Your Patiencewill Be Tested Over and Over Again Itsup to You to Invite Them in as a Teacher

So far in this series, we've explored the concepts of critical thinking and a hindrance to it, cognitive biases.

In this article, nosotros will discuss a second hindrance: "logical fallacies."

What is a Logical Fallacy?

Again, let's define some terms:

logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
fallacy: a mistaken belief, specially one based on unsound argument; a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid

And so putting them together, nosotros arrive at this:

a mistaken belief, especially ane based upon unsound argument, caused by a failure to accurately assess reality.

Accordingly, such arguments and their conclusions should always be regarded as invalid. The use of logical fallacies as rhetorical devices are one of the master tools of propagandists to exploit biases, both real and imaginary, inside their hearers.

Capturing Christianity'due south excellent webpage containing a glossary of apologetics terms defines information technology thusly:

An argument is fallacious when it makes "wrong moves" either in logic or reasoning. Fallacies tin exist formal or informal. A formal fallacy is a flaw in logical structure, such equally when a determination doesn't logically follow from the previous steps or premises. An informal fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, such equally when i generalizes from too modest a sample size.

Lets establish a few more definitions:

formal fallacy: a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid past a flaw in its logical structure. The argument itself could have true bounds, just still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a ane where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical procedure.
informal fallacy: mistakes in reasoning arising from the mishandling of the content of the premises themselves as opposed to a flaw in the logic itself
premise: an supposition that something is true
decision: describes the relationship between two or more premises. Whatever conclusion is the consequence of its premises
event: a result or outcome of an action or status

Hither are examples of formal and informal fallacies to help yous grasp the concept:

Formal: If information technology's a canis familiaris, then it's a mammal. Therefore, if it'southward non a dog, it'south not a mammal.
Formal: We must exercise something. This is something. Therefore, we must exercise this. (aka the politician's fallacy)
Breezy: In that location is evil in the world, therefore God is evil.
Informal: All left-handed people are bullies because a left-handed person bullied me as a child. (aka the Anecdotal Prove fallacy)

The following is a non-exhaustive list of the most mutual logical fallacies and how they are used in political and, sadly, certain theological debates.

A List of Prevalent Logical Fallacies

Straw Man & Ad Hominem Attacks

These are amid the most prevalent fallacies in modern political and theological debate. Though they are two distinct fallacies, I have combined them here because those presenting them almost always wield them in tandem. They recall this combo is some kind of invincible 1-2 knockout punch immunizing them from counter-attack, simply they are sadly deceived. Tragically, few of their opponents have the reasoning skills necessary to defend against them — which is exactly what those posing such attacks are counting on.

Attacking the Straw Man

The simplest definition of a harbinger man assault is misrepresenting an opponent'due south position to make information technology easier to set on. In other words, someone distorts or outright falsifies their opponents' narrative on an upshot, sometimes so desperately that distorted/falsified view bears trivial — if any! — resemblance to the actual i being attacked, so attacks their own distortion. This fallacy is so wide-spread out there that if straw-human attacks were rowboats lashed together, you could probably hike beyond the Atlantic Ocean on them, if you will pardon my hyperbole hither!

Ad Hominem

This term literally ways "to the person" in Latin and is defined as attacking an opponent's graphic symbol, motives, or personal traits in an endeavor to undermine their position in lieu of providing valid and reasonable arguments against it. Hither'southward an case:

After June presented an eloquent and compelling case for a more than equitable tax system, Tom shouts out from the audience, "Why should nosotros believe anything presented by a woman who eats her ain boogers?"

The most normally used variant of ad hominem is called "demonizing the opposition." This is simply the practice of portraying your opponent equally inherently evil and/or having evil ulterior motives merely because they hold the opposing position in whatsoever given argue.

We see this in use constantly through the daily proper name-calling (racist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, etc.) past the left confronting political conservatives and the "heretic" label so casually bandied near inside the Body of Christ confronting those who have the temerity to believe the Bible a bit differently than they do. We as well see this fallacy evidenced far more than subtly in the virtue signaling pervasive within popular culture (I'g a really good person/company/cause because I support this or that and oppose those bad people who don't).

