Poor
Christian Reasoning
Perhaps the most aggravating ordeal in discussing
religious theory is the burden of listening to logical fallacies used by
someone with an opposing viewpoint. Logical fallacies are arguments outside the
bounds of reality, commonly used by zealous defenders of their respective
religions. While some of the arguments used by such an individual may seem
sound or valid to a lay audience, especially one with beliefs deeply rooted in
the debated system, this chapter should assist you in being able to recognize
when such disingenuous methods of argumentation are used. In fact, the
illogical attributes of Christianity itself prematurely handicap the ability
for a Bible defender to use sound logic in defending his position. I will
support examples of these poorly developed techniques with hypothetical religious
arguments in order to reinforce the often-confusing explanations.
It’s important
for the freethinker to avoid these faulty methods of argumentation in order to
remain above an intellectually dishonest level. As the tools of logic and
reason are on the side of those who don’t blindly
delve into the comforts of false superstitions, there’s no foreseeable excuse
to ever resort to the use of logical fallacies in the “defense” of disbelief.
Baseless
Assertions
This section will discuss a variety of
general arguments that use unreliable methodologies to arrive at a desired
conclusion. The first example is argumentum
ad ignorantiam, which means an argument from ignorance. This is a proposal that
something is true (or false) because it has yet to be proven otherwise. A
Christian might say, “The crucifixion is a historical fact because no one has
found any documents conspiring to invent the story.” In the same manner, I
could claim that Jesus had four arms. Since no one can solidly disprove my
ridiculous assertion, the previous speaker’s fallacious logic allows my
statement to be considered a historical fact. Needless to say, a lack of evidence against a claim doesn’t
make the proposal a historical certainty.
Some apologists (those who defend a
religious doctrine) will consider an argument more valid if the audience hears
it more than the opposing viewpoint. We call this erroneous consideration an argumentum ad nauseam, which is an
argument that depends on mere repetition. A speaker using this method of argumentation
will go to great lengths in order to ensure that he voices his opinion as often
as possible. Although the argument itself may be perfectly sound, it’s no more or less true the thousandth time that the
speaker used it than the first. A silent form of this argument may be
self-utilized when someone forms an opinion on the legitimacy of Christianity
based on the abundance of related literary works. While Christian nations tend
to publish extraordinary amounts of Christian material, the arguments contained
therein do not increase in soundness based solely on the number of times that
writers regurgitate the information.
Christians will often make arguments that
imply something is true because society has generally accepted it as the truth
for a lengthy but arbitrary period of time. This is an
example of argumentum ad antiquitatem, which means an argument based on age. A
Christian might say, “People have believed in God for thousands of years. This
belief has existed for so long that there must absolutely be some truth to it.”
Apologists of even older religions could also make such bankrupt claims, but
such assertions would no doubt go unheard by a close-minded Christian
apologist. In short, the age of the belief in question is independent from the
legitimacy of the belief itself. Conversely, some Christians will argue that
certain beliefs are true because they’re newer than
others. This would be an example of argumentum
ad novitatem, an argument from novelty. “Jesus
Christ was crucified during the time of recorded history. Many people wrote
about his death, and it’s much harder to forge such a
record in this era. Therefore, the account is true.” Scholars have adequately disproven several modern beliefs,
religious or otherwise, in the past 2000 years. While there may be an increased
obstacle of difficulty in forging records of a modern event, a belief isn’t true just because it’s newer than others in the same
field.
Apologists often cite the attributes and
qualities of people during arguments as evidence to support an assertion. Let’s suppose there’s a multi-billionaire preacher who has
dedicated his life to serving God. This hypothetical character might often be
apologetically used as an example of how Christianity is more likely to be true
than other religions. Because this rich individual obviously made many correct
choices in life, his belief in Jesus, according to the apologist, only makes
sense. We call such a ridiculous proposal argumentum ad crumenam,
an argument based on wealth. If this rich man also believed in the Easter
Bunny, the mythical rabbit doesn’t leap into the
bounds of reality. Conversely, another Christian might consider a poor
individual to be more virtuous since he isn’t
preoccupied with materialistic possessions. Therefore, according to the
apologist, we should hold his religious viewpoints in higher esteem than those
of the common person. That’s an example of argumentum ad lazarum,
an argument based on a lack of wealth. What if the poor man
also believed in the Easter Bunny?
