You searched for Fallacy Free

What is Christian Apologetics?

Posted on September 15, 2023September 15, 2023 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

When I first began my master’s degree program, I remember telling my father that I was in a Christian apologetics degree. He chuckled and said, “Well, it’s about time you Christians start apologizing.” I retorted, with a playful smile, “Now, Dad, you know that’s not what I mean.” I explained to him what I’m about to share with you, that apologetics entails offering a case for Christian beliefs and answering objections against Christian beliefs (see 2 Corinthians 10:5 and 1 Peter 3:15)…doing so with gentleness and respect.

What is Christian Apologetics? A Sports Analogy

My dad was a huge sports fan, and just like him, any coach of a sports team knows that to be well prepared for their games, they need to have both a good offense and a good defense. Dad frequently complained about a lack of one or the other with whatever team he was watching at the time. If a team goes into their game without any understanding of how to defend their goal, they are going to lose the match. If a team only knows how to defend their goal, but not how to win points through offensive strategy, they will also lose the match. While Christianity is not about “winning” or “losing” in this way, we can encounter difficulties in our own game of life for which we feel unprepared if we are not intentionally building our analogous offense and defense.

On the Defensive Line

Christian apologetics can help an individual understand the doubts, questions, and objections that are: 1) part of growing up and maturing as a person, and 2) part of living in an increasingly post-Christian society.

When we are young, we tend to trust, for the most part, the authority figures in our lives. We believe what they say and try to live like those teachings are true. As we age, and begin to encounter more experiences in life, we naturally begin to question what we’ve learned so far. Ideas, such as the goodness of God, which were simpler concepts when we had less experience with pain, suffering, and death, now become much more complicated. This questioning isn’t a bad thing, rather it’s a part of maturing as a human thinker.

As our society’s culture becomes increasingly relativistic, post-Christian, and social media/entertainer influenced, the profound philosophical Christian concepts begin to lose their comprehended complexity, becoming more caricatured and reduced even to absurdities. Thoughtful questioning and understanding of beliefs are often traded for quick, inflammatory sound bytes and slogans. As these short, uncritical ideas become popularized through various streams of social media, they become harder to engage well. Apologetics helps believers answer these popularized caricatures of Christianity, as well as engage in the deeper questions of life.

On the Offensive Line

When professing Christians do not know what they believe or why they believe it, their trust and faith in God can be affected. For example, at times, when I’ve conversed with someone who left Christianity and the church, and I’ve asked them what they used to believe, I’ve ended up saying, “Well, I don’t believe that about God, either.” While I’m sure there are many reasons why this happens, in my own church education, I rarely came across any depth of teaching on basic Christian theology, church history, or aspects of philosophy such as basic logic (thinking well) and the difficult questions of life. I’ve noticed that believers are left to piece together Christianity between their own experiences, intermittent bible study(ies), topical sermons and/or sermon series, church cultural interests, and overall cultural influencers. Too often, this leaves them with an emaciated Christianity, stripped of its deeper explanatory power for the human experience.

Through building a positive case for belief in God, Christians can begin to discover why it is they believe that God is the answer to the fundamental questions of meaning, purpose, and value to human life. People can learn that God is not only worthy of our trust, but also of our worship and love (1 John 4).

What is apologetics? A game plan

In creating robust offensive and defensive apologetic lines, Christians develop a game plan for understanding and communicating their faith. Learning how to make a case for what we believe is not a “10-step-program to winning in life,” but, rather, an important piece of the holistic development of a maturing believer in Christ. As the Apostle Peter admonished us, we are to “always be ready to give a defense (apologia) of the reason of your hope.” That reason is the hope that Jesus provided for us through the resurrection and redemption of humankind. And although we’re not apologizing for our beliefs, in a way, we are saying, “Sorry, not sorry,” for holding onto that redeeming hope within a society that needs to see genuine Christians living out, and putting into action, the truths they profess to believe.

*Author’s note: In a future post, I’ll discuss the important aspect of apologetics, which entails communicating our beliefs with “gentleness and respect.”

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Hasty Generalization

Posted on February 9, 2012October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“This is the best post on apologetics ever!”

While at first glance–or from intuition–you might brush my
statement aside as ludicrous, there is actually a fallacy represented here by my
hyperbolic enthusiasm for my own writing: a hasty generalization.

Hasty generalization: generalizing about a class based upon
a small or poor sample.

