Way Truth Life Apologetics

(original post 16 Oct 2019)

This is the 2^nd of two posts regarding the topic of logic. In the first post (yesterday) I addressed the three laws of logic which pertain to thought. Today we will look at common logical fallacies people use (intentionally or unintentionally) in discussion / debate. When a person uses a logical fallacy, their position is invalidated; the point of debate / /argument is to civilly make a logical (reasonable) point where the premises are not falsifiable and sustain the conclusion one has come to. Logical fallacies deviate from reasonable debate / argument and in doing so, the one guilty of employing logical fallacy(s) has essentially “lost” the discussion.

What is meant by the term “logical fallacy?” Logical fallacy is defined as, “a misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts / truth.[1]” In other words, “fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.[2]“ Logical fallacies fall into one of two categories: formal and informal. “A formal fallacy is defined as an error that can be seen within the argument’s form. Every formal fallacy is a non sequitur (or, an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.) An informal fallacy refers to an argument whose proposed conclusion is not supported by the premises. This creates an unpersuasive or unsatisfying conclusion.[3]” The logical fallacies we will look at in this post fall into the informal fallacy category.

Next, let’s look at some of the common informal logical fallacies:

Ad hominem—occurs when the character of a person is attacked rather than the merits of his / her argument. Example: “Abortion is the murder of an unborn human being.” Response, “You think that because you’re anti-woman and sexist.” Rather than responding to the claim about abortion, the other person instead goes after the character of the person making the claim.

Strawman—occurs when someone creates a caricature of another’s viewpoint and then easily knocks that viewpoint down. Writing a book review, one atheist opined, “I give this book 5 stars not because it convinced me that a magical super-being spoke the universe into existence and revealed himself to ancient, ignorant people through the virgin birth of a man-god who did party tricks, got killed, then rose from the dead and flew off into the sky. No, I give this book 5 stars because it’s the best defense of such a myth that can possibly be mustered.[4]” There are numerous points of this strawman about Christianity: ‘magical super-being,’ ‘ancient, ignorant people,’ ‘man-god who did party tricks,’ ‘flew off into the sky;’ these are all strawman points which create a mockery of Christian doctrinal beliefs about God so the atheist writer can easily discount Christianity as a whole. Another strawman example, “There is clear evidence that humans invent gods. Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence.[5]”

Hasty Generalization—coming to a conclusion with insufficient or biased evidence; a rush to judgment without knowledge of all relevant facts. Example: waking up in the morning with a headache and claiming, “this day is going to be terrible.” You have no knowledge of what the day’s events will be yet make judgment about the entire day based on one factor. The headache may go away quickly, you get a promotion at work / receive a passing grade on a major test / project / get acceptance letter to your first choice university / etc. You don’t have all the details, yet you’re making a generalized judgment.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc / False cause—”This is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’[6]” Or put another way, “refers to an argument where someone cites sequential events as evidence that the first event caused the second.[7]” Example: The conclusion is that people in non-Christian countries (who don’t become Christians) are judged and sent to hell by no fault of their own. The conclusion doesn’t logically follow as there are people from non-Christian countries who DO become Christians (Ravi Zacharias is a great example). Counter to the point, Richard Dawkins, renowned atheist from England (a predominantly Christian nation) is an atheist, not a Christian. So, geography does not necessarily determine one’s beliefs as the initial claim attempts to posit.

Circular reasoning—when the conclusion ones tries to arrive at is utilized in their supporting claim(s). Example: “Marriage is between two people who love each other so people should be allowed to marry whomever they love.” This has been used to support same-sex marriages, however it is circular reasoning and it involves redefining what marriage is, so clarification should be made up front regarding terminology. Christians are also guilty of circular reasoning, “The Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible.” I believe whole heartedly that the Bible is God’s Word, however I would never use this argument to validate my point; it is circular and invalid to do so.

Genetic fallacy—”conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.[8]” One example of this is found in the Bible. John 1:43-46 records Jesus calling Phillip, who then finds Nathaniel and tells about Jesus, that He is from Nazareth. “And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? (vs 46)”. Nathaniel initially tries to disqualify Jesus based on where He lives.

Ad populum (Bandwagon)—”appeal to the popularity of something as a means of validating it.[9]” The everybody-is-doing-it-so-it-must-be-right mentality. History is full of examples of this fallacious thinking: Hitler—Jews, disabled, gypsies are subhuman and should be eliminated (laws created to legally imprison and kill certain groups of people); Slavery was the law of the land (and in Islam it still is). Just because something is popular or “legal” due to laws which are passed does not mean that the position is morally correct or valid.

Moral equivalency—”compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.[10].” Example: the US government detaining illegal immigrants in detention facilities being compared to ‘internment camps for Japanese Americans during WWII,’ ‘concentration camps during the Holocaust,’ and leaders being referred to as ‘Hitler.’

This list is by no means exhaustive as there are many other informal fallacies (as the image above depicts, there are numerous types of logical fallacies). My aim was to point out some of the more popular and frequently used fallacies which occur in debate / discussion. Being able to identify when a person uses one of these puts one in a strategic advantage as the fallacy does not invalidate the argument it is being used against, rather it invalidates the argument of the person guilty of the fallacy. This further emphasizes the importance of paying attention to what is being said, taking a moment to mentally work through the claim(s), and then respond. If a person uses a fallacy to further their point, stop the argument and point out the fallacy; do not let the argument advance with the fallacy unchallenged! As stated in the past, do this with humility and meekness, not out of a prideful desire to insult or embarrass the other person. When encountering someone using flawed reasoning as you evangelize, you represent Jesus and His model was to draw people who were genuinely seeking truth, not aggressively and insultingly repel them.

~In Christ!

---

[1] https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[2] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html

[3] https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[4] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1952

[5] https://www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/eight-reasons-christianity-is-false/

[6] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html

[7] https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[8] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html

[9] https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[10] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html