Imagine two people arguing over the shape of the Earth. One of them contends that the Earth is flat. He lays forth his claims, he presents his evidence, but no matter what he does, he cannot convince his opponent the Earth is flat. Finally, his opponent delivers a killing blow to the flat Earth myth, and the flat Earther agrees. Clearly, the Earth can't be flat. "Well then," his opponent concludes, "I guess you've got to agree that we are standing on a gigantic cube."
I'm willing to assume the majority of my readers will believe the Earth is actually a sphere. Because of this, you will likely also understand that the refutation of the flat Earth myth would not, by default, grant any credibility to the idea that the Earth is a cube. Rather, what I have just presented is an example of what's called a "false dichotomy".
A false dichotomy occurs in one of two ways. The first, as in the original example, is to present two mutually exclusive options as though they were the only possibilities. In this case, while mutually exclusive, flat and cube are only two possible shapes the Earth could be. There are other alternatives, of course including the actual shape of the Earth: Spherical.
The other form the false dichotomy takes is to frame two compatible options as mutually exclusive. An example of this is shown in the header image. It is very common among atheists to frame God and science as mutually exclusive. In reality, the two are quite compatible, and in fact it was a renewed belief in the God of the Bible that kickstarted the scientific revolution. Modern science both owes its origins to the Christian faith, and is sustained by inherently Theistic assumptions.
The main issue with this distinction is its category error. Science and faith are no more mutually exclusive than any other creation/creator dynamic. For example, one might look to engineering to figure out the inner workings of a car, but this will tell you nothing about who made the car. In fact, any reference to a car's creator can be removed or replaced, and the car will still function as normal. Thus, to claim one can either believe in engineering, or in, for example, Henry Ford, is to commit the false dichotomy fallacy. In the same way, to claim one can believe in science (the study of creation) or God (the Creator) is to commit the false dichotomy fallacy.
Such analogies are a very effective way to expose the false dichotomy fallacy. By not only showing that the fallacy has occurred, but also exposing the true relationship between these supposedly "mutually exclusive" fields, you disarm the fallacy altogether. It can also be helpful, though this may backfire, to point to alternative views which, while you may not agree with, are still "viable" in the sense that they could be true, if neither of your views are.
AI usage
AI was used to create the header image of this article.