Apologetics:2

The beginning of critical thinking starts with

argumentation.

 In order to understand argumentation, one

needs to learn:

◦ The nature of an argument

◦ The law of non-contradiction

◦ Logical fallacies that frustrate and mislead.

 Without knowing how to think critically, one

is easily swayed by emotion.

 Everyone of us have seen this at one time or

another.

 It is visible in the propaganda heard across

airwaves, seen on television, and even in the

classroom (not this one of course).

 In fact, once leaving the safety of this school,

people all around you will try to sway you to

whatever they feel is right.

 Most people think of an argument as two

people raising their voices and call each other

names.

 However, properly speaking, this would be

more of a confrontation or altercation.

 An argument, from a philosophical

perspective, is when one draws a conclusion

from various premises.

 There are several key words that indicate a

premise being presented:

◦ Because

◦ For

◦ For this reason

◦ As

◦ If

◦ Based on the fact that

◦ etc.

 When drawing a conclusion, the use of the

following words may be used:

◦ Therefore

◦ Thus

◦ Consequently

◦ Hence

◦ It follows that

◦ Etc.

 By keeping indicators such of the previously

given examples, one can detect an on-coming

or concluding argument.

 However, these can be also be confused with

assertions.

 An assertions is a statement without a premise.

◦ Example: “The Bible is full of contradiction.”

◦ Just because one makes a statement, it doesn’t

necessarily become an argument. This statement

would become an argument if followed by “because...”

 This is the foundational law for all logical

thinking.

 It is defined as follows:

◦ a statement (or proposition) cannot be true and not

true at the same time and in the same respect.

◦ Example: It cannot be raining and not cloudy

outside at the same time and in the same respect.

 This law is not something that was made by

man, just as the laws of nature were not

created by man.

 Without this law, there would be no way to

tell if something were true or false.

 We see examples of this in the Bible:

◦ John 10:35 – “His Word cannot be broken.”

◦ Hebrews 6:18 – “He cannot lie.”

 Due these evidences, Christians should avoid

breaking this law as we should always speak

the truth.

 Moreover, without this law, it would be

impossible to tell is something were a lie.

 It is impossible for one to even deny this law

being in existence.

 Example:

“Hey, I don’t think the law of non-contradiction is really that

important. In fact, I believe that we don’t need to follow it at

all.”

“Really? So you think we need to follow the law of non-

contradiction. You really believe it’s that important?”

“Didn’t you hear me? I said just the opposite from what you

just said I said.”

“If the law of non-contradiction really isn’t important, then

we are both correct.”

 Although this seems like a clear-cut truth,

you will soon see that there are several

worldviews that deny this truth.

 However, as seen in the prior example, for a

person to claim this law a false, then they are

claim another one to be true, making their

claim contradictory.

 A fallacy is simply a faulty argument.

 There are three groupings of logical fallacies:

1. Fallacies of Ambiguity.

2. Fallacies of Relevance.

3. Fallacies of Presumption.

 These types of fallacies are due to differences

in cultures, age groups, races, prejudices,

and especially worldviews.

 One of the most important ground rules in all

communication is clear definitions.

 Frustration and misunderstanding can occur

if what is being said is unknown to the

listener or a clear definition is not supplied.

 Equivocation

◦ The fallacy of equivocation occurs when we use

different definitions for the same word, or a word is

taken in a different way than intended (a different

definition).

◦ Examples:

 “All men are created equal? If that were so, then there

wouldn’t be so many rich people.”

 “If all men are created equal, then why am I so short?”

◦ The fallacy occurred when the one making the

argument either misunderstood the equality of man

or deliberately distorted its meaning.

 Equivocation

◦ The best way in correcting a fallacy such as this is

to give reference to relative terms such as tall or

short.

 Something that may be short to you, may be tall to

me.

 Therefore, be sure to state that x is short in

comparison to y.

◦ Much of our humor is also based on equivocation.

◦ This is where we use puns or a “play on words.”

