Session 2 - Logic in Apologetics

In this session we will examine one of the main areas of philosophy, logic.

We will look at identifying logical fallacies inside statements (with examples from

apologetic questions)

We will also look at different ways to prove things true

The purpose of logic is the examine the claims made in epistemology, to see if

they are true or false

Many of these logical fallacies and laws will be very familiar to you, and easy to

identify… But others will not be

Let’s look at these fallacies and how to identify them

Ad Hominem Argument

Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an

argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation

Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.

Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

In Apologetics My opponent went to an unaccredited

college, therefore his argument is wrong

These arguments are fairly easy to spot, when one side of the debates decides to

attack his opponent instead of the arguments he presented

Happens all the time in Creation vs. Evolution debates

This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not

be allowed to occur either.

Slippery Slope

This is easy to fall into! Christians do it just as often

Direct TV had a great example1. When your cable company puts you on hold, you get angry. 2. When you get angry, you go blow-off steam. 3. When you go blow-off steam, accidents happen. 4. When accidents happen, you get an

eye-patch. 5. When you get an eye-patch, people think you’re tough. 6. When people think you’re

tough, people want to see how tough. 7. And when people want to see how tough, you wake-up in a

roadside ditch. 8. Don’t wake-up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of cable.

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the

government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

Things non-Christians tag as slippery slopes:

If we legalize homosexual marriage that means we will eventually let people marry

their mom or dad or brother or sister

Slippery Slopes they end up in

If we allow creationism to be taught in public schools as an alternative to

evolution, the next thing you know they’ll teach a flat earth and a solid sky as an

alternative to modern cosmology.

If they restrict pornography today, tomorrow they will take away all of your

freedom of speech.

This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are

rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Hasty Generalization

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

Another easy one to fall into

Some of the Christians I met are hypocritical. Therefore, all Christians

are hypocrites.

An atheist I met made some very irrational arguments. Therefore, most atheists

are irrational.

Popular examples that come up

Don’t be hasty to generalize

Cause and Effect Fallacy

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must

have made me sick.

This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have

caused 'A.'

Example:

Apologetic example:

1. One of the Protestant movement's most important doctrines is Sola

Scriptura (Scripture alone). 2. The Protestant denominations have since

fragmented. Therefore, Sola Scriptura causes denominational splitting.

You can’t actually show a cause and effect relationship, it is possible, but not provable

Genetic Fallacy

Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history

of the claim

The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a

VW Beetle because of who started it.

Example:

In Apologetics

Something that is often told to Christians is: “Most Christians are believers because their

parents were.”

Often the point is to disprove Christianity… How does that do it? Just because your

parents were believers and you were raised believing it doesn’t make it wrong? That’s

not a valid argument against anything

Begging the Claim

The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim.

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Example:

You can’t just assert your position that coal is filthy and polluting… that’s the debate

Example:

The Pope is the head of the true church on earth because he is the head of the Roman

Catholic Church.

The scientific theory of evolution should be taught in public schools and not the

religious views of creation

Whether you believe that or not, just saying it doesn’t prove it

Circular Argument

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

This restates the argument rather than actually proving it

Example:

These can be hard to catch at times, here’s an example in apologetics

1. The Gospels contain several prophecies of the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of

the Temple. 2. Any supposed prophecy of an event that actually occurred was probably written in

hindsight. 3. The Romans attacked and destroyed

Jerusalem (including the Temple) in 70 A.D. (i.e. Mat 23:37, 38; Mark 13:1-3). Therefore,

the Gospels were probably written after 70 A.D.

Disjunctive Syllogism

This fallacy is assuming that two (or more) propositions are mutually exclusive, that is,

at most one of them is true; but that has yet to be demonstrated.

1. It is either raining, or it is not. 2. It is raining.

Therefore, "It is not raining" is untrue.

Good example:

Example in Apologetics

1. Either God is sovereign or man has free will2. God is sovereign.

Therefore, free will doesn't exist.

The conclusion would only follow from premise 2 if the two propositions in premise 1 were shown to be truly

mutually exclusive.

Either/or

This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two

sides or choices.

We can either stop using coal fire plants or destroy the earth.

Example:

Is it possible there’s another option?

Red Herring

This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing

arguments rather than addressing them

I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier,

you'd not be having problems.

Example:

I would support the President with the War in Iraq, but I don't like his policy on

the economy.

If we teach creationism in public schools our technological advancements will fall behind

compared to other countries, isn’t technology important to our economy?

Examples in Apologetics

Red herrings are everywhere in debate

Straw ManThis move oversimplifies an opponent's

viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

Mom: The doctor says that these exercises will help you recover more quickly.

Son: Aw, Mom! Do I have to look like Arnold Schwarzsengger?

Special Pleading (double standard)

Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.

Example:

You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.

Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

Example in apologetics:

Often times when someone brings something up that you can’t answer as a

Christian, they say that means you are wrong (after all, you can’t explain something)

However, when you bring up to an atheist that they can’t explain the origin of life, they

say they’re still studying it

Poisoning the Well (form of Ad Hominem)

Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to

discredit the person's argument.

Example:

Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank

has to say about the subject

Appeal to Popularity/Majority

Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example:

Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Just because the majority do or believe something doesn’t have any bearing on the

truth of the statement

Example in Apologetics

The majority of scientists believe in evolution, therefore you should too

This also happens on the flip side though

The majority of the world population believe in God or gods (theism) therefore

God (or gods) must exist

The majority doesn’t prove it

Many other fallacies do exist

Loaded Question

"Why is George W. Bush so blood thirsty?"

Appeal to Authority

“Scholars say…” Therefore it must be true?

Appeal to Tradition

It’s the way we’ve been doing it for years

Two types of reasoning

Deductive reasoning (Sherlock)

In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are

assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the

premises are true.

Deductive reasoning leads to truth with certainty

All men are mortal. Joe is a man. Therefore Joe is mortal. If the first two statements

are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Example of deductive reasoning

Bachelor's are unmarried men. Bill is unmarried. Therefore, Bill is a bachelor.

Both these things are true if the premises are correct

Inductive reasoning (Psych)

In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be

derived from those data

In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data.

With inductive reasoning you get truth to a degree of probability

Examples:

This marble from the bag is black. That marble from the bag is black. A third (all the way to one hundred) marbles from the bag are all black. Therefore all the marbles in

the bag black.

While from the data that we have it sure seems unlikely that a red marble is in

there, we don’t know for sure

Some apologetic examples:

An argument to prove atheists can’t exist by deductive reason

1) To be an atheist is to claim that there is absolutely, positively NO God (to claim

ignorance is agnosticism)

2) To know absolutely, positively that there is no God, then one has to have all

information about ALL things

3) To have such knowledge would make one God. (being omniscience)

Therefore the only one who could be a true atheist would be God.

Is it a good argument? Are any of the premises wrong? If none of the premises are incorrect, than the

conclusion is correct

When you come across an argument, your goal is to look at the premises and see if any

of them are false

Premise 1: God is all lovingPremise 2: God is all Powerful

Premise 3: An all loving being would stop suffering whenever they could

Conclusion: Therefore God is either not all loving or not all powerful

Any problems?

We will look at other examples throughout this class of deductive (and inductive)

reasoning that supports God and Christianity

Do your best to familiarize yourself with the different logical fallacies and keep your eye

open for them in conversations. They happen all the time! Most people just don’t

know how to identify them.

Memory Verse

Isaiah 1:18A: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD”