Me: *sneezes* Coworker: "You look terrible!" Me: "Oh, for sure. I'm sick." Coworker: "Aren't you the one that tells everyone to go home when they are sick?" Me: "Yes." Coworker: "So why don't you go home?" Me: "I don't want to take this back to my kids." Coworker: "What about other people who don't want to take their illness back to their kids." Me: "What about them?" Coworker: "Shouldn't they be able to come to work sick." Me: "If they do that, they might spread it to me and then I could take it back to my kids." Coworker: "But might you give it to someone here and they take it back to their kids?" Me: "Maybe." Coworker: "Don't you think you should do the same thing you expect them to?" Me: "Oh! I see your confusion, now! You see, I'm what's called a 'hypocrite.' That means I'm allowed to require things of other people that I wouldn't do myself." Coworker: "I don't think you're using that word right." Me: "You don't think that's the definition of a hypocrite? Or are you saying I'm not a hypocrite?" Coworker: "No. I can't explain it, but you're using the right definition and you are definitely a hypocrite, but somehow you're still using it wrong."
I actually think argument #1 can be valid if formulated correctly, it's just here it wasn't. But I do think perhaps the better forumlation is implict in this example, if not explict. Let me unpack a better version of it: Person 1: "China should be sanctioned because it performs human rights abuses, and all countries that perform human rights abuses should be sanctioned" Person 2: "We (america) perform human rights abuses, as does every other country in the world. If we are to apply this consistently, we would have to apply sanctions to every country in the world, including ourselves. This is equivalent to having a universal sales tax, which we already have." Of course, since in your example person 1 doesn’t say what I wrote out, this is more a response to what person 2 assumed they meant. They probably would have been better off clarifying first, to avoid falling into the strawman fallacy.
Btw . You can potentially demonstrate that the objection and claim of hypocrisy can be refuted if you show that the two istuations are not equivalent or analogous. Eg Guantanamo bay is for high level criminal's.and threats . Where as ' human rights violations ' usually refers to civilians who are not criminals... we put restictions on criminals
There is a difference between rhetoric and logic. Attacking the credibility of a speaker can be very effective. But I think when you do that you risk breaking trust with your audience.
Don't give him to much of a hard Time . You can know a word most of your life that you have read but never heard it pronounced . I once read renewable as ' ree Knee wabble 'lol . I asked by physics teacher what is ' ree knee wabble ' energy in front of my whole class lol
@@ancientegyptandthebible This doesn't make any sense. I can't read hieroglyphs or other early scripts--just Coptic, but my understanding is that Egyptian is generally transliterated into Latin (rather than English or German or French for the sake of consistency). How can an Egyptologist not know how to pronounce Latin!
@@helenaconstantine Egyptian is transliterated into its own system of transliteration, not specifically Latin. The transliteration system used by Egyptologists is a blend of Latin, Arabic, and diacritically marked characters. And Egyptologists are not required to learn Latin as it is not a language used in dynastic Egypt. Latin really plays no role in the study of ancient Egypt.
I mean usually Frank follows up with pointing out that God is allowed to play God but we are not when discussing this topic since it comes up so frequently.. So i quesiton whether what you posted was all he said during that exchange.
He may follow up by pointing out that God is allowed to play God, and that's fine. But in this instance he was demonstrating a "mic drop" moment. He still needs a better reason than simply saying that God is justified in doing whatever He wants. Now, what he said might be true, but he needs to have a better ethical justification for it. The problem I find with Turek is he only copies the tactics and arguments of others. He's not really a deep thinker and gives the impression that he really hasn't thought much of this through.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I mean isn't the ethical argument simply that God is God? The King of Kings, or Judge of judges if you will. I mean to say it is wrong for Him to order the killing of Canaanites is to say He is wrong for allowing death in the world at all even as a consequence of the fall. So i mean in short anyone who argues that God has no right to take a life is arguing God is either evil or not really God at all.
@@davidryan8547 That is a classic Augustinian defence. Yet, I'm not sure it is exactly the best (or even a good) defence. Yes, it hinges upon a strong sense of the sovereignty of God. However, one also has to make certain inferences regarding God's goodness and the moral status of the Canaanites in such a way that God's moral justification becomes less easy to defend, since it justifies whatever someone does based largely upon identity. For example, were Roman fathers justified in killing their children because they were Roman fathers? That form of identity justification becomes circular in its moral reasoning. I think a better, more defensible way to do this, is to take an inverse approach. That is, God doesn't take life but gives life. God gives each person the gift of life, and it is his gift of grace as to how much life he gives, knowing ultimately both past and future. When your time runs out, you die however the manner of that demise may play out.