If a person is famous, Christians will
often appeal to that individual as an additional example for the legitimacy of
their religion. For instance, “Since the past few Presidents of the
If an ignorant debater considers a single
person to be good evidence, then billions of people probably seem like pure
gold. Argumentum ad numerum
is an argument based on the number of people who believe something to be true.
Christians often suggest that Jesus Christ must be an actual historical figure
because close to two billion living people now believe that he is the son of
God. However, over one billion people believe that Muhammad split the moon in
half. Where is the imaginary boundary for the number argument to work? What
happens when the world’s Muslim population inevitably exceeds the number of
Christians? Will biblical apologists then accept Islam as the truth based on
this reasoning? Of course not, and they shouldn’t. The
number of people who subscribe to a religion doesn’t
make the belief system any more or less factual than it already is (or isn’t).
Similarly, argumentum ad populum is the use of a statement that appeals to some
popular notion in society. A Christian might argue, “To insinuate that the
Bible is a hoax is to call a countless number of our past heroes misguided.” Even
though such a statement might successfully enrage the audience against the
speaker’s opponent, it’s a blatantly dishonest but
often unintentional utilization of the audience’s emotions to turn them toward
a certain viewpoint. No matter how popular or widespread a religious belief can
be, these qualities don’t add to the soundness of the
facts.
Distorted
Timelines And Irrational Congruencies
Those who overly claim that certain events
are dependent and/or evident of other events commit logical mistakes as well.
Thus, we’ll look at a few examples of these common
fallacies in this section.
Christians often falsely attribute one
event to another because they concurrently took place. This is called cum hoc ergo propter
hoc, translated as “with the fact, therefore because of the fact.” An
example might be a reference to a study demonstrating that crime rates have
dropped steadily in an area over the previous two years because of increased church
attendance. Note that this is a possible
explanation for the drop in crime, but there’s no
conclusively causal relationship between the two events. The person making the
claim ignores other possible reasons why the crime rate may have dropped (e.g.
an increased budget for the police department). A similar fallacy is post hoc ergo propter
hoc, translated as “after the fact, therefore because of the fact.” An
example along the lines of the previous proposal might cite the improved
emotions in those who attend church for two years. An apologist might conclude
that the improvement resulted from church membership, but this individual once
again ignores a plethora of other possible explanations, such as lifestyle
modifications or antidepressant medications. Both of these logical fallacies
are more specific forms of non causa pro causa, which is an attempt to draw a link between two events without any
good evidence of a relationship.
In addition to the previous unsuccessful
arguments attempting to bridge two events, there are some fallacies attempting
to create a link between two theoretical events. Denial of the antecedent is a form of argument that concludes a
proposal isn’t true because it was implied by another
proposal now proven to be inaccurate. A Christian could say, “The theory of
evolution was dependent on modern man descending from Neanderthals. Since the
Neanderthal descent hypothesis has proven to be false, the theory of evolution
also fails.” While it’s true that scientists once
speculated that Neanderthals could be ancestors of modern humans, by no means
does this advancement in knowledge disprove the entire field of evolution.
Similarly, affirmation of the consequent
is a fallacious argument suggesting that if one event implies another event
happened, the first occurrence is true because someone has proven the second
true. A good example might be similar to this: “Jesus said that there would be
war and famine in the last days of this world. Since we see prevalent war and
famine, Jesus truly made this statement.” Events simply don’t
take place for the sole purpose of fulfilling prophecies. Besides, I’d like to hear about a point in history void of these
unfortunate circumstances.
I’ve actually
known some people who have suggested that meditation is a form of prayer.
Consequently, they think those who meditate are actually praying to God.