Another ad hominem variant is chosen "the Boogie-Man Fallacy." Similar all flavors of this kind of assail, the goal is to discredit and marginalize opponents and their views rather than objectively evaluating and offering a audio, non-fallacious rebuttal. This is a means of forestalling word and erroneously labelling an opponent's position with that of a known moral flaw or heresy and then as to demonize and discredit information technology.

For example, someone in a contend might say, "Look! His view sounds like something Hilter said once, then you shouldn't listen to him any more." Hitler is a known "boogie man" or "bad grapheme," then if I can acquaintance my opponent'south views with Hilter, then I'll discredit him all together. Sound like many comments from the left apropos President Trump? You bet!

In the cultural and political sphere, we run across this straw-man/ad hominem pair employed constantly in attacks against political conservatives. The leftist mantras of "white supremacy" and "racist" are constantly being attached to those who resist Marxism, both without a shred of existent evidence to back up whether such a bias really exists. My assertion hither does not imply white supremacists practise not be or there are no racial problems needing to be resolved — such a statement would be as fallacious in its own right! But not every conservative or fifty-fifty a majority of them fit those monikers. Just the fact I personally exist on this planet disproves such a blanket generalization considering I'm neither a white supremacist nor a racist, yet I'm a dyed-in-the-wool political conservative and will exist until I depart this planet (after I die, though, I'll probably cease up voting Democrat! 🙂 )

Inside Christendom, we see these fallacies near evident in attacks by anti-charismatics against both charismatics/Pentecostals and the Word of Organized religion (WoF) motility. For instance, in my repeated encounters with theological opponents over these topics, I have still to notice a vocal critic of the and then-called "health & wealth gospel" — some of them internationally renowned theologians, I might add! — who tin accurately clear what we really teach, much less refute information technology using proper hermeneutical standards. In every such case, that person has erected a "harbinger man" with petty or no relationship to the truth, claimed we believe that, and then demonized united states of america equally evil heretics deserving of hellfire for educational activity such (the links in this paragraph provide actual instances of this along with my refutations, so I'm absolutely non making any of this up!). And there are a host of other logical fallacies tagging along behind them, too.

Appeal to Emotion

This is notwithstanding some other 1 endemic to public debate these days. This fallacy occurs when an emotional response is used in place of a valid and compelling argument. The most frequently occurring instances of this are what nosotros commonly call "guilt-trips." I can guarantee but about every developed has heard the case I'thousand about to apply hither:

Shawn didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped liver and Brussels sprouts, but his female parent told him to think about all the starving children in 3rd Earth countries who had nothing to consume at all, so he should swallow them and be grateful.

Ad Ridiculum (Appeal to Ridicule)

This occurs when someone claims their opponents' argument is ridiculous or cool. One instance would be:

"Why should I back up the 2d Amendment? Do I expect similar some toothless, uneducated hillbilly?"

This is a frequent form of attack used by atheists and leftists to assail Christians. It is also an underlying attitude exhibited by many anti-charismatics towards Pentecostals, a Christianized version of what nosotros Southerners call, "Yankee snootiness." Tragically, many charismatics and Pentecostals have brought this upon themselves by exhibiting some terrible biblical scholarship at times when attempting to explain/teach their powerful experiences with the Holy Spirit and His gifts.

Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)

This occurs whenever someone presents an argument based upon the opinion or position of a person or institution of authority in lieu of a valid argument.

This fallacy can lead to a flavour of groupthink where its membership is based upon "all the all-time minds have this" or "all forward-thinking people believe this," thereby implying their opponents are less intellectually capable than the group's members.

We see this one all the time these days in popular civilisation's narratives concerning homo-made climatic change and COVID-19 policies expressed every bit "Go with the science!" every bit if science has the be-all, end-all final discussion on either highly controversial consequence.

