# Straw Man ## Intro A straw man is a fake version of someone else's argument. You make it weak, sloppy, or ridiculous, knock it over, and act like you beat the real thing. You did not. You beat a scarecrow. The name comes from that scarecrow image. Easy to punch a straw dummy in a field. Punching it does nothing to whatever the actual position is. Watch for it in two directions. Atheists straw-man Christians all the time: *"You believe in a magic Sky-Daddy."* No, Christians believe in a necessary, eternal, personal Mind who is the ground of being, which is a real philosophical position. Refuting Sky-Daddy refutes nothing. Christians straw-man atheists too: *"You believe everything came from nothing for no reason."* Real naturalists usually mean something more careful by "nothing" (often a quantum vacuum or a structured initial state), and the cheap version misses the actual claim. The cure is something called *steel-manning*, or its formal version, Rapoport's Rules. Before you object to a view, state it so well that the person holding it would say *"yes, that's exactly what I mean."* Then disagree with that. If you cannot pass step one, you have not earned the right to step two. This matters in apologetics for a simple reason. If you cannot summarize what an atheist actually believes, in their words, without flinching, you are not refuting atheism. You are refuting a costume you put on it. ## In full The informal fallacy of **misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute**, then refuting the misrepresentation (the "straw man") as if it were the actual position. The metaphor comes from a straw dummy or scarecrow, easy to knock down, but irrelevant to the real thing. Canonical sequence: (1) opponent A presents position P; (2) the speaker presents a distorted version P′ of P; (3) the speaker refutes P′; (4) the speaker claims to have refuted P. The fallacy lies in (4): refuting P′ does not refute P, because P and P′ are different positions. The fallacy is treated formally in modern informal-logic literature (Douglas Walton, *Informal Logic* 2nd ed., Cambridge 2008; Patrick Hurley, *A Concise Introduction to Logic*; Copi-Cohen-McMahon, *Introduction to Logic*; [Daniel Dennett](/codex/daniel-dennett/), *Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking*, Norton 2013). Dennett's contribution is **Rapoport's Rules**, a four-step procedure (named after game-theorist Anatol Rapoport) for engaging an opponent's view that is structurally **anti-straw-man**: (i) restate the opponent's position so charitably that they say "Yes, that's exactly what I think, I wish I'd said it that well"; (ii) note any agreement; (iii) note anything you've learned from them; (iv) only then make any rebuttal. Rapoport's Rules are the methodological-pedagogical antidote. In apologetic discourse straw-manning is the **most prolific** atheist fallacy after [Genetic Fallacy](/codex/genetic-fallacy/) and [Ad Hominem](/codex/ad-hominem/), *"Christians believe in a magic Sky-Daddy"*; *"Christianity is iron-age desert myths"*; *"Christians believe the universe is 6000 years old"*; *"Christianity teaches blind faith"*; *"Christianity is anti-science"*; *"Christians believe all non-Christians go to hell"*. Each of these caricatures the relevant Christian position; engaging the caricature does not engage the substance. Christian apologists have reciprocal straw-mans of atheism that need to be checked too, *"atheists worship science"*; *"atheism = nihilism"*; *"atheists believe everything came from nothing"*, these straw-man specific atheist positions and need the same steel-manning treatment. ## Canonical structure The four-step sequence: - **Step 1.** Opponent A presents position P. - **Step 2.** Speaker B presents a distorted version P′, typically an extreme / weak / obviously absurd / fringe / popular-level version that A's actual proponents do not hold in the form B presents. - **Step 3.** Speaker B refutes P′. - **Step 4.** Speaker B claims to have refuted P. The fallacy: P and P′ are different positions; refuting P′ leaves P standing. The argument is misdirected. Common modes of distortion: - **Extremization**: take a moderate position and present its extreme version - **Cherry-picking**: present an obscure / fringe formulation as if it were mainstream - **Vocabulary substitution**: replace technical terms with caricatures (e.g., "creator-of-the-cosmos" → "Sky-Daddy") - **Implication-overreach**: treat alleged implications the proponent denies as if they were core claims - **Simplification beyond recognition**: reduce a sophisticated position to a slogan that loses its content ## How to spot it (diagnostic) 1. **The presented "position" doesn't match how its actual proponents articulate it.