In committing the hasty generalization fallacy, there are
normally two problems involved:
#1.Too small of a sample
#2. Not a representative sample

Going back to my original statement, I am committing a hasty
generalization because I do not have access to all the posts written on
apologetics in order to know if the post I just wrote is the best post
ever. The sample size for my inference
would be too small.

Let’s look at the first problem: too small of a sample size.

If the sample size is too small, we risk it not being
representative of the broader class which we are referencing. In our political campaign examples, a
Democrat candidate might claim that because Republican Randy Presidential
Hopeful demeans other candidates then all Republicans are demeaning to other
people; therefore a democrat cannot vote for any Republican. But Republican Randy doesn’t represent how
all Republicans would treat Democrats (or other republicans, independents, etc).
The sample size here is too small to
make an accurate judgment. However, I’ve
heard this kind of inference from members of both parties!

Let’s look at the second problem: not a representative
sample.

Perhaps the person making the generalization has a large
sample size but it may not be a sample that aptly represents the class.

Example: All plumbers are rich. I just went to the international plumbers
convention and studied 3,000 plumbers there.
They all made over $100,000 a year.[1]

Though 3,000 plumbers sounds like a big enough sample size,
the sample does not aptly represent all plumbers. What about the plumbers who do not make
enough to go to an international plumbers convention? This sample size is probably only taken from
wealthy plumbers (or plumbers able to afford attending the convention) and therefore is a hasty generalization.

Be on the lookout in the presidential campaigns for hasty
generalizations; including throwing around poll percentages, tossing out
figures supporting a view, and attributing ideology to entire classes of
people. When you hear these figures you
should ask: Where are you getting that from?
What is the source of your information?
What were the control factors used in the study (ie. how many people
were surveyed and who were the people surveyed and did the survey have an apt
sample of the representative class)? These
are important questions to answer in order to avoid manipulation through the
logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

[1] Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn.
The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six
Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning.
(Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 122.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns

Posted on January 17, 2012October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The campaigning and debating for the 2012 presidential election is
already underway, as are loads of advertisements seeking to persuade
voters to vote for one candidate or another.

The campaigns in our current culture are largely focused on presentation
and perception (imagery), rather than on actually making good arguments
for their political platform (rationality). As
Christian philosopher, J.P. Moreland stated, “In the political process,
the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we
approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed
philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images,
emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites.”[1] The
American public is likely to see lots of negative and positive imagery
utilizing many logical fallacies to “trick” the voter into favoring a
candidate. These fallacies could include (but are not limited to): transfer, ad hominem,
hasty generalization, red herrings, appeal to pity, appeal to the
people, straw man, loaded questions, and faulty appeal to authority.

Here are links to the past six blog posts dealing with these topics:

1. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns (May 10th, 2011)
2. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Ad Hominem (May 18th, 2011)
3. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Red Herring (May 31st, 2011)
4. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Straw Man (June 17th, 2011)
5. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Appeal to Pity (August 29th, 2011)
6. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Loaded Question (October 25th, 2011)

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Loaded Question

Posted on October 25, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

A loaded question occurs when someone asks you two questions, but one is hidden behind the other. The purpose of a loaded question is to make you assume the answer to a hidden question, without actually asking that hidden question.[1]

In the example above, the hidden assumption is that the person has been beating his wife. While that’s not so hidden in this question, it still presents a problem because the question is asking for a “yes” or “no” answer. Both of these replies will incriminate the responder. If a “yes” answer is given, the person is admitting he used to beat his wife. If a “no” answer is given, the person is admitting he still beats his wife.How is this a problem for candidates in the elections? Candidates are asked all sorts of loaded questions by journalists and others who interview them and moderate their debates. For example, in the 2007 Republican debates, Senators John McCain and Mike Huckabee were asked this basic question, “Do you believe in evolution? Yes or no.”[2] At first, this may not appear to be a loaded question. However, if you know the history behind the question and the perceptions involved in the heated debate, this is an obviously loaded question. Let’s look at why.The issue has been superficially divided, for the most part, between those who believe the universe was created and those who believe the universe does not need a creator. Though the issue is wrongly divided in this way, it tends to get labeled and promoted as such, especially through the media. A person who has studied the question of evolution and the origins of the universe in some depth knows that there are non-religious scientists as well as religious scientists who argue, based in scientific evidence, for a creator of the universe.[3] There are also various views on evolution within the faith community. Yet the question assumes the perceptions of the issue: that ‘belief in science’ is what is actually at stake. So the assumed question is: what do you believe about the endeavor of science?Due to the simplistic labeling of the various positions on this argument, if Mike Huckabee or Senator McCain had simply answered “yes” or “no,” here’s how it would have come across because of the loaded question:“Yes” – I believe in science. (ala the movie Nacho Libre)

“No” – I do not believe in science.