Science is a discoverer of concrete reality, not the determiner of it. Neither is it any kind of authorisation over things eternal or spiritual. In other words, science cannot empirically prove or disprove anything originating outside this concrete realm, such as the beingness of God or His miracles. Nosotros can say this because the original premise upon which all science was founded was "God is a God of reason, therefore His creation can exist discovered and manipulated through reason."

Go back in fourth dimension, whether measured in millennia, centuries, or mere decades, and you will find science's path strewn with the carcasses of now-discredited theories the vast majority of scientists considered absolutely factual in their ain fourth dimension, but were afterwards discovered to be totally bogus. For examples:

It was the received wisdom for millennia that the sun revolved around the world until the opposite was proven.
For centuries earlier germ theory was proven to exist factual, sickness was thought to exist caused by "bad humors" and the now-considered idiotic practice of blood-letting was performed to "permit them out."
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the prevalent "science" was a lightheaded belief that Caucasians were inherently superior intellectually to not-whites.

We too come across this fallacy in activity whenever folks opposing charismata and the WoF cite John Calvin and other long-dead theologians as if their writings came down off Mountain Sinai on tablets of rock written past the finger of God despite what the Scriptures clearly state. The faulty underlying supposition at that place is "the older the source, the more than irrefutable it is."

Ad Antiquitatem (Appeal to Tradition)

This fallacy relies on tradition to evidence a betoken, arguing that a thesis must be correct considering information technology has traditionally been so (we've always done information technology this manner!).

We too see this i all the fourth dimension when discussing with charismatic theology with anti-charismatics, unremarkably in conjunction with an Appeal to Authority.

Ad Metum (Appeal to Fear aka Scare Tactics)

This fallacy ranges in application from pandering to the fears of listeners to outright threats against those listeners in guild to gain their compliance.

We saw this fallacy in action when members of the racial grievance industrial circuitous both doxxed (revealed the names and addresses of) the jurors for the Derek Chauvin trial and made public calls for violent revenge upon those jurors if they failed to captive him. Rightfully fearing for their own and their families' lives, those poor folks complied and convicted him on all counts despite in that location being a reasonable-doubt hole in the prosecution'southward arguments big enough to drive a truck through.

Appeal to Nature

This fallacy makes its advent in every single debate over homosexuality in the marketplace of ideas since that became a hot-button topic. This fallacy claims that simply because something is "natural," it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, and/or platonic. So the gay narrative is that simply because someone feels an attraction to those of the same gender, having sex activity with them in disobedience of divine command must exist morally correct and legally justifiable. Tragically, this fallacy is now enshrined as authorities policy nationwide. I've already weighed in on this argue elsewhere here at Miscellaneous Ramblings, and then experience free to peruse that article at your leisure.

The sticking point in this fallacy occurs when you take it to its absurd logical cease (reductio advertizing absurdum): in that location are times when folks are angry enough to murder someone. This is only natural, therefore a option to follow through with that desire is morally correct and legally justifiable. To which we rightly say, "Nonsense!" or perhaps a stronger term of cloy. Tragically, nosotros see this very statement presented in public discourse over alleged systemic racism by constabulary and is trotted out every bit a justification for assassinating officers.

Ambivalence

Think earlier in this commodity I mentioned how imprecise definitions are a prime tool of propagandists? This fallacy is that principle in activity. This ane uses double-meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. For instance:

When the estimate asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he responded that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said, "FINE FOR PARKING Here" so he naturally presumed information technology would be fine to park at that place.

This is why information technology is supremely important to ensure you and your opponent are actually talking virtually the same thing because if he claims i thing and y'all answer using a definition you had causeless, but he didn't mean, you take been enticed into a trap. The counter for this fallacy is quite piece of cake: keep asking questions!

What exercise yous mean by that? and variants thereof until you have a clear agreement of what he meant.
Then ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" and keep asking variants of that question until it is thoroughly answered.

Then — and only then! — you lot can affirm your truth claim to accurately abnegate it, preferably presenting that claim as a loaded question (meet below). This is a process which takes time and patience, so don't get in a hurry and short-excursion the process. Your patience will be rewarded!