@@ancientegyptandthebible That is an interesting defense but I don't think it really works. Look at Isaiah 45 He creates prosperity but also disaster. He doesn't have any trouble saying that He can and does create disaster so why should we quail at the thought of proclaiming that He does these things?
Thank you for this overview of the fallacy! I do have a question though: where lies the distinction between pointing out hypocrisy (which does not disprove the validity of the argument) and pointing out a double standard or ad hoc reasoning? Do the latter two also fall under the Tu Quoque?
In case the good Dr. doesn’t see this, or even if he does…I believe in the Frank Turek example if Dr. Turek had followed up his true statement, which had value in pointing out the double standard held by the one questioning him, by ALSO answering the challenge as to why that wasn’t tomorrow by God to command that campaign, in my mind, this either falls outside of the fallacy or is still an effective argument. If somebody just says in effect: “well so what, so do you!“ simply as a means of deflecting and not answering the objection I think that’s the heart of what the fallacy is.
Pointing out a double standard is still a hypocrisy fallacy since you haven't actually refuted the first premise. On the other hand, demonstrating that something is ad hoc reasoning does attack the truth claim of the first premise. So, the former falls under tu quoque but the latter does not.
But by your logic the argument abouy infanticide is valid. Because in that case atheist doesn't really believes that to kill children is immoral, and so, is a hypocrite to say that about God. Ain't I right?
Good video. Also glad someone finally called out Turek for something. I really don’t get why ppl like him so much. I remember years ago when someone asked him in a q&a what happens to ppl who never heard the gospel, and his response was basically, “oh they probably would have never believed anyway”. Even as a kid I knew that was incredibly stupid. Only years later IP pointed out the passage when Jesus is talking to the Pharisees and says sin is not counted where no law is given.
Turek is talking mostly to college kids, who often have been indoctrinated against Christianity by use of nothing but empty rhetoric. As a result, he often uses empty rhetoric - it’s not logically sound but it’s emotionally compelling. In general, I think it’s an effective approach - but it runs into issues when Turek is dogmatically committed to Calvinist theology like with fate of nonbelievers. While this particular answer to a question on God killing babies is fallacious - answering it with in-depth theology to a bunch of college kids is going to have 99.9.% of them tuning out and many thinking he’s “negotiating with the text”. Is his answer fallacious? Yes. Is it appropriate given his audience? Absolutely. All he’s looking to do is put a pebble in their shoe, to begin to doubt the soundness of atheism and begin to deeply explore Christianity as a serious alternative. And he’s effective at that mission and deserves some credit for that - although I do wish he’d be more open minded to allow non-Calvinist interpretations into his answers.
@@MrCusefan44I feel that. Most atheists or anti theists were either Bible Belt fundies or born secular. They have no academic knowledge or intellectual leverage on the text whatsoever. Whenever I see scholars articulating past a typical fundamentalist narrative, these ppl will just say they are negotiating with the text and are basically making theology what they want. I think what would be better is take ppl like Frank and his awful approaches out of the picture, and hit these ppl with some humble pie so to speak and take them down a notch. Remind them that whatever their pastor or incompetent apologist told them isn’t always the full picture, and that it’s always more complicated and far more info to be had. I can’t say I can appreciate your sentiments with Turek, emotionally appealing to hope you can skip a rock into someone’s shoe is a waist of time. All it does is make the average person with common sense dislike the faith more because they don’t buy Franks half baked logic. Just makes them more irritated
@@Crimsonlupus - “For he who lives as passion directs will not hear argument that dissuades him, nor understand it if he does; and how can we persuade one in such a state to change his ways?” - Aristotle Your suggestion is to use sound logic and reason to persuade people who have been taught all truth is relative, and are therefore impervious to reason. Which, philosophers as far back as Aristotle knew was a terrible approach. You must use emotional appeals. I much prefer Turek and his imperfect but effective approach over your more elegant yet entirely ineffective one. You have to learn to deal with the world - and its people - as it actually is, not as you wish it to be. The “average person with common sense” doesn’t exist.
@@MrCusefan44Oh no I totally agree, you’re 100% right. I just think even with his emotional appeals he takes L’s constantly and it’s been showing for years. I speak from experience, when you slowly break ppls barriers down, and have them understand their current perspective is lacking in substance, without direct connections to more touchy topics, in this case religion for college students, you can subconsciously make them more willing to listen. I think this approach is somewhat similar to what Jesus did, he used storytelling and related to ppl with life experiences, which put things into perspective. Too many apologists just slap ppl with sanctimonious drivel and expect that to work. Emotional appeal is important, and is objectively more optimal in particular circumstances, but it’s how you do it. Going off of memory, I’ve seen the comments on Tureks videos, or just atheist UA-camrs reacting to him. He’s a squishy target and easy to defeat in any serious setting.
