Strawman and Reductio ad Absurdum Arguments

Two recent posts I read got me thinking about reductio ad absurdum arguments. Luke at Voice of the Lamb explains that he used to be an Arminian, and while he was he held to a distorted view of Calvinism. Calvinism was repeatedly misrepresented and mangled. Later in life he studied Calvinism from primary sources and came to very different conclusions about Calvinism, and eventually accepted it. Luke then describes one of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism in the area of depravity. This is of course a misrepresentation of Arminianism, as both Arminians and Calvinist hold that man is totally depraved. A commenter on Luke’s blog pointed this out and Luke stated his representation of Arminian was based on his view of the logical conclusions following from Arminianism. (link)

The second post that caught my eye was by Turretinfan. Apparently George Bryson challenged James White to a debate regarding: does Calvin or Calvinism teach that God is the cause (by virtue of His decree) of sin? Turretinfan suggests that discussing whether the Bible teaches God causes sin would be a better topic than if Calvinism does. He states “Debating what Calvinism teaches or doesn't teach is something that is better done intramurally among Calvinists.” (link)

No one wants to see their views misrepresented and often during debates people cry out “strawman”. The purpose of this post is to highlight the difference between strawman and reductio ad absurdum arguments.

Strawman arguments are misstatements of your opponents’ position, either by overstating something your opponent does say or introducing something that “looks like” your opponents’ view as their view. Unintentional strawman arguments flow from ignorance, and intentional ones are sinful.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments draw an obviously false conclusion from a false premise. For example:

P1: All people named Dan are 10 feet tall
P2: I am a person named Dan
C1: Therefore I am 10 feet tall.

The syllogism is valid, but since P1 is false, the conclusion is false. The hope of the person making the reductio ad absurdum argument is that the problems with the conclusion will be more obvious then the problems with the premise (which were previously overlooked). So in employing a reductio ad absurdum argument, one takes a statement that actually represents their opponents’ position, adds another premise and forms a conclusion which is unacceptable to their opponent.

In debate, Strawman arguments are bad guy stuff, but reductio ad absurdums are fair game.
Reductio ad Strawman

Three pitfalls in attempting to form a reductio ad absurdum, can turn your argument into a strawman.

1. Both premises must be acceptable to your opponent
2. The conclusion cannot be represented as your opponents view, only the logical consequence of their view. This is especially true when they state the opposite.
3. Avoid equivocation

Work within your Opponents View
Here’s an example demonstrating why both of the premises must be acceptable within your opponents’ viewpoint:

P1: Calvinism teaches God’s decrees all things
P2: But if God decreed the fall, God is the author of sin
C1: therefore Calvinism teaches God is the author of sin

This argument is unacceptable to Calvinists, because they reject P2. Again, the syllogism is valid, but the Calvinist still won’t accept the conclusion, because they must first accept both premises. Arminians hold that P2 is true, but Calvinists do not. Whatever objections the Calvinist has to P2 must be overcome before they will accept the conclusion.

The Conclusion isn’t your Opponents’ Position, even if it’s the Logical Consequence of their Position
What if the Arminian has good reason to think P2 is true? Well at best, you could say the logical outcome of Calvinism is that God is the author of sin or better, that Calvinists are inconsistent to deny God is the author of sin. But you can’t say Calvinism teaches God is the author of sin, because they explicitly deny it.

Truths interlock and denying truth entails contradictions. A single falsehood creates a ripple effect spreading in all directions until ultimately all truths are overturned. So Arminians are easy to spot; they’re the ones going around denying all truth, right? No. All people have the remarkable ability to be inconsistent. Ultimately either Calvinism or Arminianism is inconsistent. Often we place too great a distinction between defining and defending a viewpoint but when charged with inconsistency, defining is defending. But again, we can’t represent the logical outcome of our opponents’ views as our opponents’ views.

Be on Your Guard for Equivocation
Equivocation (two parties defining terms in different ways) undermines reductio ad absurdum arguments. For example:
P1: Arminians say man is responsible for their choices.
P2: Calvinism correctly teaches man chooses to sin.
C1: Therefore, Calvinism correctly teaches man is responsible for their sins.

While Arminians accept P1 and also agree that man chooses to sin (and additionally we realize Calvinists say man chooses to sin) Arminians reject the conclusion. The reason is P2 is true the way Calvinists define “choice” but false the way Arminians define choice.

Of course, all this highlights the need to understand your opponents’ viewpoint (and also your own). To define Calvinism (and Arminianism) I tend to focus on classic authors that have stood the test of time. But if you get the best explanations of your opponents views you can find, and you still think they lead to absurdities, go for it!