However, individuals making this baseless suggestion fail to expand on why prayer is the same as meditation.
They simply want you to accept the premise that they’re
similar and accept the conclusion they provide. We refer to this irresponsible
method of assertion as the fallacy of the
undisturbed middle. Christian believers also tend to utilize such an
inconsistency in order to harmonize a discrepancy between the Bible and known
scientific data. The most common example is the timeline for the creation of
the earth’s contents. These individuals may concede that the earth was created billions of years ago while simultaneously
maintaining the accuracy of the Genesis account. However, both statements
simply cannot be true because they’re in direct
conflict. The speaker would need to justify this proposed harmonization in
order to avoid making an erroneous and fallacious argument.
An often-used logical fallacy is ad hoc reasoning, or an explanation
offered after the fact. It’s a common apologetic
practice to fall back on an alternative solution once the foundation of the
original position has crumbled. For example, a Christian might state, “There’s
great evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old.” Once someone
exposes the error in such a blatantly false statement with the overwhelming
counterevidence, the Christian might then say, “God made it look that way to
mislead those who rely on their own opinions rather than having faith in his
word.” The speaker has totally dropped the original indefensible claim and
substituted it with an alternative explanation, one that only makes sense after
the fact. In other words, the speaker is justifying the problem with an invented
solution in order to protect his position.
Those attempting to obtain approval for an
idea often unknowingly use the slippery
slope argument. For example, a Christian might suggest, “If you take prayer
out of school, children will learn to be less dependent on God throughout the
rest of their lives. When the methods these children use to solve their
problems fail, they’ll often result to other means
that may endanger them. If they don’t end up getting killed, they’ll wander
into a life of crime in order to fill their needs instead of turning to God.” I
hope you can see why it’s called the slippery slope
argument. The speaker insinuates that if we take a certain action, a cascade of
other events will inevitably follow. As is the case here, the speaker typically
offers no evidence on which to connect the series of crude assertions.
Miscellaneous
Accidents
The logical fallacies included in this
section are most likely the result of accidents or ignorance. We’ll discuss intellectually dishonest methods of
argumentation in a moment. The first such accidental case is the reliance upon anecdotal evidence to prove a point.
Such “evidence” is nothing more than assumed conclusions based on casual
observations and personal experiences rather than honest and impartial
scientific analyses. For instance, “Childbirth is the result of a divine
miracle. There’s no other way to explain it.” On the surface, childbirth may
appear to be beyond our comprehension. However, once a thorough study is made
of the biological events leading up to childbirth, it should become an
extraordinary but explainable natural bodily process.
Special
pleading is another foolish and unsuccessful method of argumentation
frequently used within the Christian community. This fallacy is committed when
the speaker directs a plea toward his opponent or the audience in an attempt to
win them over to the desired position. For example, a Christian apologist might
say, “Only a small part of my opponent’s counterevidence works against my
claim. If you ignore that small bit, my position stands unscathed.” While it
may sound intentional, the speaker is most often unaware of the erroneous
nature of his request. We can’t simply ignore or wish
evidence away when we don’t like it.
A sweeping
generalization is the act of applying a general rule on a specific
situation. For example, when apologists often claim that most atheists have
never read too far into the Bible, they conclude that one atheist in particular
must not have read the Bible. While it’s probably true
that the majority of atheists have not bothered with reading the Bible, it’s
improper and prejudicial to apply this general guideline to a particular
individual. Similarly, a hasty
generalization is the making of a claim based on a limited number of examples.
Imagine a story running on the news about three Muslims burning down a number
of churches across a city. Someone committing a hasty generalization would
conclude that all Muslims are radical terrorists. Likewise, apologists will
also use a very similar argument known as the fallacy of division to make favorable remarks about their fellow
worshippers. “Roger is a Christian. Therefore, he could not have killed Larry.”
While the vast majority of Christians aren’t
murderers, this statement underhandedly applies the overall quality of the
group to a specific individual.
