Background: The following article discusses the issue of the phrase "In God We Trust" that is printed on the back of all US bills, and whether or not it should still be there. The said motto was implicated in 1956, during the height of the Cold War in an attempt to morally battle "godless Communism". The author, Michael Shermer, believes that the phrase no longer belongs on the bills, and for various reasons. The part of the argument I am considering most is towards the end of the article.
Premise/Conclusion:
Premise 1: "There are no communist threats."
Premise 2: "If you think that God is watching over the U.S., please ask yourself why he glanced away during 9/11 or why he chose to abandon the good folks of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, and why he continues to allow earthquakes and cancers to strike down even blameless children."
Premise 3: "It's time to drop the God talk and face reality with a steely-eyed visage of the modern understanding of the origin of freedom on which the United States was founded and continues to be secured. God has nothing to do with it. If you want freedom and security, you need the following: the rule of law; property rights; a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system; economic stability; a reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country...a robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states; a potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by people within the state; a viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws; and an effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.
Conclusion: The phrase "In God We Trust" does not belong on the back of US bills because God does not provide the tools necessary to preserve America's freedoms and liberties.
Analysis: To summarize, the author believes that since there is no more Communism, God was not there during some of the nation's current worst disasters, and God does not provide the tools necessary to keep America free, the phrase "In God We Trust" should be taken off all US bills and buildings.
There are some serious problems with the argument. Although the first premise could be considered true, it is the second premise that seems to posses the most problems. The second premise contains a hasty generalization fallacy. A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a few specific cases, which are not a good representative sample, are used to generalize and define a particular subject. In this article, the author claims that since God appeared to be not present during 9/11, supposedly abandoned Katrina victims, and allows earthquakes to kill innocent children, that he does not watch over or look out for America at all.
In addition, the third premise commits a red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy distorts an argument by leading the reader astray with a subtly related, yet different subject, and expanding on that. In this premise, Shermer talks about the things needed for freedom and security, such as rule of law, military, and so on. However, freedom and security, along with the tools required to establish it, has essentially nothing to do with whether or not the phrase "In God We Trust" belongs on the back of US bills. This argument is definitely DOA.
No comments:
Post a Comment