The "nirvana fallacy" ?

[icehorse]

This is a sort of general or "meta" question:

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

 

[BSM1]

???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a sort of general or "meta" question:

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

If I understand you correctly, the fallacy already has a name:

Logical Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

 

[icehorse]

If I understand you correctly, the fallacy already has a name:

Logical Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

Well I didn't make up the nirvana fallacy, it's already a thing.

I agree that sometimes the apologists' arguments are a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, but I think the nirvana fallacy is a bit different. The nirvana fallacy is more like "since your answer doesn't provide a perfect solution, we should abandon it".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There's a close fallacy called Relative Privation Also known as worse problem fallacy or 'starving children in Africa' fallacy which uses a worse case scenario to draw attention away from the dilemma. In this case it would be:
"Addressing X negative religious belief won't eliminate X belief in other ideologies, therefore we shouldn't address X negative religious belief."
Depending on how this is used, it can be a strawman fallacy (since nobody claimed that all X negative beliefs would be resolved) or a false dillema (we must do nothing or solve all instances of X negative belief.)

Now, there is an appropriate time to bring this up, and that's when you're demonstrating a clear double standard. Such as people who only talk about X negative belief in relation to that one religion but never talk about it in relation to other beliefs. Or if a change can be proposed to help correct X in multiple belief systems but someone only wants to enact change for one group with X.

 

[icehorse]

Now, there is an appropriate time to bring this up, and that's when you're demonstrating a clear double standard. Such as people who only talk about X negative belief in relation to that one religion but never talk about it in relation to other beliefs. Or if a change can be proposed to help correct X in multiple belief systems but someone only wants to enact change for one group with X.

Now I'm going to make up the "biting off more than you can chew" fallacy

I agree that your "worse problem fallacy" is related to the nirvana fallacy. Another way of looking at the nirvana fallacy is that it demands only perfect solutions, and partial solutions are dismissed. So while it's always great to find far reaching solutions, we shouldn't abandon partial solutions, especially if the quest for the perfect solution derails implementing good partial solutions.

In yet other words: "the perfect is often the enemy of the good"

 

[sun rise]

This is a sort of general or "meta" question:

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

I learned a new fallacy!

But to the OP, compare:

Critic: Problem Y is promoted by Religion X because Religion X demands that people worship squirrels. Or to be more real the situation in India with cows is a specific case.

Apologist: Religion X does have that feature but also the following things all promote problem Y. But these particular adherents to Religion X are not part of the problem thus demonstrating that the problem is not in inherent in all followers of Religion X.

Both: So let's discuss why some followers of religion X are part of problem Y and some are not. Or discuss the psychology and sociology of why some are part of the problem and some are not and what it takes for a person to change her or his mind.

What I've seen is that often one or the other don't want to discuss a situation but rather hunker down to repeat, in effect "you're wrong and I'm right" in post after post.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is a sort of general or "meta" question:

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

Actually, (after looking it up), I think it's more of an excuse to look away from religion X by making up core alternatives why problem Y occurs without referring to one of the biggest contributions to the problem, religion X.

It's not an idealized alternative as other factors can cause problem X. Just, if the apologist is using the other alternative to take attention away from the actual cause, that's what I think what is happening.

Somewhat as if my father took someone's life, and instead of attributing the problem caused by it to my father's actions I say (as an apologist) that other factors could have contributed that person's death rather than my father.

I never heard of that fallacy but it sounds like an excuse to deter the cause of the actual problem for smaller contributions to the problem but not the source itself.

 

[icehorse]

Actually, (after looking it up), I think it's more of an excuse to look away from religion X by making up core alternatives why problem Y occurs without referring to one of the biggest contributions to the problem, religion X.

You might be right that it's not the "nirvana fallacy" (although I'm not totally convinced by your argument.)

But - for the sake of discussion, let's say you ARE correct. In any case, what I'm really searching for is the official term used for such fallacy arguments? So, if not the "nirvana" fallacy, then what fallacy is it?

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is a sort of general or "meta" question:

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

I have seen exchanges in which the critic implies Religion X is the root of a problem, rather than that it promotes a problem. In that case the apologist makes a good point. If the argument is worded logically it might not get as much attention or as much of a reaction, so very often arguments are loaded and sloppy. Its not as catchy to say "Well I think that Religion X is a factor in problem Y," and some folks seem to think the best argument is the one that gets the most replies by virtue of being stated in the maximally confused fashion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You might be right that it's not the "nirvana fallacy" (although I'm not totally convinced by your argument.)

But - for the sake of discussion, let's say you ARE correct. In any case, what I'm really searching for is the official term used for such fallacy arguments? So, if not the "nirvana" fallacy, then what fallacy is it?

Well, the only reason I believe it's not Nivanna fallacy is I would assume apologist aren't making up ideal causes for problem Y but just diverting the actual cause.

