In a world where “Education is King”, there is an ever pressing issue with approaching and reaching the logical and educated masses. We can no longer prove the argument for Christianity through superstition, feelings, tradition etc. It is now more important than ever that the C.S.Lewis’s of this world step forward and present the God of all Knowledge (Omniscience). God is Omnipotent (having all power)and He reaches those who are inspired by His power, Our God is Omnipresent (always present), He reaches those who need an everpresent force in their life and our God who is Omniscient can influence those who value knowledge. If we have a God who encompasses all things, He is also a God for the educated. So, C.S. Lewis steps in as a modern day patriarch of Christianity with his influence in Christian Apologetics. Some Believers argue that God will confound the wise as if nullifying their place in God’s kingdom but just as God was a God of the poor shepherd, he is also the King of all Kings. In that moment that the wise and knowledgeable are confounded does God not prove His deity and that He is God of those that have mastered knowledge and wisdom and in that dominance, do not the confounded have opportunity for a place among God’s servants?
It is with the argument that God can save anyone that people immediately respond “only if they will let him”. Yet, if ever there was a scholar who was himself confounded, it was the Apostle Paul. Being a Phariseeical Lawyer who studied at the the feet of the great teacher and Rabbi Gamaliel, Paul was a Roman citizen, an intellectual of his day and scholar in his own right. It was he who wrote over half of our New Testament and confounded the Christian Jew as he helped evolve the Judaic teachings of the Law into the fulfillment of our modern day Christianity. I propose Paul as a reluctant convert. Only after being humbled, blinded and receiving a special “Calling” was Paul able to convert.
And now I propose that faith is developed through adversity for we are all reluctant converts. So it is with the educated. They cling with arrogance to their education and knowledge like those of us who had no education clinged to the pleasures of sin. There is a necessity and a call for the educated and herein lies my argument for Christian Apologetics. For if ever there was a need for the Christian debater, it is today, in a world of the scholar. Before taking on the educated, a christian must adhere to the “rules of argument or debate”.
There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so that you can point them out in a discussion thereby focusing the issues where they belong. I have discovered numerous times that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your “opponent” a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, that it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the point. Truth is the point. Nevertheless, it is logical fallacies that hide the truth. So, pointing them out can be very useful.
- Ad hominem – Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
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.
- Appeal to force – The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don’t want to get beat up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.
- Appeal to pity – The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I’ve been sick. That’s why I missed the deadline.
- Appeal to the popular – the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn’t you?
- Appeal to tradition – trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we’ve always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church’s tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
- Begging the Question – Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.
- Cause and Effect – assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
- Circular Argument – see Begging the Question
- Division – assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
- Equivocation – The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
- False Dilemma – Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
Example: Do you still beat your wife?
- Genetic Fallacy – The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank’s just got out of jail last year and since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can’t trust him.
- Guilt by Association – Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it is disliked.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.
- Non Sequitar – Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise to a conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today, because I washed my car.
Example: I don’t care what you say. We don’t need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.
- Poisoning the well – 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.
Example: Don’t listen to him because he is a loser.
- Red Herring – The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: 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 know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.
- Special Pleading (double standard) – Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
Example: You can’t possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don’t apply to me since I am older than you.
- Straw Man Argument – Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.
Example: The government doesn’t take care of the poor because it doesn’t have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.
Ref: Logical fallacies or fallacies in argumentation by Matt Slick