** If the version under attack doesn't appear in the canonical primary sources (NT + creeds + standard scholarly defenders for Christianity; Marx + Russell + Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens-Dennett + analytic-atheist literature for atheism), suspect straw-man. 2. **Cannot find a credible scholar / source defending the version being attacked.** If the only people defending P′ are critics characterizing the position-they-want-to-attack rather than actual adherents, that's a tell. 3. **The version being attacked is unusually weak / extreme / obviously absurd.** Suspect: real positions tend to have rational defenders; caricatures don't. 4. **When the actual proponent corrects the misrepresentation, the critic refuses to engage the corrected version.** "Yes but in PRACTICE Christians really believe...", this often signals the critic is committed to the caricature for rhetorical reasons. 5. **Cherry-picking obscure / fringe / heretical positions to represent the mainstream.** Engaging Westboro Baptist Church or Christian-Reconstructionist or prosperity-gospel teachers as if they were Christianity-itself. (Engaging fringe positions explicitly named as such is legitimate; using them as stand-ins for the mainstream is straw-man.) ## Common apologetic deployment ### Atheist deployment against Christianity - **"Christians believe in a magic Sky-Daddy / a man in the sky."** Standard New Atheist trope (Dawkins *The God Delusion* 2006 ch. 1-2; Harris *The End of Faith* 2004; Hitchens *god is not Great* 2007). Caricatures the classical-theistic conception of God developed across [Augustine](/codex/augustine/) / Aquinas / [Anselm](/codex/anselm/) / [Bonaventure](/codex/bonaventure/) / Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics / Plantinga / Swinburne / Feser. Classical theism is the position that God is *ipsum esse subsistens*, the subsistent act of being itself, simple, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immutable; the very negation of "anthropomorphic Sky-Daddy." Straw-man treated in [Classical Theism vs Theistic Personalism](/codex/classical-theism-vs-theistic-personalism/) (queued). - **"Christianity is iron-age / bronze-age desert myths."** Caricatures the historical-resurrection case + cumulative case for theism. Christianity is not a "myth" in the technical literary-genre sense (Lewis "Myth Became Fact" 1944; *Miracles* ch. 16; Bauckham *[Jesus](/codex/jesus/) and the Eyewitnesses* 2006); the resurrection accounts are first-century Greco-Roman historical-genre writing with eyewitness anchoring. The "iron-age" framing also straw-mans by suggesting Christianity is *of* one era rather than a thinking tradition continuously developed across 2000 years (patristic, scholastic, Reformation, modern). - **"Christians believe the universe is 6000 years old."** Straw-mans Christianity by reducing it to young-earth-creationism (YEC). The mainstream Christian position across history (Augustine *On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis* AD 415; Aquinas; the patristic tradition; Catholic teaching; most Protestant traditions; Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Orthodox) does NOT entail YEC; theistic-evolutionists / old-earth-creationists / day-age + framework-hypothesis Christians are the majority across most periods. YEC as currently understood is a 20th-century minority position (popularized by Whitcomb-Morris 1961, *The Genesis Flood*). - **"Christianity teaches blind faith, believe what you can't prove."** Straw-mans *pistis* (NT Greek for faith), which means **trust based on evidence + relational commitment**, not blind credulity. Treated extensively in [Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection](/codex/faith-is-belief-without-evidence-objection/) / [Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection Defeater](/codex/faith-is-belief-without-evidence-objection-defeater/) (5-step equivocation-defeater pattern; *pistis* G4102 + *'emunah* H530 lexical case). - **"Christianity is anti-science."** Straw-mans the historical record (Galileo as Catholic; Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendel as Christian; Lemaître Catholic priest as Big Bang originator; Polkinghorne Anglican priest as Cambridge mathematical physicist; Collins Christian as head of Human Genome Project; Lennox Oxford mathematician). Engaged in [Methodological Naturalism](/codex/naturalism/) + [God of the Gaps](/codex/god-of-the-gaps/). - **"Christians believe all non-Christians go to hell."** Straw-mans the universalist / inclusivist / exclusivist debate within Christianity. Many Christians hold inclusivist positions (CS Lewis, Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christians," Catholic *Lumen Gentium*); some hold universalist positions ([David Bentley Hart](/codex/david-bentley-hart/), *That All Shall Be Saved*, 2019). Engaged in [Salvation of the Unevangelized](/codex/salvation-of-the-unevangelized/) synthesis. - **"Christianity teaches the Bible is to be read literally word-for-word."