@@Crimsonlupus - “We’re both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you” is emotionally appealing nonsense which can be obliterated in no more than two sentences. Lots of atheists still recite it like it’s brilliant insight. Go to the comments sections when atheists say that, and you’ll see it getting demolished. But - it is entirely irrelevant to the people who still continue to use it. That some of Turek’s arguments aren’t logically sound is equally irrelevant. They are effective ON THE INTENDED AUDiENCE, regardless how much you are invested in denying that. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” - Theodore Roosevelt Ultimately, Turek is a man in the arena. While I might disagree slightly with some of his approaches, I still recognize that he is the man in the arena - not me. And any critique of mine should recognize that fact and be appropriately charitable to Turek as a result. If you don’t have evidence you can share of yourself in the arena, attempting to evangelize a hostile college age audience - and you don’t take into account that Turek is the man in the arena, not you in your critique - why should anyone view you as anything more than the critic who doesn’t matter?
Dr. Falk are you aware of any places where I can find a list of all Christian laws that Christians are to follow? I am aware that we are saved by faith, but at the same time, we can't just have anarchy and no morality. So just like Judaism has lists of laws, do Christians have lists of laws or guidelines (since Jesus saves) that we are to follow?
Love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself, for this is the entire sum of the Law and the Prophets. We are to love one another and love God.
Me: *sneezes*
Coworker: "You look terrible!"
Me: "Oh, for sure. I'm sick."
Coworker: "Aren't you the one that tells everyone to go home when they are sick?"
Me: "Yes."
Coworker: "So why don't you go home?"
Me: "I don't want to take this back to my kids."
Coworker: "What about other people who don't want to take their illness back to their kids."
Me: "What about them?"
Coworker: "Shouldn't they be able to come to work sick."
Me: "If they do that, they might spread it to me and then I could take it back to my kids."
Coworker: "But might you give it to someone here and they take it back to their kids?"
Me: "Maybe."
Coworker: "Don't you think you should do the same thing you expect them to?"
Me: "Oh! I see your confusion, now! You see, I'm what's called a 'hypocrite.' That means I'm allowed to require things of other people that I wouldn't do myself."
Coworker: "I don't think you're using that word right."
Me: "You don't think that's the definition of a hypocrite? Or are you saying I'm not a hypocrite?"
Coworker: "No. I can't explain it, but you're using the right definition and you are definitely a hypocrite, but somehow you're still using it wrong."
Thank you for this Dr. Falk! I’ve been looking for the specific term for this because it’s so common in the UA-cam comments section 😂
I actually think argument #1 can be valid if formulated correctly, it's just here it wasn't. But I do think perhaps the better forumlation is implict in this example, if not explict.
Let me unpack a better version of it:
Person 1: "China should be sanctioned because it performs human rights abuses, and all countries that perform human rights abuses should be sanctioned"
Person 2: "We (america) perform human rights abuses, as does every other country in the world. If we are to apply this consistently, we would have to apply sanctions to every country in the world, including ourselves. This is equivalent to having a universal sales tax, which we already have."
Of course, since in your example person 1 doesn’t say what I wrote out, this is more a response to what person 2 assumed they meant. They probably would have been better off clarifying first, to avoid falling into the strawman fallacy.
Btw . You can potentially demonstrate that the objection and claim of hypocrisy can be refuted if you show that the two istuations are not equivalent or analogous.
Eg Guantanamo bay is for high level criminal's.and threats . Where as ' human rights violations ' usually refers to civilians who are not criminals... we put restictions on criminals
True.
So it is more effective to be used to discredit the consistency of the individual than to actually disprove the argument? Interesting
There is a difference between rhetoric and logic. Attacking the credibility of a speaker can be very effective. But I think when you do that you risk breaking trust with your audience.
“Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.”
👌
It’s pronounced quoque, not cokyu. “Qu” in Latin always makes a “kw” sound, like it normally does in English.
Oh I cringed every time he said it. It was a good video otherwise. I wonder if it's a Canadian thing.
He probably doesn't know Latin
Kwo-kway. Or kwokay is probably fine too.
Don't give him to much of a hard Time .
You can know a word most of your life that you have read but never heard it pronounced .
I once read renewable as
' ree Knee wabble 'lol .