The Loaded Question

A loaded question (known in the legal profession every bit "leading the witness") is a common debate tactic which can exist employed either by or against you lot. A leading question is ane containing a congenital-in assumption so the question cannot be answered without appearing guilty.

Here'southward a couple of examples:

How long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?

Betty and Louise were both romantically interested in Gary. Once 24-hour interval, with Gary within earshot, Betty asks Louise in an inquisitive tone whether Louise's fungal infection had cleared up.

When a leading question is used against y'all, as in the examples but cited, you should always respond with another question, "What could have perhaps given you such a mistaken impression?" or in these specific examples: "What led you lot to the faulty supposition I take ever beaten my wife?" or "What led y'all to the faulty assumption I have a fungal infection?"

The secret to successfully opposing such attacks — as well as cementing your credibility in the perceptions of the attacker and bystanders alike — is to REMAIN At-home and answer dispassionately ("the facts, ma'am, aught but the facts"). Once you exhibit any degree of indignation, anything you say in response volition exist immediately suspect and exposed to a Personal Incredulity attack (see below).

On the other hand, when wielded skillfully in dealing with political and theological opponents, loaded questions can really score some points in getting your opponent to call up exterior the box of their biases, preconceptions, and assumptions. After using probing questions to remove ambiguities in their claims, a leading question can exist the coup-de-grace exposing their fallacious idea processes. In such cases, however, we are not using our ain assumptions to frame leading questions, but the underlying assumptions presented by those we are dealing with.

Here's an splendid example of using these kinds of leading questions. The internationally renowned Christian apologist Greg Koukl, author of the fantabulous book Tactics (which I heartily recommend!), recounts a story where he discussed abortion with a Wiccan clerk at a shop in Wisconsin (I accept edited the post-obit quote and limited it to the conversation itself. Ellipses between paragraphs denote wherever I did this. You really should purchase this volume and read the unabridged passage to hear his analysis and superb didactics as the story progresses):

"Does that pentagram have religious significance," I asked, pointing to the pendant, "or is it merely jewelry?"

"Yes, information technology has religious significance," she answered. "The five points correspond earth, wind, fire, h2o, and spirit." And then she added, "I'm a pagan."
…
"So you're Wiccan?" I continued.

She nodded. Yes, she was a witch. "It'southward an earth religion," the woman explained, "similar the Native Americans. We respect all life."

"If you respect all life," I ventured, "and then I suppose you're pro-life on the ballgame issue."

She shook her head. "No, really I'm not. I'm pro-selection."

I was surprised. "Isn't that an unusual position for someone in Wicca to accept — I mean, since you're committed to respecting all life?"

"You're correct. Information technology is odd," she admitted. Then she qualified herself. "I know I could never do that," she said, referring to abortion. "I could never impale a infant. I wouldn't practise anything to hurt someone else, because it might come back on me."
…
"Well, maybe yous wouldn't practise anything to hurt a baby, just other people would," I countered calmly. "Shouldn't we do something to terminate them from killing babies?"

"I think women should have a selection," she responded quickly, without thinking.
…

"Exercise yous mean women should have the pick to impale their own babies?"

"Well…" She thought for a moment. "I remember all things should exist taken into consideration on this question."

"Okay, tell me: what kind of considerations would brand it alright to impale a infant?"

"Incest," she answered.
…
"Hmmm… Allow me see if I understand your view," I said. "Allow'due south just say I had a 2-year-erstwhile kid standing side by side to me who had been conceived every bit a consequence of incest. On your view, it seems, I should have the liberty to kill her. Is that correct?"
…
Finally, she said, "I'd have mixed feelings about that."

"I hope so," was all I had the heart to say.

(at that point, he had to end the conversation because of the growing line of customers forming behind him)
Koukl, Gregory. Tactics, 10th Anniversary Edition (pp. 26-29). Zondervan.

Burden of Proof

This is another favorite in the rhetorical toolboxes of atheists, skeptics, and political liberals. How this fallacy works is someone makes a truth claim, then tries to shift the brunt of proof that their claim is untrue to the one opposing it. In apologetics, this is typically expressed by atheists as, "There is no God. Testify to me there is ane!" Tragically, Christians fall into this very trap with depressing regularity.