 Equivocation

◦ Example:

 Ben Franklin declared, “We must all hang together, or,

most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

◦ All of this is being stated for the reason of

witnessing to those who are in a pseudo-Christian

religion (i.e. cults).

◦ It is very important to define terms with groups

such as Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

 Both of these worldviews may use the name Jesus

Christ, but have completely different meaning.

 Equivocation

◦ For the Jehovah's Witness, they believe Jesus was

the first created being and was, in fact, the

Archangel Michael before he became the man

Jesus.

◦ Mormons, on the other hand, believe Jesus is

literally our older brother from a pre-existence. He

was believed to be the first born of the Father and

one of many gods.

◦ Therefore, defining terms is extremely important.

 These types of fallacies are irrelevant

additions to the argument that distort the

truth in an attempt to persuade the listener.

 Again, reason and logic should be used here.

 Within argumentation, emotion becomes an

enemy.

 Appeal to Pity

◦ This fallacy occurs when one tries to persuade by

invoking the listener to feel sorry for the individual

or group for whom one is arguing.

◦ Many times, pity is an appropriate reaction, but it is

not always a valid means of persuasion.

◦ Example:

 Often times there are abortion advocates who will

argue that if you make poor women carry their babies

to term, they may not be cared for properly.

 There are other arguments that are made stating that

the women will have to return to the “back ally butch”

to get an abortion.

 Appeal to Pity

◦ Although these arguments may be emotionally

persuasive, they are not relevant to the issue at

hand: taking the life of an unborn child.

◦ One is never justified in killing a child just because

life becomes harder for the mother or the child.

◦ This would be the same as believing that if you

broke your leg, it would be better for me to take

your life, then to have you endure the pain.

 Ad Hominem

◦ Ad hominem means “argument to the person.”

◦ This fallacy is committed when, instead of dealing

with what a person is arguing, someone attacks his

or her character.

◦ This becomes a faulty argument due to the

person’s character has nothing to do with the

truthfulness or falsehood of the claim.

◦ Examples:

 “You are wrong because you are an intolerant, closed-

minded, right-wing fundamentalist.

 Ad Hominem

◦ Examples:

 “You can’t trust anything he says. He is a liberal

pagan atheist and has no basis for morality.”

◦ Although these may be true about the person, they

have no bearing on the argument.

◦ Usually, the first thing a person wants to do is

defend themselves.

◦ However, you should keep that person on the

argument at hand as they usually have nothing left

in the arsenal to through at you. You’ve bested

them.

 Appeal to Ignorance

◦ This fallacy can occur in two ways.

1. To argue that something is true because it hasn’t

been proven to be false;

2. To argue that something is false because it hasn’t

been proven to be true.

◦ Just because there is no proof against your position

does not prove your position true.

◦ Likewise, just because a position has not been

proven does not mean that it is false.

 Appeal to Ignorance

◦ Here are a couple examples:

“You cannot prove God does not exist,

therefore God exists.”

“You cannot prove God does exist, therefore

God does not exist.”

 Red Herring

◦ A herring is a fish that can be used to distract and

confuse bloodhounds on the scent of game.

◦ Similarly, this fallacy is the introduction of an

irrelevant side issue into an argument which

ultimately distracts and confuses the case being

presented.

◦ Often positive (or even negative) reasons offered

for a conclusion have nothing to do with

conclusion.

 Red Herring

◦ Here are a couple of examples:

 “Of course she’s a good doctor. She drives a

great car and is really funny.”

 “You believe abortion is murder, yet you are in

support of capital punishment?”

 Fallacies of presumption are those fallacies

where someone holds to an unjustified

conclusion.

 This is usually caused by overlooking,

denying, evading, or distorting the facts.

 Hasty Generalization

◦ When you wish to make an argument for a certain

position, you need to gather information for

support.

◦ In doing this, you must be very careful to gather

sufficient evidence to support your conclusion.

◦ The fallacy of hasty generalization is committed

when a person gathers too little information to

support the conclusion being argued.