I asked by physics teacher what is ' ree knee wabble ' energy in front of my whole class lol
@@ramadadiver7810 of course. I'm 40 and just heard dour said for the first time. Always read it like sour. Many such cases 😅
Quoque - pronounced kwo kway. Enjoyable video nonetheless.
Yeah, I admit that my pronunciation of foreign words can be terrible.
@@ancientegyptandthebible This doesn't make any sense. I can't read hieroglyphs or other early scripts--just Coptic, but my understanding is that Egyptian is generally transliterated into Latin (rather than English or German or French for the sake of consistency). How can an Egyptologist not know how to pronounce Latin!
@@helenaconstantine Egyptian is transliterated into its own system of transliteration, not specifically Latin. The transliteration system used by Egyptologists is a blend of Latin, Arabic, and diacritically marked characters. And Egyptologists are not required to learn Latin as it is not a language used in dynastic Egypt. Latin really plays no role in the study of ancient Egypt.
I mean usually Frank follows up with pointing out that God is allowed to play God but we are not when discussing this topic since it comes up so frequently.. So i quesiton whether what you posted was all he said during that exchange.
He may follow up by pointing out that God is allowed to play God, and that's fine. But in this instance he was demonstrating a "mic drop" moment. He still needs a better reason than simply saying that God is justified in doing whatever He wants. Now, what he said might be true, but he needs to have a better ethical justification for it. The problem I find with Turek is he only copies the tactics and arguments of others. He's not really a deep thinker and gives the impression that he really hasn't thought much of this through.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I mean isn't the ethical argument simply that God is God? The King of Kings, or Judge of judges if you will. I mean to say it is wrong for Him to order the killing of Canaanites is to say He is wrong for allowing death in the world at all even as a consequence of the fall. So i mean in short anyone who argues that God has no right to take a life is arguing God is either evil or not really God at all.
@@davidryan8547 That is a classic Augustinian defence. Yet, I'm not sure it is exactly the best (or even a good) defence. Yes, it hinges upon a strong sense of the sovereignty of God. However, one also has to make certain inferences regarding God's goodness and the moral status of the Canaanites in such a way that God's moral justification becomes less easy to defend, since it justifies whatever someone does based largely upon identity. For example, were Roman fathers justified in killing their children because they were Roman fathers? That form of identity justification becomes circular in its moral reasoning. I think a better, more defensible way to do this, is to take an inverse approach. That is, God doesn't take life but gives life. God gives each person the gift of life, and it is his gift of grace as to how much life he gives, knowing ultimately both past and future. When your time runs out, you die however the manner of that demise may play out.
@@ancientegyptandthebible That is an interesting defense but I don't think it really works. Look at Isaiah 45 He creates prosperity but also disaster. He doesn't have any trouble saying that He can and does create disaster so why should we quail at the thought of proclaiming that He does these things?
@@davidryan8547 Be careful of what you read into that passage, otherwise you may end up with an ambivalent God or worse a maltheism.
Thank you for this overview of the fallacy! I do have a question though: where lies the distinction between pointing out hypocrisy (which does not disprove the validity of the argument) and pointing out a double standard or ad hoc reasoning? Do the latter two also fall under the Tu Quoque?
In case the good Dr. doesn’t see this, or even if he does…I believe in the Frank Turek example if Dr. Turek had followed up his true statement, which had value in pointing out the double standard held by the one questioning him, by ALSO answering the challenge as to why that wasn’t tomorrow by God to command that campaign, in my mind, this either falls outside of the fallacy or is still an effective argument. If somebody just says in effect: “well so what, so do you!“ simply as a means of deflecting and not answering the objection I think that’s the heart of what the fallacy is.
Pointing out a double standard is still a hypocrisy fallacy since you haven't actually refuted the first premise. On the other hand, demonstrating that something is ad hoc reasoning does attack the truth claim of the first premise. So, the former falls under tu quoque but the latter does not.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Interesting, interesting. Thank you for clearing that up!
But by your logic the argument abouy infanticide is valid. Because in that case atheist doesn't really believes that to kill children is immoral, and so, is a hypocrite to say that about God. Ain't I right?
Good video. Also glad someone finally called out Turek for something. I really don’t get why ppl like him so much. I remember years ago when someone asked him in a q&a what happens to ppl who never heard the gospel, and his response was basically, “oh they probably would have never believed anyway”. Even as a kid I knew that was incredibly stupid. Only years later IP pointed out the passage when Jesus is talking to the Pharisees and says sin is not counted where no law is given.