Here is the rule we all need to keep in the forefront of our thinking during such encounters:

Whoever makes the truth merits is solely responsible for proving it.

Those failing to remember this volition e'er lose the statement every time because you accept allowed your opponent to seize and agree the high footing in the fence.

Instead, respond by deflecting that attempt and put it dorsum on the claimant using questions every bit I discussed above under the Ambiguity Fallacy. When you lot repeatedly say, "What do yous hateful by that?" until you lot get a specific definition to their merits and so "How did you lot come to that conclusion?" you are placing the burden of proof squarely back where it belongs.

The Continuum Fallacy

This 1 is exemplified in the following:

I've been able to swim beyond any body of h2o I've come across, so in that location is no body of h2o I would not be able to swim beyond.

In truth, there is some body of water out in that location which is too large to swim beyond.

Incomplete Comparison

An incomplete comparison occurs when ii things are compared which are not really related, in order to make one of them more appealing than information technology is. This likewise happens when conclusions are drawn from incomplete information. One case is:

Carrots have much less carbohydrate than a gallon of chocolate syrup.

The Furtive Fallacy

Furtive fallacy happens when sure events appear to accept been acquired by the evil deeds/motives of the decision makers involved. This fallacy occurs most often when historians or scientists write lengthy articles describing certain persons or events and nowadays insufficient evidence to prove their claims. The argument being fabricated is not only lacking foundation, it is fabricated with absolute certainty to further an agenda.

We see this one frequently in apologetics circles in the ubiquitous merits by skeptics that the Council of Nicæa in 300 AD or so kept certain books out of the canon of Scriptures because they contradicted the Catholic Church building'due south narrative. This fails on 2 tests:

The Cosmic Church as we know information technology today did not exist in 300AD. There was no supreme papal authority at that fourth dimension, indeed there were at least 4 bishops who presided over different geographic regions.
The books included in the catechism of Scriptures were ones already generally accepted as authoritative throughout Christianity at that fourth dimension, aka the "received texts." Those eliminated were rejected for a multifariousness of reasons, the about relevant criteria beingness those books mostly appeared out of nowhere well over a century subsequently the death of the final surviving apostle (John ben Zebedee).

The Fallacy Fallacy

This happens when someone presumes that because a claim has been poorly argued or a fallacy has been fabricated, the claim is necessarily incorrect. Here an example:

Recognizing that Betty had committed a fallacy in arguing that people should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was pop, Joan said we should eat bacon double cheeseburgers every twenty-four hours.

Slippery Slope

This fallacy takes identify when someone asserts that if nosotros allow A to happen, then Z (assumed to be bad) volition happen every bit a consequence, as well, then A should non be allowed to happen. Example:

Jim asserts that if we permit children to play video games, the next thing you know nosotros'll be living in a mail-apocalyptic zombie wasteland with no money for guardrails to protect people from slippery slopes.

Glace Slope is the ground for a common objection among legalists when confronted with the concept of God'south grace replacing the Law of Moses and/or rule-keeping in general. They say, "If at that place are no rules, what keeps people from but going out and sinning all they want?" not realizing it is the rules which make us want to violate them all the more (use Romans chapters iii-8 + Galatians to abnegate this argument).

Personal Incredulity

This 1 occurs almost constantly inside Christian apologetics when dealing with militant atheists and skeptics. The idea here is that simply because one finds something hard to understand that it is therefore untrue.

Point-of-fact: many of the things of God exist outside human understanding apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the New Birth. Even so, some of them are reserved to the Nigh High for reasons of His ain and fifty-fifty Christ-followers are non privy to them.

Our individual and collective inability to wrap our puny intellects and corrupted perceptions around something having to do with the Divine in no way negates that "something." Such intellectual and perceptual limitations are part and and parcel of The Rebellion's backwash and we simply need to have them.