Loaded questions have much to do with perceptions. That is why Mike Huckabee stated that his moderator was asking the wrong question.[4] This is an example of what to do when you are faced with a loaded question. You should question the question!MJ [1] Adapted from Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 120.[2] McCain was asked the question one-on-one. The moderator then asked for a show of hands of who “doesn’t believe in evolution.” Mike Huckabee, in a later debate, was asked to explain why he raised his hand to signify he “didn’t believe in evolution” in a more complex version of the same basic question.[3] Paul Davies, John O’Keefe, Fred Hoyle, Alan Sandage, Arno Penzias, Arthur Eddington and others.[4] He actually stated it was an “unfair question,” which I would not have said. I would have said it was the “wrong question.”

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Appeal to Pity

Posted on August 29, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

What a Pity! “Mr. Jones lost the last election because his opponent used a smear campaign to discredit him. Mr. Jones lost the election before that because of voter fraud. Mr. Jones lost the election before that because nobody knew who he was. Don’t you think it is about time you voted for Mr. Jones?”[1]

An appeal to pity occurs when a person tries to make us do something out of sympathy for him or because we pity something associated with him. This is a propaganda technique. Propaganda is any strategy used to spread ideas or beliefs.[2] Propaganda is not all bad, even though the term seems to have been stigmatized. The strategic spreading of ideas and beliefs is not necessarily wrong. However, while propaganda itself is not inherently bad, it can be used to manipulate a person’s actions by playing on their emotions. This is referred to as manipulative propaganda. An appeal to pity is an example of such manipulative propaganda. A person utilizing this fallacy will most likely include emotionally charged language in his appeal, in hopes that our emotions concerning an issue will get us to agree with the person’s conclusions. This strategy diverts attention away from the evidence for a position and from reasoning through an issue. An appeal to pity can also fall under the broader category of “an appeal to emotions”[3] due to its reliance on emotions. On a personal note, I find this fallacy to create a false dichotomy in which it is assumed that I must agree with the issue or cause in order to show sympathy or kindness to the affected person. I can offer help and show love to a person without agreeing with his ideology or with his current choices in life. Appeal to pity can aim to create a feeling of guilt and/or the accusation of being divisive if you don’t do as asked. Look at the following two examples: Guilt: “Senator Justice will enact a bill to further fund second-chance facilities for animals that many fat-cat congressmen have overlooked. He will help stop the abuse and neglect of these innocent animals by giving them another chance on life. Don’t you want to help too? Vote for Senator Justice.” In this appeal to pity, the listener is implicitly told that if he does not vote for Senator Justice, then he does not want to help stop the abuse and neglect of innocent animals (creating division). Notice the emotionally charged language utilized in this campaign ad: “fat-cat congressmen,” “abuse and neglect,” and “innocent” Also, the appeal to pity here does not say exactly how the funding will be used to give these animals another chance on life or if the current funding for this endeavor is being utilized well. It assumes the listener won’t ask those questions, because of course they want to help innocent animals and chastise fat-cat congressmen. Sometimes an appeal to pity is a little harder to spot. This can be due to the fact that we are already sympathetic towards the issue or idea. It can also be because the appeal is not as upfront. Here’s an example from The Fallacy Detective book: “After a debate touching on their own four-legged friends, senators [of the California senate] voted to forbid condominiums and mobile home parks from completely banning pets. Supporters said the bill would help many Californians, including older residents, whose lives could be brightened by animals. Arguing for the bill, Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, recalled that his on mother was greatly comforted by her little dog after Burton’s father passed away. ‘That poodle was a companion of my mother, who naturally, after the death of my father, was living at home alone,’ Burton said. – The Sacramento Bee, August 23, 2000.”[4] In this scenario, the senator is using an example of his own mother being comforted by her dog, but fails to mention this particular example’s evidential value to the argument of pets and condominiums/mobile home parks. Did his mother live in a condo or mobile home park? Did she have to fight to keep her pet? What was her line of reasoning that she should keep her pet? Should the government get involved? These are questions the listeners are not supposed to ask. They are supposed to become wrapped up in the sentimentality of the story. While it’s okay to have those sympathetic feelings, we should still be asking good questions about the proposed bill, right? From my own experience with presidential campaigns (the last couple decades), I can almost guarantee we will hear these kind of stories utilized to appeal to our pity, and therefore to try to get us to vote for a candidate. Again, it’s not that the evidential value of individual experiences is not important, but it is how the stories are being relayed that is important. Are they being lined out as actual evidences for a position? Or are they being used to pull on our ‘heart strings’ in place of evidences? The latter is an appeal to pity. Be on the lookout for the fallacy of an appeal to pity. Ask yourself what the candidate or campaign ad is specifically implying about you if you do or do not vote for them.

