One of the most basic of informal fallacies is the false dilemma. The beginner student of logic learns of this in the same early stage as of the false analogy, the red herring, begging the question, and the ad hominem attack. A fallacy is not merely an error in the reasoning process, like a glitch in a system. It is a form of invalid argumentation. There are as many ways to commit each of these fallacies as there are truth claims. 

Now the false dilemma is also sometimes called a false dichotomy or the “either-or” fallacy, or (for the real nerd) the fallacy of bifurcation. As with any informal fallacy, these do not announce themselves coming. They take on the form of everyday speech, so that it takes a trained eye to begin spotting them everywhere. So what will this “trained eye” be looking for in this case?

The either-or fallacy is in play whenever two (or sometimes more) options are presented as being either mutually exclusive or else the only options available. When it is the latter, it is a hybrid fallacy. It is also begging the question as to other options.

Let me give a few examples that are different enough from each other, in order to stretch our brains over the basic form that all have in common.

Do you remember where the disciples asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (Jn. 9:2) Note that Jesus never denies that either of these were true—or that both of them were—yet He does expand the disciples’ horizon to the glory of God as a more ultimate cause of the man’s blindness. 

Sometimes the dilemma is forced because the reader of Scripture lacks the categories necessary to see that two instances of the same terminology can have two different senses, depending on the context.

So Paul is pit against James on being justified (Romans 3:28 “versus” James 2:24), Christ’s knowledge of everything the Father does is pit against some things He does not know (John 5:20 “versus” Matthew 24:36), and all mankind knowing God is pit against only those by the Spirit knowing God in Christ (Romans 1:19-20 “versus” 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). Many more examples could be given, but these are sufficient to make the point. 

There are also hermeneutical false dilemmas. What I mean is that we can wrongly take an “either-or” approach to interpreting Scripture, when in fact there are other options, or where one of those other options is simply a “both-and” approach.

An infamous example is found in our common treatments of Genesis 1. Is it real history or poetry? Is it science or covenant prologue? Is it Moses’ polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths or a Spirit-inspired prophetic alternative to modern evolutionary notions? I mean no condescension by this, but when I hear these alternatives being posed as genuine problems, I have to fight the urge to roll my eyes or sigh in the course of conversation.

None of this is to say that the state of affairs represented in Genesis 1 can be both A and non-A. Either these are six literal 24-hour days or they are not. What I am objecting to is that the literary genre and authorial purpose has to be limited to this “state of affairs” question. That is fallacious either-or thinking. 

What Difference Does the False Dilemma Make? 

Notice how some of these involve the same faulty reasoning that causes skeptics to allege that there are “contradictions” in the Bible. Answering their charge would be reason enough to make a study of this. But it just so happens that the false dilemma creates more blindspots for the believer as well. In fact, it hinders our growth in the knowledge of the Lord. 

There are systematic false dilemmas: for example, false dilemmas of theology proper, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology:

Either God is impassible and immutable or God interacts with human beings and answers prayers.

Either Jesus is fully God or He is fully man.

Either sanctification is the work of the Spirit or it involves human effort.

Either the covenant of grace promises salvation to all its members or the church in this age is a mixed body.

Either Satan has been bound or the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers.

Like in the cases of dichotomized passages of Scripture, so in these pairs of doctrinal pieces arranged in a supposed dilemma. There are faulty premises. That is where one’s mind needs to go next in order to untie the knot. Why should divine impassibility exclude genuine communication between God and human beings, or why should God always moving first exclude the prayers of the saints as real instrumental causes within His ordered decree? What exactly is meant by the adjective “fully” modifying both God and man? Is the critic quite sure that he has grounds to limit the Hypostatic Union to only one pie chart? And so on with the rest. 

It should be pointed out that if there is ever a disagreement about whether or not the either-or fallacy is being committed, the burden of proof is squarely on the person who maintains that there are only those (usually only two) mutually exclusive alternatives. If he cannot show how it is necessarily false that there are other options, then while his opponent’s view may still be faulty on other grounds, it can no longer be said to involve a contradiction. 

Falsely dichotomized thinking represents a serious impasse. It is not only a conversation-killer, but an obstacle to further doctrinal development. The key to moving forward is to begin by examining the premises behind the dilemma. Why won’t the person who says, “You either go out that door to your left, or that door to your right”—why does he not see the third door behind us? That is a good question that you must ask him. Perhaps there is also a fourth or even a fifth, which you or I have not considered yet.