 Hasty Generalization

◦ Just because one or two taxi drivers are rude and

obnoxious does not mean that you can generalize

that all (or even most) taxi drivers behave this way.

◦ All that can legitimately be drawn from such a

sampling is that the particular taxi drivers you have

encountered were rude and obnoxious.

◦ In the same way, just because a person may

encounter a couple of Christian TV evangelists who

have questionable character does not mean one

can conclude that all Christians have questionable

character.

 Hasty Generalization

◦ These examples get at the heart of the most

common way this fallacy is manifest: prejudices.

◦ Our prejudices are typically built on a very small

sampling, and then are generalized and applied to

an entire group (or sub-group) of people or things.

◦ From a few to the majority!

 Sweeping Generalization

◦ The fallacy of sweeping generalization is

committed when one takes a general rule and

applies it absolutely to all instances, not

recognizing that there are exceptions.

◦ The generalization might be a very fair one, but the

application in particular, uncommon, or unique

instances may not be valid.

 Sweeping Generalization

◦ For example, exercise is generally a good thing.

◦ Yet what if you have a heart condition?

◦ One could say, “Aerobics is the best way to

exercise, and Jenny really needs exercise for her

heart condition.”

◦ The problem is that while aerobics might be “the

best way to exercise,” it would obviously not be the

right way for Jenny. Instead of it helping her, it

might kill her.

◦ Just because it is true for 99% of the population,

does not mean that it can be applied to the

remaining1%.

 Sweeping Generalization

◦ Here are a couple more examples:

 “I haven’t met a single moral atheist. Therefore,

no atheists are moral.”

 “All Christians hate homosexuals. At least, all the

ones I know do.”

 Begging the Question

◦ This fallacy occurs when one simply assumes what he

or she is trying to prove.

◦ This situation can be demonstrated in the following

conversation between two thieves who just stole three

bars of gold:

 Thief A: “So how are we going to divide the gold?”

 Thief B: “I should get two bars and you can have

one.”

 Thief A: “Why should you get two bars?’

 Thief B: “Because I am the leader.”

 Thief A: “How did you get to be the leader?”

 Thief B: “Because I have two bars.”

 Faulty Dilemma

◦ This fallacy occurs when a person states that

there are only a certain number of options, and

you must choose between them, when in fact

there are more options available.

◦ In John 9:2—3 the disciples posed a faulty

dilemma when, concerning a man who had been

blind from birth, they asked, “Rabbi, who sinned,

this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

◦ This is an either/or type of question.

 Faulty Dilemma

◦ Instead of answering the question with one of the

suggested responses, Jesus denies both and

supplies a third.

 Jesus said, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,

but this happened so that the work of God might be

displayed in his life.”

 Complex Question

◦ One common attempt by unbelievers to stump

believers is to ask the age-old question:

 “Can God create a rock so big that he can’t lift it?”

 If you answer yes, then God’s omnipotence (all-

powerfulness) is denied due to the fact that he can’t

lift the rock.

 If you answer no, however, then God’s omnipotence is

denied because he can’t create such a rock.

◦ Neither of these answers is satisfying to a Bible-

believing Christian.

◦ How does one reason out of this dilemma?

 Complex Question

◦ This example can be classified as the fallacy of a

complex question, or loaded question.

◦ What if I asked you, “Have you stopped beating

your wife yet?”

 If you answer yes, that implies that you have been

beating her.

 If you answer no, then you are still beating her.

 The problem lies in the question; it is one of those

that is simply not fair to ask.

 You would have to respond that you have never beaten

your wife, and that the question presupposes that you

have.

◦ You can’t answer with a simple yes or a no.

 Complex Question

◦ Now back to God and the big rock.

 You cannot answer this question with a simple yes or

no.

 What you have to do is show that the question is not

fair. (It might be good to provide the question about

beating one’s wife as an illustration of this.)

◦ You see, by definition, since God is omnipotent

(and that is what the Bible teaches), he could create

the largest rock possible.

 Complex Question

◦ Now back to God and the big rock.