[1] Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 169

[2] Ibid., 159.

[3] M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), 91.

[4] Bluedorn, 170.

Logic in an Age of Persusasive Imagery, Part Five: Appeal to the People

Posted on July 16, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“One million users of Shiney Bubbles can’t be wrong!” Appeal to the People (ad populum): When we claim that our viewpoint is correct because many other people agree with it we are committing an appeal to the people. This logical fallacy is one of the more popularly (pun intended) utilized in marketing a product. A company wants you to go out and purchase their product so they tell you how many other people have also done so. “Buy a Tough Guy truck. The number one truck in Oklahoma.” This appeal does nothing to evidence the quality of the product, it’s just an appeal to the popularity of the product. “Use BeautyGirl wrinkle cream. Voted the best wrinkle cream by Vogue magazine readers.” What is wrong with using a product, buying an item, or believing a view on the basis of its popularity? The error in reasoning is due to the fact that a position or product is not the best one for any individual just because a group of people (even a large group of people) think so. What is important is looking at the evidence these people have utilized in arriving at a conclusion about the product or view. Unless the group has some kind of special knowledge (such as they all work for a consumer watch company), it is fallacious to ascribe authority to their view.An everyday example: Gossip can fall into this category when a person uses the phrases “some people” or “the word on the street” or “they say” in order to prove or argue for a point. Remember, good reasons (good data) must be brought as evidence for an argument, not just a group of people’s preferences or opinions; especially not an anonymous group of people such as “they.” A political campaign example: Political campaigns utilize this strategy when they use the opinions of the American populace to support their platform: “Seventy-five percent of Americans say they will vote for Senator George Washington in the upcoming presidential election. Therefore, Washington is the best candidate!” The problem with polls and percentages is that though they may reflect a group of people’s opinion on an issue or on a person, the poll itself does not prove that the candidate is therefore the best choice for any individual voter. However, candidates misuse the polls as evidence that they are the better choice for voters. When choosing the best candidate for your individual vote, you need evidence that the candidate will legislate according to what you think is best for the nation. Popularity is not an evidential factor for legislative ideology. I’m sure you have seen this type of fallacy in use already as we approach the upcoming 2012 elections.Resources for recognizing fallacies:
1)Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Christian Logic, 2002, 2003). I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies.2) For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1994).

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Four: the Straw Man

Posted on June 17, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“When you want to know the truth and want to stop being foolish, we can talk about how to become a Christian.”

Straw Man Fallacy: changing or exaggerating an opponent’s position or argument to make it easierto refute.

Straw man is an error in reasoning, because it does not address the actual argument or position of a person. It builds up another argument, called a “straw man,” that may be close to the person’s original argument, but is not the actual argument itself. Then the person attacks the straw man because it is easier to defeat. I call this the “bite-sized, mini-shredded wheat” version of the argument. It’s easy to put one of these mini-shredded wheat pieces under your foot and crush it, rather than to deal with the more comprehensive original argument.

For the Christian, the straw man is to be avoided because it does not demonstrate intellectual honesty with others. If a Christian is seeking to show the truth of God, he must be careful to extend the truth all the way out to accurately represent the view or position of the other person (to the best of their ability). Among Christians, I have heard the straw man utilized on occasion against atheist arguments. Here’s an example:

Chris, the Christian: Do you believe in God?
Aaron, the atheist: Nope.
Chris, the Christian: Oh, so you’re an atheist?
Aaron, the atheist: Yes, I am.
Chris: Why are you an atheist?
Aaron: I don’t believe in God because I cannot understand how a good God could allow so much evil and suffering in the world.
Chris: The Bible says that only the fool says in his heart there is no God. So you are a fool. When you want to know the truth and want to stop being foolish, we can talk about how to become a Christian.