Many Christians truly believe that none of
their peers would engage in something as heinous as
kidnapping people to sell them into slavery. Once we’re
able to convince an apologist that many slave traders were members of the
Christian faith, he might alter the meaning of what it is to be a Christian by
claiming that no true Christian would
ever commit these acts of treachery. We refer to such desperation as the no true Scotsman fallacy. Even if the
apologist’s definition of what he felt comprised a Christian included being
unable to kidnap and sell slaves, he’s only offered a
baseless and arbitrary guideline. Someone else could easily assert that no true Christian would ever tell a lie.
Such a bold proposal would undoubtedly eliminate all two billion Christians at
the blink of an eye.
Christian apologists will often use
references to the natural world via the naturalistic
fallacy for their justifications or condemnations of particular behaviors.
In addition to quoting Bible verses condemning homosexual acts, they will often
refer to the absence of these behaviors in the natural world. As a result, they
will conclude that homosexuality isn’t a natural
practice for humans. The problem with this argument is that the natural world doesn’t offer a glimpse at many of the things humans do. The use of birth control devices isn’t seen anywhere in nature, yet many Christians partake
in this “unnatural” act. Such a counterpoint perfectly exemplifies why the
argument goes down in flames. Incidentally, much to the chagrin of
ultraconservatives, there are
homosexual acts currently taking place in the natural world.
An extremely common logical fallacy often
serving as the sole foundation of a Christian argument is petitio principii, more widely known as begging the question. This mistake
occurs when the premise used to support a conclusion is as equally questionable
as the conclusion itself. For example, “The Bible is the word of God. Because
it tells us that accepting Jesus is the only way to enter Heaven, there’s no
other way to avoid Hell other than accepting Jesus.” The speaker predicates his
conclusion upon the premise of his argument being true. In other words, he
bases the conclusion of non-Christians going to Hell on the assumption that the
Bible is the word of God. However, the premise is definitely a questionable
one. A conclusion based solely on a questionable premise must,
of course, be questionable as well. It would then be the speaker’s
responsibility to provide proof for his premise or withdraw his conclusion.
There’s an
interrogative form of begging the question called a complex/loaded question. This is where the speaker assumes certain
facts when asking a question. “Are you still sending people to hell by
convincing them to turn away from God?” The question contains a predetermined
conclusion that turning people away from God will send them to Hell. Again, the
speaker is required to present proof of a causal relationship between a
disbelief in God and banishment to Hell. A one-word response will not
satisfactorily answer the question even though the speaker has phrased it in
such a manner.
Another similar logical fallacy is termed circulus in demonstrando,
otherwise known as circular reasoning.
Here’s a painfully common example: “The Bible is the
word of God. Since God wrote the Bible, we know that it contains only truthful
accounts. Since the truthful accounts are inspired by God, we know that the
Bible is God’s word.” In other words, the Bible is the word of God because the
Bible says so. If you can’t spot the enormous gaping
hole in this argument, I’m afraid that I’m not doing you much help. The Qur’an says Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, but that doesn’t make it a fact. There must be good evidence to
support these claims.
I find circular reasoning to be a
particularly aggravating method of argumentation, especially when a Christian
denies those with different religions the luxury to make the same bald
assertions. It’s even common for apologists to make
the extremely frustrating claim that relying on complimentary evidence, such as
the discrete sets of scientific data yielded by radiometric dating and fossil
deposits, is the same thing as invoking the use of circular reasoning. In other
words, they believe the only validity that we can derive from these two tests
is that one supports the other. This is simply not the case. Each test
independently yields the same conclusion; therefore, each test reinforces the validity of the
conclusion made by the other. No one is saying that the age from radiometric
dating is true because it agrees with the age from fossil layers and that the
age from fossil layers is true because it agrees with the age from radiometric
dating; that would be circular
reasoning.