False Cause Fallacy

This is based upon the assumption that a real or imagined relationship between things ways i is the cause of the other. For instance:

Pointing to a fancy chart, James shows how volcanic eruptions has been increasing while the number of pirates has been decreasing. He then draws the decision that the presence of pirates inhibits eruptions.

Special Pleading Fallacy

This one usually occurs whenever a person's other logical fallacies have been proven imitation, so they attempt to motion the goalposts to create exceptions where their claim is actually true. One case of this is a person challenge to exist a psychic has their abilities proven false/fraudulent under proper scientific conditions, but they respond that for their abilities to work, one must have faith in them/him.

We run across this fallacy in activity whenever pro-abortion folks trot our their favorite saws nigh how rape and incest justify baby killing as nosotros saw in Greg Koukl's encounter with the Wiccan clerk.

Advert Populum (The Bandwagon Fallacy)

This is perfectly exemplified in the claim well-nigh every teenager on the planet equally made to their parents at least once in their lives:

But all the other kids are doing/wearing this/going there/whatever!

This is the fallacy underlying the groupthink bias discussed in my previous article in this series.

Composition/Division Fallacy

This is where someone assumes that's what is true nigh ane attribute of something has to be true or applied to all or other parts of it. Here'south an example:

Dunston was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that since he was fabricated of atoms, he was invisible, equally well. Unfortunately, this reasoning did not serve him well during a game of hide-and-seek.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy (aka Appeal to Purity)

This fallacy is in play whenever someone makes an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticism of or flaws in an statement. Nosotros see this exemplified in WoF opponents making statements like, "No one who takes their Bible seriously believes information technology is God's will for us to exist good for you physically or prosperous financially."

Genetic Fallacy

This takes identify when we judge something as proficient or bad on the basis of where information technology comes from or from whom it comes. We meet this in the Scriptures where a mutual prejudice of that 24-hour interval and region was wielded against Jesus in "Can anything good come up out of Nazareth?"

We see this evidenced all the time these days when anti-charismatics dismiss any claims opposing their views as "that's just charismatic doctrine," or when someone who they beloved to vilify has said it despite the fact the merits in question is admittedly scriptural.

Blackness-or-White Fallacy (aka Imitation Dichotomy)

This is yet some other 1 we encounter prevalent in political and theological contend where someone carefully presents his listeners/readers with merely ii choices, ane of them the position they are shilling for (white). The other option is carefully crafted to be one most folks would never willingly choose (black). The fact that there could be other options besides the 2 presented is deliberately ignored and so a non-critical thinker is manipulated into choosing the "white" option.

A prime number example is the current mantra mouthed by every Marxist on the news: "If you don't agree with us, you're a racist." Since no i wants to be classified as a racist — unless they truly are 1 and don't care about being labelled as such — the typical listener is thereby persuaded to agree with whatever leftist talking-point is being proclaimed. The problem with this situation as it currently stands is the majority of folks listening to such drivel have gotten wiser to the tactic because the so-called progressive crowd doesn't know when to cease, and so such accusations are at present akin to the boy who cried "Wolf!"

Another case from the theological realm is a common objection voiced by many opposed to the healing-is-God'southward-will message: "What if it doesn't work? How do I explain to someone'south surviving relatives why they died?"

Their underlying assumption here is that it won't piece of work, and then from that flawed basis, the two unsaid choices are either: 1) non pedagogy it, thereby avoiding such "tragedies," or; 2) teach it, and so have to defend God to a hurting, sometimes hostile, crowd. However, there is a third option never mentioned, if even considered: "What if it does work?"

Round Logic (aka Begging the Question)

This is an argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise. For example:

The words of Muhammed are flawless and perfect and should never be questioned. We know this because it says then in the Qur'an, an infallible book written by Muhammed.

This is an article of faith among Muslims and ane of several reasons why Islam is immune to ever having its own version of a Protestant Reformation.