Of course, this is an exaggeration of the kind of argumentation I have heard, but it isn’t too far off! The straw man isn’t the only problem with this representation, but the straw man was

committed when the Christian avoided the atheist’s actual argument and put forth a response to a different argument. The Christian focused on this issue: that the atheist did not desire to know truth. In doing so, the Christian is irresponsible in representing the atheist’s actual argument (the problem of evil), and therefore irresponsible to represent the truth. Notice that the atheist offered a reasonable objection to the existence of a good God, and the Christian did nothing to even acknowledge the atheist’s argument. This is not being a good ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the truth. Jesus did not avoid questions. He sought to engage people with a deeper understanding of the questions they asked (Matthew 22).

Also, Christians should be wary of straw men arguments utilized against their own view of God in conversations. The most frequent straw man arguments which I address are related to views of God that I do not hold. A person who is arguing against your view of God should be responsible to find out as comprehensively as possible what is your view of God before making arguments against that view. In that situation, I ask the person to describe my view of God (to show where they have made false assumptions and perhaps do not know basic Christian doctrine) and then I correct them. This isn’t an attack on them, but it is a way to get past some faulty reasoning and to get closer to the truth.

A political campaign version: In a debate between two presidential hopefuls, Candidate A argues that he will cut back on government spending if elected. Candidate B responds to this proposal by saying that Candidate A doesn’t want to fund education, or take care of the elderly, or to provide programs that help the poor. So, he concludes that you can’t vote for Candidate A if you care about children, the elderly, and the poor. Notice that Candidate B argued Candidate A doesn’t care about all these people groups or want to fund these areas. If Candidate A hasn’t expressly stated that he doesn’t care about these people or doesn’t want to fund these areas as reasoning for his cut in government spending, Candidate B has made a straw man (with some appeal to pity). Of course I wouldn’t vote for a person as described by Candidate B: that person doesn’t seem to care about other people! But has Candidate B accurately conveyed or addressed Candidate A’s argument? No.

Candidate A’s care and concern for these people is not explicitly the argument, but it is much easier to argue that Candidate A doesn’t care for people or want to help them than to argue about the specific areas to cut back spending. Candidate B could have inquired of Candidate A where he would suggest we cut back spending and how that would affect education, the elderly, and programs to help the poor. The argument should center on how Candidate A proposes to cut spending and why or why not those are areas that can or should be cut back.[1]

Pay close attention to the kind of reasoning the presidential candidates use in addressing their opponents’ positions. Straw men can be hard to detect sometimes because political issues can stir our emotions greatly. Listen to what the candidates are actually proposing and if you cannot make out a clear platform from their speeches, look at their voting records in the past.

MJ
_____________________________________________________________

[1] Political issues illicit such emotional responses from people that I want to be clear that although the hypothetical candidates closely relate to current Republican and Democrat arguments, I am not endorsing either view. That is not the point of this article. I am endorsing good reasoning no matter what side of the political spectrum to which a person belongs. In an earlier article, I utilized an example involving a fallacious answer that would seem to be representative of a Republican response to a question.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Three: the Red Herring

Posted on May 31, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“I don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore!”

Red Herring: “the introduction of an irrelevant point into an argument. Someone may think (or they may want us to think) it proves his side, but it really doesn’t.”[1]