** Straw-mans the genre-sensitive hermeneutical tradition (Augustine + Aquinas + Calvin all distinguished literal / figurative / typological / spiritual senses). Engaged in [Bible Scientific Errors Objection Defeater](/codex/bible-scientific-errors-objection-defeater/). - **"Christianity is patriarchal, women must obey men."** Straw-mans the complementarian + egalitarian + soft-complementarian theological spread; engaged in [Misogyny in the Bible Objection](/codex/misogyny-in-the-bible-objection/) / [Misogyny in the Bible Objection Defeater](/codex/misogyny-in-the-bible-objection-defeater/) (Holland *Dominion*'s historical-uplift defeater). - **"Christianity teaches that Jesus was just a good moral teacher."** Inverted straw-man, Christianity's actual claim is that Jesus is divine (Lewis trilemma; Bauckham + Hurtado early-high-Christology). The "just a moral teacher" view is precisely the position Christianity opposes; straw-manning by reducing the mainstream to a position the mainstream rejects. - **"Christians believe in a vengeful fire-and-brimstone God."** Caricatures the OT-NT continuity hermeneutic + Christ's revelation of the Father ([Jn 1:18](/codex/john-1-18/), [14](/codex/john-1-14/):9). Engaged in [OT vs NT God Objection](/codex/ot-vs-nt-god-objection/) / [Hell as Eternal Torment Objection](/codex/hell-as-eternal-torment-objection/). ### Christian counter-deployment The straw-man fallacy is bidirectional and Christians need to check their own straw-mans of atheism: - **"Atheists worship science / atheists are religious about science."** Often straw-mans methodological naturalism; many atheists distinguish methodological from metaphysical naturalism (treated in [God of the Gaps](/codex/god-of-the-gaps/) P1). - **"Atheism = nihilism / atheists can't have meaning."** Straw-mans atheist humanist ethics (Wielenberg, Shafer-Landau, Enoch on moral realism without God; many secular humanist projects). The Moral Argument can engage atheism's *grounding-of-objective-morality* problem without straw-manning atheism's *experience-of-meaning*. - **"Atheists believe everything came from nothing."** Straw-mans modern cosmology, neither Krauss's *A Universe from Nothing* (2012) nor mainstream cosmology actually claims emergence from absolute nothing; the philosophical question of why-anything-rather-than-nothing remains. - **"Evolution claims monkeys turned into humans randomly."** Straw-mans evolutionary biology. Mainstream evolutionary biology claims common ancestry + natural selection (which is the opposite of "randomly", selection is non-random in the technical sense; mutations are random with respect to fitness, but their differential reproduction is not). Engaged in [Theistic Evolution](/codex/theistic-evolution/) (queued). - **"Atheists are immoral / can't be good without God."** Straw-mans atheist ethical commitment (most atheists live ethically; the Moral Argument is about *grounding* of objective morality, not predicting individual atheists' moral behavior). The Christian apologist who engages atheism without straw-manning takes the strong-form atheist literature as the target: Mackie *The Miracle of Theism* (1982); Sober *Evidence and Evolution* (2008); Wielenberg *Robust Ethics* (2014); Sobel *Logic and Theism* (2003); analytical-atheist literature broadly. ## How to rebut it ### 1. Steel-man the actual position (Rapoport's Rules) The proper engagement with any position, Christian or atheist, is to first articulate it in its strongest form. Daniel Dennett's *Intuition Pumps* (Norton 2013) gives the canonical four-step procedure: (i) restate the opponent's position so charitably they say "yes, that's exactly what I think"; (ii) note agreement points; (iii) note anything learned; (iv) only then offer rebuttal. The Christian apologist applying this to atheism, and the atheist polemicist applying this to Christianity, would substantially eliminate straw-manning from the discourse. Steel-manning is the methodological antidote. ### 2. Cite primary doctrinal sources When a critic attacks "Christianity," ask which Christianity, and point to the actual scholarly literature: Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, the ecumenical creeds, the historic confessions, Plantinga, Swinburne, Feser, Wright, Bauckham, Polkinghorne, Lennox, Craig. If the position under attack doesn't appear in this corpus, the attack is straw-manning. The same applies symmetrically for atheism: Mackie, Sober, Wielenberg, Sobel are the strong-form analytical atheists; engaging Dawkins's popular-level work as if it were the analytical atheist mainstream is also straw-manning. ### 3. Demand engagement with the actual position The proper response to a straw-man attack is: *"That's not what classical-theist Christians teach. The actual position is [steel-manned articulation]. Engage that."