 You cannot answer this question with a simple yes or

no.

 What you have to do is show that the question is not

fair. (It might be good to provide the question about

beating one’s wife as an illustration of this.)

◦ You see, by definition, since God is omnipotent

(and that is what the Bible teaches), he could create

the largest rock possible. Also, because God is

omnipotent, he could lift the largest possible rock.

◦ The problem with the question is that it is faulty;

the question was loaded.

 Complex Question

◦ You cannot set the creative expression of an

omnipotent being against the abilities of an

omnipotent being.

◦ That would be just as illogical as asking whether or

not God could create a square circle or if God could

count higher than infinity.

◦ It is not within the realm of reality to speak of such

illusions, and they do not in any way illustrate any

limitation in God’s power and abilities.

 False Analogy

◦ An analogy is said to be fallacious or false if it

compares two objects that are actually relevantly

dissimilar or if the points of comparison are used

to draw a conclusion that simply does not follow.

◦ Consider the following example:

 “You Christians claim to have miracles to support

your religion, but so do other religious traditions,

such as Mormonism. Thus there is no reason to

believe that Christianity is true.”

◦ The two objects being compared are Christians

and Mormons.

 False Analogy

◦ Their status as religions and their claim that

miracles occur and support their validity are the

points of commonalities.

◦ However, the conclusion that Christianity is false

because another religion claims miracles does

not follow.

◦ For example, it is possible that miracles occur

within both religions traditions.

◦ It is also possible that either Christianity or

Mormonism have lied or believed falsely

regarding the miracles claimed by their religion.

 False Cause

◦ This fallacy is committed when a person believes

that just because one thing followed another

there must be a causal connection.

◦ In many ancient cultures, people believed that

the gods caused all sickness.

◦ These cultures would therefore attempt to

placate the wrath of their gods by means of

various sacrifices.

◦ At times, the sickness would go away after the

sacrifices.

 False Cause

◦ Because of this, their beliefs were reinforced.

◦ They believed that the gods had been placated,

and the sickness was removed because of the

sacrifice.

◦ Mere chronological sequence does not prove

causation.

 Straw Man

◦ The straw man fallacy occurs when a person

misrepresents another’s view so as to easily

discredit it.

◦ This can happen intentionally or unintentionally.

◦ The image this fallacy conjures up is that of a

person building a straw man simply to knock it

over.

 Straw Man

◦ One might say, “You say that the New Testament

teaches that we are not under law, and that we are

saved by grace through faith alone. Therefore,

what you teach is that we can sin all we want after

we are saved.”

◦ This is a straw man according to Paul in Romans 6:

 The person making such an argument simplified the

New Testament’s stance on the law, sin, and salvation

in order to easily defeat a teaching they either didn’t

understand or with which they didn’t agree.

 Appeal to Majority

◦ We see this fallacy when we appeal to a group of

people to prove that something is true or false,

right or wrong.

◦ Many times Americans fall into this trap.

◦ For example, some people think that certain

sexual practices are justified because over 50% of

the American public believes that they are

permissible.

◦ We cannot determine right and wrong by majority

vote.

 Appeal to Majority

◦ In the past, many people believed that the Earth

was flat. But just because they believed this, does

it mean that the Earth was indeed flat? Does

majority vote make things true or right today?

◦ Just because a great number of Americans think

that abortion is acceptable, does that make it so?

◦ In the end, we cannot determine right/wrong or

true/false by majority vote.

◦ Such a thing can be decided only by legitimate

reasons and evidence.

 Appeal to Tradition

◦ This fallacy occurs when one appeals either to what

is old, or to what is new in the attempt to establish

the truth.

◦ Someone may appeal to what is traditional.

 “We have always done it this way, it must be right.”

◦ However, there may be a better way.

 Appeal to Tradition

◦ More often today, we hear an appeal to the

modern.

 “We moderns don’t believe in the existence of God.

That was for ages past when people believed in

mythology.”

◦ Merely because something is old or new does not

make it right or true.