So you’ve finally worked up the gumption to go discuss an important matter with someone with whom you have a specific problem. You approach the person about the issue and all of a sudden you find yourself defending another issue not directly related to your point. In fact, you are no longer discussing your original point at all. What happened? The person moved the subject to another topic; they used a red herring. The red herring fallacy is probably more prominent in our current culture than we realize. I’m making that generalization due to my own experience with this fallacy with much frequency. I’ve also seen this fallacy utilized by public figures to deflect difficult questions which they don’t wish to answer.The term red herring comes from the name for a dead, smelly fish used to throw off a dog’s tracking ability while training a dog to follow a scent trail. A dog trainer would lay out the scent of the animal they wanted the dog to track and allow the scent to become old. Then, the trainer would drag the smelly red herring across the original trail, leading in a different direction from the animal scent the dog was supposed to follow. The red herring smell is intended to distract the dog from the original trail. So, in an argument or discussion, a “red herring” is a distraction from the real issue or question. It throws us off the track!As the authors of Asking the Right Questions remind us, “You should normally have no difficulty spotting red herrings as long as you keep the real issue in mind as well as the kind of evidence needed to resolve it.”[2] The listener should ask themselves: 1) What was the questioned asked? 2) What kind of response would specifically answer the question? 3) Did the response given specifically answer the question?The main reason a red herring is fallacious is due to the fact that changing the topic of discussion does not count as an argument against a claim. Let me say that one more time: changing the topic of discussion (even if the new topic is closely related to the original topic) does not count as an argument against a claim. In order to get somewhere in an argument, we have to stay on a specific point until we’ve arrived at an answer or conclusion for that point. This is how to avoid “talking past one another.”We also have to remember that when a red herring is introduced, the person might be saying something that is true, but not relevant to the original point. “Red herrings are often good arguments. The only problem is, they don’t prove the point being argued—they prove something else.”[3] So if someone asks you why you are late for an event and you respond with “you’re always picking on me,” you’ve still responded with a red herring even if it’s true that they’re always picking on you.An example from current events: The Cordoba Initiative would like to build a mosque close to the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The Anti-Defamation League has expressed a concern about the symbolism of the project due to a connection of the religion professed by the terrorists and the religion professed by those wanting to build the mosque: Islam. In response to this concern, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has stated that the people expressing concern are “Islamophobic.” Not only is this response by CAIR ad hominem (see my last post), but it doesn’t answer the concern of the symbolism of the same religious beliefs of both groups. Instead, it throws interested dialoguers off the track with an accusation of bigotry. It’s a red herring. An appropriate response would be to evidence how this particular mosque, in this location, would not be symbolic of the religious beliefs of the terrorists who led the attack.
A political campaign version of a red herring: A senator running for office might be asked about when our military is going to be out of Afghanistan and respond with an answer saying that our military is the best in the world. This is a red herring. It is avoiding the question by deflecting to a different argument. The senator wasn’t asked about the capability or rank of our military, but was asked for a specific response with regard to pulling out or staying in Afghanistan. The red herring was introduced as a deflection to answering the question. It might seem like the senator’s answer is related. However, he is really implying that we shouldn’t worry about the question asked because we are doing what the best military in the world would do. This does not answer the specific question asked. Instead, the senator could appropriately reply, “I do not know, but I trust our military because I believe they are the best in the world.”[4]
I anticipate we will see a lot of this fallacy in the upcoming elections as the nation is dealing with so many difficult and emotionally-charged issues. So be on the lookout for the red herring:
1) Introducing an irrelevant argument into a topic of discussion
2) Answering a question with an unrelated response
3) Changing the topic of discussion (even if somewhat related to the original topic)MJ

I also blog over at The Point Radio Blog, along with other Christian apologists.

[1] Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 38. I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies. For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley.[2] M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley. Asking the Right Questions (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1994), 95.[3] Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective. 42.[4] Please notice that I am not arguing for or against an issue. However, I am utilizing familiar topics to help illustrate fallacious reasoning present in our culture today.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Two: Ad Hominem

Posted on May 19, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“How ‘confident’ could a person be if they are wearing ten pounds of makeup?”

Ad Hominem: a fallacy that occurs when an arguer is guilty “of attacking his opponent rather than his opponent’s evidence and arguments.”1

An ad hominem attack is a way for one debater to discredit another debater’s attempt to argue for a position. It attacks the person’s character and motivation, rather than attacking the actual argument itself. The expected outcome is that the hearers will no longer give an ear to the discredited debater’s position due to their ill-will against him/her personally. Since this argument fails to address the actual issue(s) being debated, it is an error in reasoning.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “According to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst [1992], an instance of ad hominem is a violation of the first rule for critical discussion, which maintains that ‘Parties [to a dispute] must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubts on arguments.’ Different kinds of ad hominem (abusive, tu quoque, and circumstantial ad hominem) are different violations of this rule. In this case, it suffices to say that the debater’s attack on his opponent can be seen as an illegitimate attempt to deny him his right to make a case for his position.”2

A personal example: A couple years ago, a person posting in one of my forums commented on my use of makeup. His comment was something like, “How ‘confident’ could a person be if they are wearing ten pounds of makeup?” So the goal was to discredit my arguments by commenting on my personality or character. The reader was supposed to think that because I wore make-up in my picture, my arguments were not valid. This is a clear example of ad hominem; attacking the person instead of addressing their arguments. (I did break down his ad hominem argument…”Exactly how much make-up, would you say, constitutes a person’s lack of evidence for an argument? I suppose if you are addressing my grooming habits instead of the evidence presented for the resurrection, you must not have anything to say against my arguments.”)