Turek is talking mostly to college kids, who often have been indoctrinated against Christianity by use of nothing but empty rhetoric. As a result, he often uses empty rhetoric - it’s not logically sound but it’s emotionally compelling. In general, I think it’s an effective approach - but it runs into issues when Turek is dogmatically committed to Calvinist theology like with fate of nonbelievers.
While this particular answer to a question on God killing babies is fallacious - answering it with in-depth theology to a bunch of college kids is going to have 99.9.% of them tuning out and many thinking he’s “negotiating with the text”. Is his answer fallacious? Yes. Is it appropriate given his audience? Absolutely.
All he’s looking to do is put a pebble in their shoe, to begin to doubt the soundness of atheism and begin to deeply explore Christianity as a serious alternative. And he’s effective at that mission and deserves some credit for that - although I do wish he’d be more open minded to allow non-Calvinist interpretations into his answers.
@@MrCusefan44I feel that. Most atheists or anti theists were either Bible Belt fundies or born secular. They have no academic knowledge or intellectual leverage on the text whatsoever. Whenever I see scholars articulating past a typical fundamentalist narrative, these ppl will just say they are negotiating with the text and are basically making theology what they want. I think what would be better is take ppl like Frank and his awful approaches out of the picture, and hit these ppl with some humble pie so to speak and take them down a notch. Remind them that whatever their pastor or incompetent apologist told them isn’t always the full picture, and that it’s always more complicated and far more info to be had. I can’t say I can appreciate your sentiments with Turek, emotionally appealing to hope you can skip a rock into someone’s shoe is a waist of time. All it does is make the average person with common sense dislike the faith more because they don’t buy Franks half baked logic. Just makes them more irritated
@@Crimsonlupus - “For he who lives as passion directs will not hear argument that dissuades him, nor understand it if he does; and how can we persuade one in such a state to change his ways?” - Aristotle
Your suggestion is to use sound logic and reason to persuade people who have been taught all truth is relative, and are therefore impervious to reason. Which, philosophers as far back as Aristotle knew was a terrible approach. You must use emotional appeals.
I much prefer Turek and his imperfect but effective approach over your more elegant yet entirely ineffective one. You have to learn to deal with the world - and its people - as it actually is, not as you wish it to be. The “average person with common sense” doesn’t exist.
@@MrCusefan44Oh no I totally agree, you’re 100% right. I just think even with his emotional appeals he takes L’s constantly and it’s been showing for years. I speak from experience, when you slowly break ppls barriers down, and have them understand their current perspective is lacking in substance, without direct connections to more touchy topics, in this case religion for college students, you can subconsciously make them more willing to listen. I think this approach is somewhat similar to what Jesus did, he used storytelling and related to ppl with life experiences, which put things into perspective. Too many apologists just slap ppl with sanctimonious drivel and expect that to work. Emotional appeal is important, and is objectively more optimal in particular circumstances, but it’s how you do it. Going off of memory, I’ve seen the comments on Tureks videos, or just atheist UA-camrs reacting to him. He’s a squishy target and easy to defeat in any serious setting.
@@Crimsonlupus - “We’re both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you” is emotionally appealing nonsense which can be obliterated in no more than two sentences. Lots of atheists still recite it like it’s brilliant insight.
Go to the comments sections when atheists say that, and you’ll see it getting demolished. But - it is entirely irrelevant to the people who still continue to use it. That some of Turek’s arguments aren’t logically sound is equally irrelevant. They are effective ON THE INTENDED AUDiENCE, regardless how much you are invested in denying that.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” - Theodore Roosevelt
Ultimately, Turek is a man in the arena. While I might disagree slightly with some of his approaches, I still recognize that he is the man in the arena - not me. And any critique of mine should recognize that fact and be appropriately charitable to Turek as a result. If you don’t have evidence you can share of yourself in the arena, attempting to evangelize a hostile college age audience - and you don’t take into account that Turek is the man in the arena, not you in your critique - why should anyone view you as anything more than the critic who doesn’t matter?
Dr. Falk are you aware of any places where I can find a list of all Christian laws that Christians are to follow? I am aware that we are saved by faith, but at the same time, we can't just have anarchy and no morality. So just like Judaism has lists of laws, do Christians have lists of laws or guidelines (since Jesus saves) that we are to follow?
Love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself, for this is the entire sum of the Law and the Prophets. We are to love one another and love God.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thank you!!
Thanks for another great video 💪
TIL I have been saying the word Tu Quoque wrong for years
Please, don't trust my pronunciation for anything. I very easily mess up (particularly Latin) pronunciations all the time. 😬
Just out of curiosity, can you tell some of the Egyptian texts you had to sight-read during during your PhD exams?
The Annals of Thutmosis III and the Battle of Qadesh.