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (aka Ruby Picking)

This is a fallacy where sure statistics or facts supporting a particular narrative are used whereas those countering the narrative are never presented and/or the selected acts are presented with a complete absenteeism of their context. For case:

The makers of Saccharide Candy sodas betoken to research showing that, of the 5 countries where Sugar Processed drinks sell the nigh units, three of them are ranked among the elevation-tend healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugar Candy drinks are good for you.

Nosotros saw this fallacy demonstrated repeatedly by the prosecution during the Derek Chauvin murder trial for the in-custody death of George Floyd every bit mentioned in my previous installment in this series.

Anecdotal Evidence (aka Hasty Generalization)

We meet this one whenever someone uses a personal experience or isolated example in lieu of a valid argument, peculiarly to dismiss statistics or Scripture. Recall of it as the illegitimate offspring of the Blood-red Picking and False Dichotomy fallacies.

For one instance from modern political discourse, we see valid statistics demonstrating how minorities currently have far more political liberty, greater up fiscal/social mobility, political clout, and less overt discrimination in the workplace/society than ever before in American history. The racial discrimination industrial complex responds by carmine-picking instances where persons of color have been treated badly by police, etc. to nullify those statistics (I'm non claiming such accounts are false — tragically, many indeed are — simply such accounts cannot and do non negate the statistical data). Then the False Dichotomy fallacy part of the equation kicks into action by declaring both the statistics and these cherry-picked accounts cannot coexist in reality when in fact they really practise.

In the Christian world, one mutual utilise of this fallacy is the following claim:

Aunt Bucketmouth stood in faith for her healing and died anyway, so divine healing is heresy.

Start, whatever claim of heresy apropos divine healing is fraudulent on its confront because no one teaching information technology has laid claim to it being a condition for salvation. Healing is a peripheral doctrine, therefore it could never rise to the level of heresy, even if it was incorrect (which information technology isn't!).

2nd, someone dying while ostensibly assertive whatever valid Christian doctrine does not negate its inherent truth. We — as well as the person committing this fallacy! — simply do not and cannot know the heart and heed of that beloved aunt. That specific ability is unique to ane Person in the universe and we own't Him! All we can exercise is speculate and even that is forbidden past divine command:

Judge non, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, y'all will be judged; and with the measure you lot utilize, it volition exist measured back to you lot. Matthew 7:ane-two

This command applies to all believers, no matter which side of this debate nosotros may take. It is just as much a sin to proclaim from the cheap seats a particular person "didn't take enough religion" as it is to categorically state that selfsame person had all the organized religion in the earth.

All nosotros can conclude in such cases is this: this happened for reasons unknown to us this side of eternity, flow.

Quoting Out of Context Fallacy

This, too, is a variant of the Cherry Picking fallacy, but this one deals with citing someone'south spoken communication and/or writings out of their context, rather than selecting convenient statistics.

Nosotros saw it in abundance whenever the leftist media was dealing with anything uttered by President Trump.
This fallacy is also evidenced in only nigh every discussion apropos the Bible and Christianity taking place today where atheists pick and choose passages and present them bereft of context equally prima facie evidence for their claims.

Tragically, quoting Scripture out of context is even more prevalent inside the Church. We see this demonstrated whenever someone's pet doctrines are threatened or refuted, so they commit hermeneutical violence on the Scriptures to support their positions.

The old saw of "you can use the Bible to prove anything" is only true when you remove verses/passages from their context. I've covered how to properly establish context when interpreting Scripture in a previous commodity here at Miscellaneous Ramblings, so I will refrain from reinventing that wheel here.

Middle Basis Fallacy

This one is in play whenever nosotros come across someone offer a compromise between two polar-opposite positions. Handling this is tricky because we have to first discern whether a Faux Dichotomy fallacy is already in progress which could have been used to institute the two extremes in the starting time place.

That is not to say compromise is never appropriate; there are many cases where it admittedly is and then. But morality, amongst other issues, is not one of them. In the example we've already discussed concerning abortion, the Special Pleading fallacy is used to create a centre footing compromise where killing babies nether the circumstances of rape or incest is proclaimed as justifiable. While such situations are indeed tragic (I personally know more than a few men and women alike who take been raped and/or molested past family members), those reprehensible events withal do not justify an additional reprehensible upshot of killing an innocent infant produced by them.

