Logical Fallacies

In the pursuit of truth, we have to look out for fallacious statements made by people when trying to make their case for truth. A fallacy, simply put is a mistaken belief based on unsound arguments. Fallacious statements make an argument invalid. The apologist therefore has an immense task of identifying and dealing with these errors in logic so as to make the truth clear

For example, to discredit the idea of omnipotence, you have probably been challenged by/ with the question: ‘Can God create a stone too big for Him to lift’. It seems quite difficult to respond to this because whichever way we answer the question, it seems as if there is something that God cannot do. He either cannot lift the stone or cannot create such a stone. Does this mean that omnipotence is internally inconsistent?

Below are examples of these kind of fallacies and why we need to be careful both in our pursuits

• Self-contradiction

This is by far the most common logical fallacy you will find. In this, people make statements that contradict themselves. Let’s look at a few examples:

I can not write an English statement. Now if this is true, it is must be false, because the statement you have just written is an English statement.

Let’s try another one:

Never take anyone’s advice on that issue. Now if this is true, then isn’t what you are telling me a piece of advice on that issue. So, should I take your advice. If Yes, then your advice is wrong; if No, then I can take advice from people

I hope we can see how statements can self-destruct. Try and see if you can see the contradiction in the example below.

1. Religious views are private and you should never share your religious views with others.
2. There is no absolute truth
3. You cannot know anything for sure
4. My sister is an only child

• Complex questions

 A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. These are questions that are asked in such a way that whichever answer you give the result is negative. Remember the question of God creating a stone He cannot lift? Other examples are given below. These are sometimes not very common in our day to day conversations

1. Does your mother know that you are foolish? If you answer yes, it means that you are foolish and your mother knows. If you answer is no, it means that you are foolish but your mother does not know.
2. Can God’s power defeat his own power?

Notice here that there is a hidden question which they have already assumed an answer. For example in the first question, the questioner assumes the answer to the question, ‘Are you foolish’.

• Hasty generalizations

This is where you make assumptions about a whole set based on a few examples. See the example below:

1. My dad was rude and beat my mother. He is a chauvinist. All men are actually chauvinists
2. My pastor preaches on Sunday but lies during the week. All pastors are hypocrites
3. Most white people oppressed and took advantage of Africans. White people are racists and we should have nothing to do with them or their religion.
4. No one get married as a virgin in this 21^st century

• False dilemma

This is when we are presented with only two options when we have more than these two. These are sometimes difficult to identify and we have to be keen. Let’s look at a few examples

1. You either take me to the supermarket, or you do not love me.

The person who makes this claim postulates only two possibilities. However, the one to whom it is addressed could still love them but be busy. See other examples below.

1. You are either stupid or dumb not to know what is happening in the country.
2. If you were a good parent you would have bought your children bikes
3. Unless you are stupid, you will join us for the movies

Care must be taken not to confuse these with real dilemmas.

Consider the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say something is good because it is good. I hope you can see the distinction in these two statements. Skeptics have raised this as a challenge to the omnibenevolence of God to say that God cannot be all good. If something is good because God says it is good, it means that if  God decides today that rape is good, then it becomes good which makes goodness arbitrary. If God says something is good because it is good, then it means that He adheres to a higher standard that is beyond Him ie He is not in control of what is good and thus cannot be God. The Christian here can respond by saying that those are not the only two options available. Goodness is part of God’s nature. This means that goodness is derived from God himself since his nature is both good and unchangeable

• Begging the question

This is when you assume in your premises and go ahead to make a conclusion based on that premise thus, they ‘beg the question’ of whether the premise is true. This is also known as arguing in a circle

Left-handed are the best painters because right-handed people paint badly

Everyone wants the new Mercedes because it is the hottest car in town.

The laws of nature cannot be violated; Miracles are a violation of the laws of nature; Miracles are thus not possible. Here, premise 1 already assumes miracles don’t exist because by definition, miracles are supernatural happenings that violate the laws of nature. Thus, while the conclusion might seem logically valid, it assumes on premise 1.

• Adhominen

This is where instead of responding to a person’s argument, you attack the person. In that way you undermine the truth of the idea.

1. What is she telling us about being sexually pure and yet she is a sex worker?
2. How can my doctor tell me to lose some weight because of my health condition yet he is so fat?
3. I cannot believe that such a renowned scientist like you believes in the fairy tales of Christianity. Have you also been brainwashed like the rest of them?
4. Anyone who believes in God is an unenlightened fool

• Strawman Arguments

In this, you reduce the case of your opponent so that you can easily defeat it. For example

Praying is a weird concept. God is all knowing but has has to be reminded by people about what they want/need. 

Notice how strong the argument might seem on face value to destroy the notion of prayer or of an omniscient God. However, when you carefully look at the premises you realize they have been reduced. Christians do not believe that prayer is a means of reminding God about things.

1. Christianity is anti-intellectual. They want us to believe everything on blind faith without evidence
2. I can be good without believing in God and I do not need a big man in the sky to tell me about morality
3. Evolutionists believe we evolved from monkeys. However, we can still see monkeys today. Evolution is thus false.

• Genetic fallacy

Rejecting something as false because of where it originated.

Consider the following:

1. People only believe in God because they are afraid of the unknown. God thus is just a figment of their imagination.
2. We cannot believe in the gospels because the disciples were Christians. They were definitely biased
3. What good can come from Nazareth?

How or why a belief came to be held is simply irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the proposition (Lane & Moreland, 2003)

Philosophical foundations of a Christian worldview

• Appeal to authority or appeal to popularity

These two are closely related but are not the same. Appeal to authority involves arguing for the truth of an assertion by simply referencing an expert without any supporting evidence. Appeal to popularity involves arguing for the truth of an assertion simply because it is held by a majority to be true

Consider:

1. Evolution is true because a majority of scientists agree that its true (popularity)
2. Richard Dawkins a biologist has now confirmed to us that evolution is true (authority)
3. Atheism has now been confirmed to be true since a majority of people now don’t believe in God
4. I now know that God exists because our Pastor confirmed this to us

There are many other fallacies. Some examples are post hoc fallacy, appeal to ignorance etc. Try to go through them on your own. See if you can identify the fallacy during conversations

N/B- The point is really not to know the name of a fallacy but to be able to identify its effect in a conversation.