What is the false cause fallacy?

Response

A false cause fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes a causal relationship between two things; the name of the fallacy is quite literal. Whenever someone thinks, “A causes B,” without sufficient reason to believe that B is truly caused by A, it’s an example of the false cause fallacy.

Specific versions of false cause fallacies include the post hoc, ergo propter hoc error, which literally means “after this, therefore because of this.” The false idea here is that just because two things are consecutive, the first one must have caused the second. The baseball player who hits a home run while wearing mismatched socks should not assume the different socks caused his power surge. Many superstitions outside of baseball are based on this specific error, from knocking on wood to crossing one’s fingers.

Inflated causality, related to post hoc, is another type of false cause fallacy. This variation relies on oversimplification. It takes an event—one that contributes to a result—and attempts to make it the sole cause. For example, saying that Martin Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses caused the Protestant Reformation relies on inflated causality. Luther’s action was certainly a catalyst for and benefit to the movement, but the cause of the Reformation is much more complex than that.

Another example of a false cause fallacy is cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, or “with this, therefore because of this.” In this case, the mistake is to assume that when two events often happen together, one causes the other. But the rooster crowing at the crack of dawn does not cause the sun to rise. And advertising that points out that people who use a certain product tend to be healthy does not necessarily mean that the product causes good health.

An important feature of any false cause fallacy is a perceived connection between two events. In most cases, people are reacting to what appears to be causal relationships without sufficient evidence.

There appears to be a connection, even if it’s entirely artificial. In some instances, there is indeed a link between the events, but not a direct “A causes B” relationship. When there isn’t even a tenuous link between two events, people rarely assume a connection.

These statements are all examples of false cause fallacies:

“John started going to church more often, then won the lottery; therefore, God is rewarding his faithfulness.”

“Talking to cashiers at fast food restaurants causes obesity (the more often I talk to fast food cashiers, the heavier I get).”

“Football games are won based on which team has more enthusiastic fans (every time our football team scores, I hear people cheering, so the cheering is what leads to points).”

“Bleeding makes your skin break (every time I bleed, there’s a split in my skin).”

Some skeptics of the Bible fall into the false cause fallacy when they claim that the story of Jesus is merely a retold pagan mythology. They refer to the stories of Osiris, Adonis, and Mithra and assert that the gospel narratives simply imitate the old myths. However, even if myths from the pre-Christian era bear resemblance to the life of Christ (which they don’t), it wouldn’t imply they prompted the New Testament writers to fabricate a false Jesus. Making such a statement is like suggesting the nursery rhyme “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” led to the creation of the Hubble Space Telescope.

By committing a false cause fallacy, a person might mention a pagan mystery religion with a dying and rising god and deduce, based on that, that the life of Jesus was fabricated or His resurrection never occurred. However, similarity doesn’t indicate dependency—besides, the pagan religions aren’t particularly similar to the story of Christ. The evidence for Jesus’ life and resurrection must be evaluated on its own merits and not simply disregarded outright.