* This forces the conversation onto the substantive case. If the critic refuses (some critics are committed to the caricature for rhetorical reasons), that itself is evidence that the substantive case has no answer at the content level. The same redirect works in reverse for atheist positions wrongly characterized by Christians. ## False-fallacy examples Cases where what *looks like* straw-manning is NOT actually fallacious, the critic IS engaging a real position in good-faith form. - **Engaging fringe / heretical positions explicitly named as such.** Critiquing Westboro Baptist Church / Christian-Reconstructionism / certain charismatic-prosperity-gospel teachers / theistic-Mormonism is legitimate when the critic explicitly identifies the position being engaged. *Why this isn't straw-man:* the position is named and credibly attributed to actual proponents (even if fringe). The fallacy requires *misrepresentation* as if the engaged position were the mainstream; engaging actual-but-marginal positions explicitly is legitimate. - **Engaging the position's logical entailments when the proponent denies them (legitimate *reductio ad absurdum*).** "If your view entails P, then P is on the table even if you deny it." This is *reductio*, not straw-man, provided the entailment is rigorously defensible. If the implication follows from the proponent's stated principles, engaging the implication is legitimate. The diagnostic distinction: straw-man = misrepresenting the position; *reductio* = exposing the position's logical implications. - **Critiquing a popular-level formulation when explicit about doing so.** Many lay Christians DO articulate "magic Sky-Daddy"-flavored theology in unguarded moments; many lay atheists DO articulate "everything-came-from-nothing"-flavored cosmology. Critiquing these popular formulations isn't full straw-manning IF the critic is explicit: "I am engaging the popular-level Christianity many lay believers articulate, not the classical-theist position of Aquinas." *Why this is acceptable:* the position is real (held by some), and the critic is honest about scope. The line between this and full straw-man is honesty about which version is being engaged. - **Engaging older / historical formulations of a position.** Citing how Christian doctrines were taught at certain periods is legitimate intellectual history when not deployed as if it were the current mainstream. *"Some 19th-century evangelicals defended slavery on theological grounds"* is a true historical claim; using that as a current-Christianity straw-man is fallacious, but engaging the historical record per se is not. - **The Habermas-Licona "minimal facts" approach in resurrection apologetics.** The minimal-facts methodology engages only the historical claims widely accepted across the scholarly spectrum *including critical scholars* (empty tomb attestation by [Bart Ehrman](/codex/bart-ehrman/); post-mortem appearances in [1 Cor 15](/codex/1-corinthians-15/) pre-Pauline creed). *Why this isn't straw-manning critics:* it is steel-manning the critics' own conceded factual base, then asking what best-explains-the-conceded-facts. The opposite of straw-man. - **Pointing out internal Christian disagreements.** When a critic engages one side of an internal-Christian debate (e.g., conditional immortality vs eternal conscious torment on hell; YEC vs old-earth on Genesis), this isn't straw-manning Christianity-as-such IF the critic identifies which Christian position is being engaged. The straw-man fallacy requires presenting one position as if it were the universal-Christian position; engaging a specific position within Christianity-as-internally-diverse is legitimate. - **Steel-manning a position the proponent presents weakly.** When an apologist or critic actively *strengthens* an argument before engaging it (the opposite of straw-manning), that's not the fallacy, that's Rapoport-Rule application. The diagnostic test that separates legitimate engagement-of-real-position from straw-manning: **is the version being attacked one that actual rigorous proponents hold?** If the version doesn't appear in the canonical primary sources, it's straw-man. If it does, even if it's not the strongest form, engagement is legitimate. ## When it's actually fallacious Clear cases where the straw-man charge sticks: - **"Christians believe in a magic Sky-Daddy."** Fails to engage classical theism (Augustine *De Trinitate*; Aquinas *Summa Theologiae* 1a; Anselm *Proslogion*; Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics; Plantinga; Swinburne; Feser). Classical theism is the position God is *ipsum esse subsistens*, the subsistent act of being, the very negation of "anthropomorphic Sky-Daddy." - **"Christianity is iron-age desert myths."