The Fallacy of the Equivocal Definition

[EduChris]

Oftentimes non-theists will try to foist some particular, single, reductionistic, and very often misleading definition as though it fully captured all of the ways in which a particular word (usually a theological word) is used in various contexts by theists. For example, the non-theist might try to claim that the word "faith" is fully described as "belief without evidence" or some such thing. Typically the non-theist feels the need to do this because he or she is parroting the arguments of some atheist website or popular "new atheist" handbook and is unsure of how to conduct the debate if the theist is allowed to define the word as he or she actually uses it.

The fallacy here is that unless the debate partners are agreed on the definition, the fallacy of equivocation occurs, where one person is using the word in one way, and the other person insists on using the word in a different way. In such cases, the parties will be talking past each other and no real progress can occur.

Moreover, such definitions often amount to "hate speech," where theists are unilaterally associated with a pejorative, reductionistic definition in an attempt to portray them as prima-facie irrational.

[EduChris]

Here is one response from the Can We Be Better Debators thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 260#368260

[EduChris]

See the following post in the Scientific Faith thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 120#373120