What is the Persuasive Definition Fallacy?

Planet of the Apes is a fascinating franchise. In the first movie, astronaut George Taylor finds himself on a strange planet in which the relationship between man and ape is reversed. Human beings are relatively primitive, possessing the decency to wear clothes, but being basically animalistic besides this. By contrast, apes of all kinds form a flourishing society, complete with philosophy, religion, science, and "animal husbandry" - they keep humans as we keep cattle.

Initially suffering a throat injury, Taylor himself is mute for the first portion of his life among the apes. However, he eventually shows he can write, catching the attention of his handlers, Zira and Cornelius. Unfortunately, the idea of intelligent human beings is against the apes' religion, and so the two find themselves on trial for heresy. But when antagonist Dr. Zaius warns that they endanger their own careers by "defending this animal", Taylor shocks the courtroom by announcing "then I'll defend myself".

After a brief kerfuffle, Zira asserts that Taylor is capable of more than mere speech, but can even reason. So Dr. Zaius puts their claim to the test, asking Taylor several questions about the apes' religion. When Taylor admits he knows nothing of the apes' culture, Dr. Zaius announces that this is because he cannot think.

This is an example of the persuasive definition fallacy, because Dr. Zaius has defined "reason" in such a way as to suit his own cause. Whereas "reason" actually refers to the ability to think logically, Dr. Zaius has defined it along the lines of specifically religious thought.

Planet of the Apes is clearly designed as a critique of religious thought. The religious leaders, such as Dr. Zaius, are portrayed as anti-intellectual, closed-minded bigots, governed by fear and hatred. By contrast, the "good guys" are even quite explicitly Evolutionists, though their theory is that apes may have evolved from humans. Ironically, while Planet of the Apes is designed to portray religious thought as irrational, the two real-world examples I have chosen to exemplify this fallacy are both atheistic.

The first can be seen in the header image, which is a real comment Bible Brain received on the Facebook page. Originally, I had shared a meme I found on my timeline (which itself was a Christian page sharing a meme they found in a group). In the original post, an Evolutionist stated "The most common argument I hear from creationists for why they think the universe or life was designed is "complexity." But compared to what, and is complexity really the hallmark of design? Is a LEGO brick more or less "designed" than an iPhone? Of course not. So why make that argument at all?"

You can probably see the flaw in this argument, and it boggles my mind that the OP didn't. For starters, "design" is a binary. A thing is either designed, or it isn't. The answer in the case of the brick and phone is yes, both are designed. So I responded by saying "Ah yes, a classic example of "I don't think they thought this one through...". To be clear, the argument isn't "complexity", but IRREDUCIBLE and SPECIFIC complexity. But... did this person really not think, and in 18 hours did her fellow Evolutionists really not point out to her, that it might have been a smarter idea to use something that actually occurs in nature? It's weird how often these attempts to "own" Creationists ultimately end up proving our point for us."

To this, an atheist page replied "I like how you phrased this. "Occurs in nature." The definition of natural is that which wasn't created by an intelligent mind. Naturally occuring means nobody designed it. The context of your post implies you fully understand this. So no, beautiful sunsets, breathtaking forests, rivers, prairies, mountains, and the stars were NOT designed by any god. They are nature. They are naturally occuring. Nobody designed those things."

This is an example of the persuasive definition fallacy, because the atheist has defined "natural" - by all rights a common term - in a non-neutral way. You will find no reputable dictionaries that define "natural" as "that which wasn't created by an intelligent mind". The closest I could find was Cambridge Dictionary, which defines "natural" as: "as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people". So, even things which were indisputably created by intelligent minds - bird nests, termite mounds, pufferfish sand art, etc. - can be considered "natural" because people do not design it. God is not "people" either. Thus, one can say that nature itself is His design, without compromising the absolute closest definition I could find to this atheist's selective definition.

But of course, I could not find anyone who would stoop as low as this particular atheist. Which makes sense, because not even 15% of the Western world, who typically speak English, deny the existence of God. Yet, practically all of us use the term "natural", and its variants, to describe that which requires no human input to come into existence. Thus, this atheist is guilty of the persuasive definition fallacy.

A far more common example of the persuasive definition fallacy is the way in which atheists define the word "faith". It has been very popular in recent years to define "faith" as either "belief without evidence", or even "belief in spite of evidence". Both of these definitions imply that those who have faith cannot possibly have evidence, and may even be in denial of evidence against the thing they have faith in.

But no one in the history of the English language, with the sole exception of sneaky atheists committing this fallacy, has ever used the term "faith" in this manner. Christianity in particular is an evidence-based faith. Even the word "apologetics", which means to give a reasoned defence, is closely associated with Christianity. Why is this? Muslims can do apologetics. Mormons can do apologetics. Even committing this particular fallacy by using this particular argument is an atheistic attempt (and miserable failure) to do apologetics. Yet, Christians, who emphasise faith as the very thing by which salvation is received, also emphasise apologetics that point where word is most commonly associated with our faith. In other words, rather than being the antithesis of evidence, faith, as it is understood in the Christian religion, functions best when it is supplemented by evidence.

And this is no surprise, given that the primary sources of the faith didn't give their lives for what they had received, but for what they saw. As the saying goes, "liars make poor martyrs". Why? Simply because most people are unwilling to die even for the truth. This is why violent suppression of free speech is so effective. If your life, or even livelihood, is threatened by a higher power - be that the government, or even a large portion of society - you're more likely to follow the crowd. Yet, without exception, every one of the Apostles was willing to die, and some of them even did, for the testimony that they had seen the risen Lord. Yet, they had faith. The same virtue that saves Christians who have never seen Jesus is what saved those who personally felt the wounds of His crucifixion. Faith worked with evidence. So how can faith be considered the antithesis of evidence? Only if you're trying to skew the debate in your favor using the persuasive definition fallacy.

In the case of the persuasive definition fallacy, dictionaries can help. Even lacking a reputable dictionary, an apologist's prerogative is to define his own terms. An opponent my use a particular definition of a word, but an apologist has just as much of a right to reject it. The condition is clarity. The persuasive definition fallacy seeks to define terms in ways that are intentionally favorable towards one's own position. If that is made clear, that's actually acceptable. Sneaky when concealed, but detrimental when exposed. Like wearing dark clothing to hide in a dark room, it becomes useless when the light is switched on. In the case of the two examples in this article, the bias of the atheist is exposed. When I use the term "natural", I'm obviously not denying the existence of God, because I am a Christian. Similarly, when I use "faith", I'm not contrasting it with evidence, because I am an apologist. If the atheists wish to continue using the terms by their definitions, let them continue to do so, but do not let them impose these alien definitions on anyone who does not likewise share them.

AI usage

AI was used to create the parchment background in the header image.