** Fails to engage the historical-resurrection case (Wright *The Resurrection of the Son of God* 2003; Habermas-Licona *The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus* 2004; Bauckham *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* 2006) + cumulative case for theism (Aquinas Five Ways, fine-tuning, Kalam, moral, ontological). - **"Christians believe the universe is 6000 years old."** Straw-mans by reducing to YEC. Augustine + Aquinas + most patristic + most Catholic + most mainline Protestant + Anglican + Lutheran + Methodist + Eastern Orthodox + many evangelical traditions do NOT entail YEC. (See [Theistic Evolution](/codex/theistic-evolution/) / [Origins and Cosmology](/codex/origins-and-cosmology/).) - **"Christianity teaches blind faith."** Straw-mans *pistis* / *fides quaerens intellectum*; engaged in [Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection](/codex/faith-is-belief-without-evidence-objection/) / [Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection Defeater](/codex/faith-is-belief-without-evidence-objection-defeater/) with the 5-step equivocation-defeater + biblical-lexical case (*pistis* G4102 + *'emunah* H530). - **"Atheism = nihilism."** (Christian counter-straw-man.) Atheist humanist ethics (Wielenberg *Robust Ethics* 2014; Shafer-Landau; Enoch) actively maintain ethical commitment. The Moral Argument's force is on *grounding* of objective morality, not on predicting individual moral behavior. - **"Evolution = monkeys turning into humans randomly."** (Christian counter-straw-man on biology.) Mainstream evolutionary biology claims common ancestry + natural selection; selection is non-random in the technical sense (mutations are random with respect to fitness, but differential reproduction is not). The proper Christian engagement is the design-vs-evolution debate at the level of information-content + irreducible-complexity (Behe, Meyer), not at the strawmanned-popular-evolution level. - **"Atheists believe everything came from nothing."** (Christian counter-straw-man on cosmology.) Krauss *A Universe from Nothing* (2012) and mainstream cosmology actually claim emergence from a *quantum-vacuum-state* (Krauss's "nothing" is a technical term Krauss is criticized for using, but it's not philosophical-absolute-nothing); the philosophical question of why-anything-rather-than-nothing remains, but the straw-man "atheists believe absolute nothing produced everything" is not Krauss's position. - **"Christians believe gays go to hell."** Straw-mans Christian sexual ethics (which distinguishes orientation from action; condemns sin not the person; engages the [Mt 7:1](/codex/matthew-7-1/) self-reflection imperative; differs across traditions on doctrinal scope). ## Christian scholarly resources - **Daniel Dennett, *Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking*** (Norton, 2013). Dennett's "Rapoport's Rules", the four-step steel-manning procedure (named after Anatol Rapoport). The methodological antidote to straw-manning. - **Douglas Walton, *Informal Logic* 2nd ed.** (Cambridge, 2008). Standard taxonomic treatment of straw-man. - **Patrick Hurley, *A Concise Introduction to Logic*** (Cengage, multiple eds.). Textbook treatment. - **Irving Copi, Carl Cohen, & Kenneth McMahon, *Introduction to Logic*** (Routledge, 14th ed.). Alternate canonical textbook. - **G. K. Chesterton, *Orthodoxy*** (1908) + ***The Everlasting Man*** (1925). Defenses against then-popular caricatures of Christianity; structurally anti-straw-man. - **C. S. Lewis, *Mere Christianity*** (Macmillan, 1952). Lewis's project to articulate the "real" Christianity against caricatures; "Myth Became Fact" essay (*God in the Dock*) addresses the iron-age-myth straw-man. - **[David](/codex/david/) Bentley Hart, *Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies*** (Yale, 2009); ***The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss*** (Yale, 2013). Engages New Atheist straw-manning of Christianity / classical theism extensively. - **[Edward Feser](/codex/edward-feser/), *The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism*** (St. Augustine's Press, 2008); ***Five Proofs of the Existence of God*** (Ignatius, 2017). Engages New Atheist straw-manning of classical theism specifically. - **[John Lennox](/codex/john-lennox/), *God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?*** (Lion, 2007); ***Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target*** (Lion, 2011). Popular-academic engagement with New Atheist straw-manning. - **[Alvin Plantinga](/codex/alvin-plantinga/), *Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism*** (Oxford, 2011). Engages anti-Christian / anti-classical-theism straw-manning at the philosophical level. - **Bart Ehrman, *Did Jesus Exist?