Some other place where we see this fallacy in play is when the validity of other world religions is under discussion and the tired old "all religions pb to God" trope is proclaimed, as if that is some kind of heart ground where Christ-followers can concur to play nice with Hindus, Buddhists, and Moslems. That sort of ecumenical claptrap was removed from the realm of possibility when Jesus proclaimed Himself to be God-in-Sandals:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you lot would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
Philip said to Him, "Lord, prove us the Male parent, and it is sufficient for u.s.."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with y'all so long, and even so you accept not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; and so how tin can you say, 'Show us the Begetter'?"John 14:half dozen-9

In no manner am I justifying discrimination against or persecution of other religions by Christians; we are allowable by none other than our Main Himself to dearest them as He loves us. But proclaiming they are equally valid approaches to God is totally bogus on its face.

Tu Quoque

This fallacy takes identify whenever a criticism is answered with a counter-criticism. This is done to shift the focus of blameworthiness back onto the original accuser. Here is an instance of tu quoque in action:

Parent: Using illegal drugs is both morally incorrect and illegal.

Teen: Y'all drinkable booze. What'southward the deviation?

Sunk-Cost Fallacy

We see this one in play whenever nosotros witness activists refusing to consider the validity of an opposing view because they have invested then much of their time, energy, passion, and/or money in support of the false narrative they have espoused, often for years, even decades.

Information technology takes a huge amount of emotional honesty, humility, and backbone to publicly admit you have been tragically wrong for such a long time. Some have it, about don't and would rather die wrong than admit information technology considering they have fought so hard for their cause for so long it has become their very identity.

The Big Lie

This is a propaganda technique defying categorization as a cerebral bias or logical fallacy, but it incorporates one or more logical fallacies and definitely attempts to play on a listener'due south biases. The Big Lie is simply that: a completely false narrative which is trumpeted over and over and over and over once more from politicians and the media alike to build back up for their calendar(s). Hitler's propaganda falsely attributing Frg'southward pre-WWII economic and societal woes to the Jews is a prime example of the Big Lie in action and we see where that led: the Holocaust. So this is an extremely dangerous propaganda tool and tragically, we see examples of it on an hourly ground these days.

The Big Lies we see currently in play as of this writing are, just not limited to:

Conservatives and/or Christians are racists and white supremacists.
Capitalism and capitalists are evil, and then a Marxist government in the Usa is the but solution to our societal problems.
Christians are bigoted superstitious judgmental bigots who hate all those who disagree with them, especially on the topic of sex (tragically, they can actually make something of a case for this based upon Christendom'south social media behavior).
Opposing views to the leftist narrative are hate-voice communication and should exist suppressed.
God wants us to be sick and poor so He can teach the states humility/patience/etc.
Charismatic and WoF believers are heretics.

Here'southward a tip for you: with very few exceptions, we can instantly observe when a Democrat politician — also as more than a few Republicans — are lying to us: their lips are moving! Distressing for the overt cynicism, merely that has been my observation of US politics for over iv decades and it is getting exponentially worse, rather than amend, past the day every bit we rapidly approach the mean solar day of Christ's return.

Decision

I hope and pray what I have been sharing has been valuable to you. I have diligently tried to translate a topic chock-full of philosophical jargon into something whatsoever man or woman on the street tin grasp.

I've provided all of this so you have a BS-O-Meter you lot can use to navigate the dual minefields of political and theological argue out there.

The first person I invite you to employ that meter on is me.

Nothing I say in this series or anywhere else hither at Miscellaneous Ramblings is immune to your scrutiny and assay using the very precepts presented in this series. I am always open up to you respectfully calling me out if/when you feel I have strayed from a clear-cut presentation and analysis of the facts, letting the chips fall where they may. You are welcome to express any such remarks in the comments section below each web log post.

Cheers for reading!

archermoseloway.blogspot.com

Source: https://misc-ramblings.com/thinking-3/