of medicine!”

This fallacy often happens in religious discussions, especially with emotionally immature types who get upset when others dare to have different viewpoints. They try to get people they disagree with to shut up and go away by suddenly introducing requirements for ‘qualifications’ that others must meet.

For example:

Adam: “I don’t believe in the Trinity for the following reasons...”
Jill: “You can’t make those arguments, you aren’t a theologian!”

It does not matter whether Adam is a theologian or not. If he is citing reasons for his belief, then those reasons must be addressed directly. It may be that Jill can’t address them or counter them, so she attacks Adam’s confidence instead.

She does this by making up certain requirements that must be met – in this case, qualifications, and abuses Adam for not living up to these made-up-on-the-fly standards. The more impossible the requirements, the better. Set that bar as high as humanly possible, that way she’ll “win”.

However, what if Adam did turn out to be a theologian? Well, logically, it would be an irrelevant Appeal to Authority fallacy anyway. His qualification would not mean that he is right, nor more than his lacking a qualification would make Jill right.

However, let’s pretend that he IS a theologian. What does Jill do next?

She brings out the excuse parade!

An excuse parade is where one excuse is trotted out to support the previous failed excuse.

Jill: “You aren’t a theologian!”
Adam: “Yes I am. I have a theology degree from University X.”
Jill: “Ha! University X is a garbage university!”
Adam: “University X is the leading center for theology in my country.”
Jill: “Yeah well, you obviously didn’t pay much attention in class.”
Adam: “I graduated with the highest possible marks.”
Jill: “Then your professors are idiots.”

And so on.

And so on.

Forever.

No matter what Adam says or does, another excuse will be made up and trotted out into the parade – all to support the original fallacy. Jill is always right and always will be, no matter what.

You can’t win against people like Jill.

Ever.

Further, can you spot the hypocrisy? Look closely, and you’ll see it.

Imagine that Adam did believe in the Trinity and had agreed with Jill from the start. He said:

“Yes Jill, you are completely right, the Trinity is undoubtedly true.”

Will Jill then angrily say, “You can’t make that argument, you’re not a theologian”? No, of course not; she will say no such thing. There is no high bar if you agree with her. The high bar only comes out if you disagree with her.

If you agree with Jill, then her requirement that you be a theologian from Oxford evaporates into nothing like morning dew in the sunlight. The high bar is set for those who disagree and only those who disagree.

One rule for me, another rule for thee.

Also, it’s quite likely that Jill isn’t a theologian herself. Yet for mysterious and magical reasons, that does not matter.

Another example:

One man posted a long passage from a book showing why a particular Bible verse is a known fraud that was inserted in the Middle Ages. It contained many highly detailed references to original manuscripts and ancient primary sources. His opponent simply retorted:

“You have no business quoting that book! You aren’t a manuscript expert!”

Yes, to these people, even quoting evidence from experts is not allowed (if they don’t like it). Yes – nobody, at any time, can quote evidence or an argument for anything unless you personally hold a Ph.D. in that subject.

Okay, then! Let’s run with that:

“The weather forecast says it will rain all day tomorrow.”
“You’re not a meteorologist!”

“The police officer said that you must wear a seatbelt because it’s the law.”
“You’re not a lawyer!”

“My accountant says I should benefit from the latest tax cut.”
“You’re not a qualified accountant!”

By this logic, nobody, at any time, can quote anything anybody says, ever.

This is insane.

And if you do happen to have the very qualifications they demand? Then they’ll think up some other excuse instead.

They are never wrong.

They are always right.

Always and forever.

There is a deeper lesson here. If you see someone saying such things, understand that it’s an excuse, not an argument. Learn to identify the differences between excuses, evidence, and argument.

Especially when you open your own mouth.

Do you disagree with this post? Ha! You aren’t a qualified expert on logic from Harvard University with a Ph.D. and tenure, are you?!

I thought not!

So shut up!