At least where I live, it wouldn't be called that. It's more -- well, give me a second to think of a more "appropriate" word -- But there probably is a term, I just don't know it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a sort of general or "meta" question:

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

I would say it's just a variation of the red herring fallacy - bringing up a detail that misleads or distracts from the subject under discussion in order to avoid addressing the issue raised; most closely related to the "two wrongs" variation of the fallacy, because it's essentially arguing that "x being a cause of y" is either justified or irrelevant due to "z also being a cause of y". Maybe also with a dash of the fallacy of relative privation. Let's call it "the doubly-wrong red herring of relative privation".

 

[icehorse]

I would say it's just a variation of the red herring fallacy - bringing up a detail that misleads or distracts from the subject under discussion in order to avoid addressing the issue raised; most closely related to the "two wrongs" variation of the fallacy, because it's essentially arguing that "x being a cause of y" is either justified or irrelevant due to "z also being a cause of y". Maybe also with a dash of the fallacy of relative privation. Let's call it "the doubly-wrong red herring of relative privation".

Thanks.

The reason I bring it up is because there is great value in precise labels. I didn't make up "nirvana fallacy". So, for the sake of argument, if nirvana fallacy is the precise label then I would say using that label vs. "the doubly-wrong red herring of relative privation", will make for a far more productive debate / conversation. As is true with all labels that allow for finer distinctions, no?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks.

The reason I bring it up is because there is great value in precise labels. I didn't make up "nirvana fallacy". So, for the sake of argument, if nirvana fallacy is the precise label then I would say using that label vs. "the doubly-wrong red herring of relative privation", will make for a far more productive debate / conversation. As is true with all labels that allow for finer distinctions, no?

How about, "the slippery eel fallacy"?

 

[icehorse]

How about, "the slippery eel fallacy"?

too broad

 

[LuisDantas]

Could it be some form of, let's call it "Presumed privilege fallacy"?

 

[Augustus]

A common exchange on RF goes something like this:

Critic: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Apologist: Well many things promote problem Y, you can't blame religion X.

I've been thinking for a while that the apologist's response is some form of fallacy, but I couldn't place it. Now I'm suspecting this is the "nirvana fallacy"?

Thoughts?

I never make the argument in the OP, but often make

"Icehorse: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Augustus: Well many things promote problem Y because it's human nature.

Sometimes its a response to the 'baseline of zero' fallacy (or the irrational optimism fallacy perhaps). The replacement for a belief is not 'no belief' but 'a different belief'. Many arguments implicitly assume that the replacement belief would result in zero harm (or at least far less harm), when there is no reason to assume that it wouldn't be worse (See the 20th C).

Sometimes it's a response to the fallacy that a war fought between people of different religions must somehow be 'religiously motivated', despite the fact that humans have always fought each other because we are violent species.

An easy example is 2 Mongol conquests:

Genghis Khan's Mongol conquests are generally not seen as being religiously motivated, just about power and glory.

Timur's Mongol conquests on the other hand are seen as being religiously motivated, despite his stated aim being to recreate the empire of his forebear Mr G Khan as was his birthright, simply because in the meantime some Mongols had converted to Islam after conquering some of the Islamic Empires.

Mongols, and steppes nomads in general, were known for their love for, and skill at, warfare. Just because they adopt one of the 'proper' religions, all of a sudden that is the overwhelming marker of their identity, rather than being a Mongol or a Steppes nomad.

 

[icehorse]

I never make the argument in the OP

Was this a Jeff Sessions moment!

 

[Kapalika]

I don't really get the point of this thread. If anything the response is to bring up the fact that their religion is not the source of the problem.

In some cases that may be true, in others it may not be. Life is normally more complicated than "A causes B" it's more like "some of A, B, C, D and E causes F, part of H, and a third of Z" and is a giant complicated web with other causes effects and issues.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't really get the point of this thread. If anything the response is to bring up the fact that their religion is not the source of the problem.

That is not automatically a fact, though. Religion is supposed to deal with motivations and goals. It follows that when it goes off-rail it can indeed be the source of the problem.

I never make the argument in the OP, but often make

"Icehorse: Religion X promotes problem Y.
Augustus: Well many things promote problem Y because it's human nature.

(...)

An easy example is 2 Mongol conquests:

Genghis Khan's Mongol conquests are generally not seen as being religiously motivated, just about power and glory.

Timur's Mongol conquests on the other hand are seen as being religiously motivated, despite his stated aim being to recreate the empire of his forebear Mr G Khan as was his birthright, simply because in the meantime some Mongols had converted to Islam after conquering some of the Islamic Empires.

Thanks for the example.

We should indeed consider the actual facts and doctrines.

Mongols, and steppes nomads in general, were known for their love for, and skill at, warfare. Just because they adopt one of the 'proper' religions, all of a sudden that is the overwhelming marker of their identity, rather than being a Mongol or a Steppes nomad.

Of course, there is the fact - and it is a fact - that Islaam as a doctrine indeed calls believers to join together no matter what; to refuse non-Muslims as "allies and protectors"; and to take arrogant refuge in the belief in the truth of their promise of reward in Heaven for believing.

Mongols may well be predisposed to mishandle such a message, but it is not like it could be saved to begin with.