The Tilde Fallacy and Atheism

Rebuttal of a popular “Skeptical” Argument

What I will be calling the Tilde Fallacy, expressed crudely, is this:

My position uses the logical symbol known as the tilde. (The logical symbol used for translating “not”, “no”, “it is not the case that” etc.) Therefore it is not really a position at all, but only a denial of some other position. Consequently, I can always invoke Occam’s Razor against the position I am denying, and my opponent cannot. The burden of proof is always on my opponent, not on me, because my position has no actual content (which follows from the fact that it has only negative content).

One way of diagnosing a case of the Tilde Fallacy is to show that a position claiming this privileged status can be restated without the tilde. In some cases, this restatement reveals that this position is self-contradictory, which of course refutes it. In other cases, this transformation merely refutes the Occam’s razor argument that allegedly supported it, and thus reveals that it needs to be supported by further arguments and evidence. Although this transformation from negative to positive is often sufficient to demonstrate the presence of the Tilde Fallacy, it is not necessary. In most cases, a single negative claim implies numerous unstated positive claims, and in such cases it is equally invalid to assert that the negative claim requires no further support. The negative claim and its implied positive claims are a package deal, and any application of Occam’s Razor must…