A political campaign version: It is not my intention here to promote one candidate over another in this use of an example from the last senatorial race. However, the example was so evidently ad hominem that I thought it would be another good real-life illustration.

Jack Conway ran a commercial against Rand Paul that started with these words, “Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible a hoax; that was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ [the image shows this as during his college years]? Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up, tell her to bow down before a false idol, and say his god was Aqua Buddha? Why does Rand Paul now want to end faith based initiatives and deductions for charities? Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?”3 The viewer was supposed to react with a strong distrust concerning Rand Paul’s character and consequently pay no attention to his arguments for his platform. They were also supposed to insinuate Paul’s motivation for his proposal with regard to faith-based initiatives and deductions for charities as based in a suggested dislike of Christianity. This was a clear-cut example of attacking the man rather than his stated arguments or position.

Throughout the presidential campaigns, look for instances of ad hominem and notice how campaign marketers hope to manipulate voters through emotions rather than to earn votes through their candidate’s position on the actual issues.

__________________________________________________
[1] “Informal Logic.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One. Accessed on May 13, 2011.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8wYJv0WmHI.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus on the Presidential Campaigns

Posted on May 10, 2011October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The campaigning and debating for the 2012 presidential election is already underway; as are loads of advertisements seeking to persuade voters to vote for one candidate or another. During this time, I am concurrently teaching on recognizing logical fallacies. While I cannot say that I actually planned the parallel between the two, I am, however, quite pleased with the timing. So I will utilize this next year (and a half) to emphasize not just the need for critical thinking, but to introduce some errors in reasoning. It seems like a “match made in heaven” for an educational opportunity! The campaigns in our current culture are largely focused on presentation and perception (imagery), rather than on actually making good arguments for their political platform (rationality). As Christian philosopher, J.P. Moreland stated, “In the political process, the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites.”[1] The American public is likely to see lots of negative and positive imagery utilizing many logical fallacies to “trick” the voter into favoring a candidate. These fallacies could include (but are not limited to): transfer, ad hominem, hasty generalization, red herrings, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, straw man, loaded questions, and faulty appeal to authority. These fallacies are not just a problem of the presidential campaigns. Rather, it is a safe generalization to say various fallacies are committed on a regular basis by nearly all of us.[2] This is due to the difficulty in avoiding such fallacies, even when we train ourselves to think critically about our reasons for believing something is true. Since we all are in need of the “renewing our minds,” the presidential campaigns can provide good training material for the Christian wanting to improve their own reasoning abilities. I will post some of the errors in reasoning over the next month. As you watch the presidential campaigns, take some time to dissect the messages you are receiving. What fallacies are being utilized? What are the actual issues and how has each candidate supported their view? Has the candidate given sound reasons and evidence for their position? Analyzing the presidential candidates’ platforms and campaigning methods are a great way to utilize the gift of rationality with which God has endowed human beings. You will grow in your critical thinking abilities and you will be better informed on the candidates for whom you will be voting. Let’s begin with the first fallacy mentioned above, transfer. Transfer: A propaganda technique in which someone tries to make us transfer our good or bad feelings about one thing to another unrelated thing.[3] A prime example of transfer is found in commercials for a fitness center or for fitness equipment. The commercial almost always shows a man or woman who is representative of the ideal body either working out at a specific gym or utilizing a certain product. The viewer is supposed to transfer the good feelings about the ideal body to the product offered. A presidential campaign version of transfer: A commercial shows one candidate either frowning or upset while utilizing a darker color scheme or even a black and white scheme while dark and ominous music plays in the background. The commercial then shifts to a second candidate; the candidate is smiling, the colors are bright, and the music is happy. The purpose is to make the viewer uncomfortable when they think about the first candidate so they will carry that emotion with them to the voting booth and not vote for him/her. Conversely, the idea is to carry the happy emotion with them and vote for the second candidate. See if you can find some examples of transfer as the presidential campaigning gets underway! Next post: Ad hominem.

[1] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. (Colorado Springs: Nav Press, 1997), 21.

[2] I cannot say “by everyone” or I will have committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. I also do not have the knowledge of whether or not everyone in the world is actually committing fallacies, but I do have the general knowledge of human nature (including the effects of sin), which allows for an extrapolation out to the human community. It is safe to say none of us is perfect in our reasoning.

[3] Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 183. I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies. For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley.