The Unitarian Universalist Church's logical fallacy problem
misleading, flawed, and intellectually dishonest arguments in the church
Logical fallacies are misleading, flawed, and intellectually dishonest arguments that can be dismantled through critical reasoning. They arise from cognitive biases, faulty logic, and irrational thinking and hinder meaningful discourse. Because everyone is vulnerable to cognitive biases and logical fallacies, individuals and communities must actively work to recognize and minimize their influence.
These fallacies are associated with partisan politics, political campaigns, and dogmatic religions, environments where rhetoric is used to attack dissent and enforce conformity.
Unitarian Universalism (UU) is supposed to be different. As a movement that values reason, open-mindedness, diversity of beliefs, and tolerance, it should be deeply concerning when UUs resort to rhetorical tactics that falsely demean others and stifle constructive dialogue.
Unfortunately, a growing number of church leaders, UU ministers, and UU social justice activists, particularly those emerging from UU seminaries in recent years, have demonstrated a troubling reliance on logical fallacies. I have at times been shocked at how ideologically rigid, illiberal, and ill-trained to lead religiously liberal congregations are some newly ordained UU ministers and religious professionals.
Common Logical Fallacies in UU
A handful of logical fallacies are particularly prevalent in UU spaces.
Ad Hominem Attacks
Ad hominem attacks target individuals rather than engaging with their arguments. Instead of addressing an idea on its merits, a person is dismissed based on their identity (sex, race, nationality, group membership, other), perceived motives or negative labels. On the playground, it’s called name-calling. In politics, it’s called mud-slinging.
In UU forums and other spaces, dissenters have been accused of being “alt-right,” “racist,” “bigoted,” and of using “right-wing talking points.” This pattern is bizarre given that Unitarian Universalism members are overwhelmingly politically left. I’ve witnessed longtime social justice activists who criticize some of the UUA’s social justice methods smeared as “bigots” and socialist democrats who offer alternative perspectives dismissed as “conservatives.” Some ideological ministers’ accusations that UU is rife with the “alt-right” are ridiculous on its face. UU would be about the very last church a member of the alt-right would consider joining.
An all too common ad hominem tactic in UU forums is to discredit someone’s argument by claiming it was made “in bad faith,” attacking the person’s intent rather than engaging with their ideas.
The UUA President questioned the first principle because, according to her, it originated from the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, a white man who, as a product of his time, promoted scientific racism. I responded to this ad hominem argument: “It doesn’t matter if it came from Immanuel Kant, Amelia Earhart, or Bugs Bunny. The principle speaks for itself.”
Slippery Slope Arguments
This involves taking an argument from the first, sensible premise to an implausible and extreme conclusion through several hastily constructed steps.
A common example in UU forums is the assertion that allowing freedom of belief or expression— which are fundamental traditional principles in UU and liberal religion— will lead to the acceptance of Nazis or similar extremists. A striking example of this occurred during the Bylaw Article II amendment discussions at the annual General Assembly when a UUA leader dismissed the proposed phrase "we are inspired by the full depth and breadth of sacred and secular human knowledge" because, according to her, it would include Mein Kampf.
The argument that UU congregations would evoke Mein Kampf or welcome Nazis is untethered to reality. UU’s first principle of “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” spells out what ideas and expressions are not allowed in a UU congregation. As a Jew, I would not belong to a church or congregation that allowed Nazis as members.
Guilt by Association
This logical fallacy occurs when someone is dismissed simply because they are associated with an unpopular person, group, or idea.
For instance, if a politically left UU member references a study by a conservative scholar, they may be accused of being conservative and endorsing that person’s entire worldview. These days, even advocating for free speech and logical discourse has been framed as "conservative" and morally suspect.
Why Logical Fallacies Persist in UU Spaces
Several factors contribute to the use of logical fallacies within UU forums and spaces:
Ignorance – Due to a lack of critical thinking skills, many people are unaware they are using faulty reasoning.
Rhetorical Weaponry – Some UU ministers, church leaders, and activists use logical fallacies deliberately to shut down opponents and control narratives.
The Adoption of Illiberal Theories: Some UU ministers, leaders, and activists have adopted postmodernist theories that argue that logic, reason, mathematics, objectivity, science, and freedom of speech are “Western ways of thinking” that oppress minorities, and that listening to diverse viewpoints causes emotional harm. These theories attack the whole premise of objective, logical reasoning and classical liberalism, and prioritize subjective, emotional thinking.
Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases, such as binary thinking, stereotyping, and in-group bias, negatively impact logical reasoning by distorting judgment.
Tribalism and Echo Chambers – Highly invested ideological communities often reject alternative perspectives as inherently dangerous or otherwise bad. Echo chambers close minds and prevent members from being able to listen to and understand people with different perspectives and backgrounds.
Emotional Reactionism – Strong emotions can override reason, causing people to attack opponents rather than engage with their arguments.
The Damage to UU by Logical Fallacies
The reliance on logical fallacies within UU communities has many damaging consequences:
They Spread Misinformation – Logical fallacies mischaracterize people and groups, and distort reality.
They Undermine UU’s Core Values. Fallacious reasoning contradicts UU's commitment to reason, critical thinking, and the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Name-calling, mischaracterization, and assuming the worst of fellow UUs contradict UU’s first principle of “the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”
They Silence Diversity and Create Groupthink. Instead of promoting healthy discussions, these tactics create environments where people fear being attacked and mischaracterized if they voice their viewpoints. This leads to self-censorship and people leaving the church
They Stifle Intellectual and Spiritual Growth, and Multiculturalism – A movement that aims to embrace diverse cultures, peoples, and perspectives cannot succeed if it dismisses differing viewpoints through fallacious reasoning.
Addressing the Problem
To restore UU’s intellectual and spiritual integrity, members, especially leaders and ministers, should actively work to eliminate logical fallacies in the church. This includes:
Promote Critical Thinking – UUs should be taught to recognize and challenge fallacious reasoning.
Promote Civil Discourse – Discussions should focus on arguments, not personal attacks.
Promote Intellectual Curiosity, Humility, and Open-Mindedness – Recognizing that no one has all the answers and that we all can learn from people who are different than us, promotes a culture of learning and mutual respect.
Promote Listening to Diverse Perspectives – Inclusivity, diversity, multiculturalism, and learning require engaging with people with different experiences and viewpoints.
.
Related reading
What I think Unitarian Universalism should be about
The first principle was associated with Immanuel Kant who was a proponent of racism. Rev. Dr. Betancourt felt because of ties to Kant, the first principle should be dismissed rather than be open for discussion. I would doubt that reading that language would in no way promote racism. I believe that UUA and it's ministers are relishing the use of these fallacies to limit diversity of viewpoints
The problem (IMHO) is that social justice has become the cornerstone of the' faith' with the adoption of the revised, more political, Article II. In this framework, righteous anger is valued over dialogue and critical thinking. Working toward 'beloved community' has become the modern UU equivalent of salvation, and UUs don't seem to be interested in engaging with ideas that differ from this world-view.