*** (HarperOne, 2012). Critical-secular scholar's engagement with the Christ-mythicism straw-man, useful for Christians as a non-Christian source against the iron-age-myth caricature. - **[Tim Keller](/codex/tim-keller/), *The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism*** (Dutton, 2008); ***Making Sense of God*** (Viking, 2016). Pastoral-academic engagement with popular-level Christian / atheist straw-mans. ## See also - [Fallacies](/codex/fallacies/), master hub - _template, entry template - [Genetic Fallacy](/codex/genetic-fallacy/), sister informal fallacy - [Ad Hominem](/codex/ad-hominem/), sister informal fallacy - [No True Scotsman Fallacy](/codex/no-true-scotsman-fallacy/) / [No True Scotsman Charge Defeater](/codex/no-true-scotsman-charge-defeater/), sister false-fallacy-charge defeater - [God of the Gaps](/codex/god-of-the-gaps/) / [God of the Gaps Objection Defeater](/codex/god-of-the-gaps-objection-defeater/), frequently straw-manned by the New Atheist deployment - [Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection](/codex/faith-is-belief-without-evidence-objection/) / [Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection Defeater](/codex/faith-is-belief-without-evidence-objection-defeater/), the *pistis* straw-man treated extensively - [Bible Scientific Errors Objection](/codex/bible-scientific-errors-objection/), engages the genre-sensitive hermeneutical tradition straw-manned by literal-word-for-word charges - [Misogyny in the Bible Objection](/codex/misogyny-in-the-bible-objection/), engages patriarchal-hermeneutical straw-manning - [OT vs NT God Objection](/codex/ot-vs-nt-god-objection/), engages vengeful-fire-and-brimstone straw-manning - [Hell as Eternal Torment Objection](/codex/hell-as-eternal-torment-objection/), engages all-non-Christians-go-to-hell straw-manning - [Salvation of the Unevangelized](/codex/salvation-of-the-unevangelized/), synthesis treating the inclusivist / exclusivist / universalist debate - [Methodological Naturalism](/codex/naturalism/), frequently straw-manned by Christians as "atheism dressed up as science" - [Theistic Evolution](/codex/theistic-evolution/), queued; the position straw-manned by "evolution = monkeys randomly turning into humans" - [Christians Behaving Badly](/codex/christians-behaving-badly/), engages the sociological-track-record straw-man - [Atheism](/codex/atheism/), master hub - [New Atheism](/codex/new-atheism/), entity hub on the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens-Dennett movement (the most prolific source of straw-manning of Christianity) - [Reformed Epistemology](/codex/reformed-epistemology/), Plantinga's framework; frequently straw-manned as "fideism" - [Christian God is the Only True God](/codex/christian-god-is-the-only-true-god/), comparative-cumulative case syllogism
## Common questions this page answers **Q: What is a straw man fallacy?** A straw man fallacy is misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute, then refuting the misrepresentation as if it were the actual position. The name comes from the scarecrow image: easy to punch down, but irrelevant to the real thing. Refuting a fake version of a position does not refute the position. **Q: What are common straw men of Christianity?** "Christians believe in a magic sky-daddy." (Actual position: a necessary, eternal, personal Mind who is the ground of being.) "Christians think the Earth is 6,000 years old." (Many Christians hold old-earth and theistic-evolution positions; see [Genesis Interpretation Spread](/codex/genesis-interpretation-spread/).) "Christians believe faith means belief without evidence." (Actual position: faith is trust grounded in evidence; see [Faith and Reason](/codex/faith-and-reason/).) "Christianity is anti-science." (Actually the harmony tradition Christians built modern science within.) **Q: What is steel-manning?** Steel-manning is the opposite of straw-manning: stating an opponent's position so charitably that they would say "yes, that is exactly what I mean." [Daniel Dennett](/codex/daniel-dennett/)'s formal version is Rapoport's Rules: (1) restate the opponent's position charitably; (2) note agreement; (3) note what you have learned; (4) only then rebut. If you cannot pass step one, you have not earned the right to step four. **Q: Do Christians straw-man atheists?** Yes. "Atheists believe everything came from nothing for no reason" misses what most naturalists mean by "nothing" (often a quantum vacuum or structured initial state). "Atheists have no basis for morality" can straw-man sophisticated atheist moral realists (Wielenberg, Shafer-Landau, Enoch) who give substantive accounts. The discipline applies symmetrically: state the strongest version of the opposing view, then engage it. **Q: How do you respond to a straw-man attack?** Restate your actual position clearly: "That is not what I am claiming. Here is the position I am defending: [statement]. Engage that." Then ask the speaker to restate your view in their own words; if they cannot, they were arguing against something else. Often they will adjust; sometimes they will reveal that the substantive position has no easy answer, which is the cleanest reply.