When the going gets rough for Christian
apologists trying to defend their biblical views, they’ll
often say, “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.” They’re
exactly right. Similarly, they can’t prove the Easter
Bunny doesn’t exist. However, they can be reasonably
certain of its nonexistence when they make a judgment based on all
available data. The proposal for the other party to disprove the positive
assertion is a logical fallacy known as shifting
the burden of proof. It’s never the responsibility
of the person denying the claim to prove otherwise, nor is it possible to prove
something doesn’t exist unless we burden this hypothetical phenomenon with
rules and logic of our universe (e.g. disproving squared circles). The person
who makes the positive claim is always responsible for proving it’s factual. Whether or not you believe that a god who
makes a magical egg-delivering rabbit is more ridiculous than a god who is
pleased by the smell of burnt flesh is simply a matter of perspective. Each
demands the same amount of proof.
Smoke And Mirrors
Unfortunately, many apologists use
arguments that they know are wholly lacking in credibility. Perhaps some part
of them even realizes the absurdity of their position and creates the need to
resort to such tactics in order to defend their beliefs. This section will
discuss those logical fallacies most often intentionally used under
intellectual dishonesty.
A good starting example is the use of bifurcation, commonly known as the black and white fallacy. This is a way
of offering only two possible answers to a scenario when there are credible
alternative solutions. An individual practicing bifurcation might say, “Either
Mark knew about Jesus and wrote the Gospel account, or he didn’t. Since Mark
records Jesus’ miracles several times, we can conclude that he knew Jesus.” The
problem with this particular statement is the lumping of Mark’s knowledge and
authorship into one inseparable unit. The speaker ignores the possibility that
Mark wrote about Jesus but didn’t know him, or
vice-versa. There’s also an interrogative form of
bifurcation known as plurium interrogationum.
This fallacy is committed when the speaker requires a simple affirmative or
negative answer to a more complex question. “Did the biblical characters exist?
Answer yes or no.” If you wish to retort by saying that some existed while others
didn’t, such a question requires a more detailed
explanation for a satisfactory answer than the one word allotment provided by
the speaker.
An apologist defending his position may
even resort to force, argumentum ad baculum, as a way of getting an audience to adhere to
his belief. This cunning individual might say, “If you don’t accept Jesus
Christ as your savior, you’ll burn in Hell for eternity.” While the apologist
obviously believes he’s speaking the truth, the
statement by itself isn’t any truer than “If you accept Jesus Christ as your
savior, you’ll burn in Hell for blaspheming Allah.” However, this shamefully
dishonest method is an appreciably effective scare tactic to use on a gullible
audience.
A Christian speaker might also attack the
credibility of his opponent by using factors unrelated to the credibility of
the opponent’s position. An example of such an argumentum ad hominem would be this: “The
man who stands before you is an atheist. He claims Christianity doesn’t have a
good moral code, but I happen to know that he’s verbally abusive toward his
peers.” Such an unwarranted attack against the opponent has no value toward
supporting the issue of Christianity’s moral code. While the hostility doesn’t have any logical credibility as a valid argument, it
speaks volumes about the credibility of the individual resorting to its usage.
An irrelevant
conclusion is self-explanatory. This act of deception is committed when a
speaker makes a conclusion that has absolutely no relationship with the point
he wishes to defend. Perhaps a Christian wants to protect the notion of Jesus
being the son of God. He might consequently say, “Jesus died on the cross for
our sins. This took away all our sins and gave us eternal life. Many people
have now turned to Jesus. This tells us that Jesus was the son of God.” Notice
how the supporting ideas do nothing to prove Jesus was the son of God. The
conclusion is, therefore, irrelevant.
A similar argument might have a non sequitur, the use of a premise
having no logical connection with its proposed conclusion. For example, “Because
Mark wrote a biography of Jesus, he must have been well versed in ancient
Hebrew Scriptures.” The premise does nothing to support the conclusion, nor can
you logically infer the conclusion from the given premise.
The immensely popular red herring occurs when someone attempts to introduce irrelevant
material into a discussion. Suppose two sides are debating whether the
followers of Christianity or Islam have committed the most
historical atrocities. A Christian apologist might say, “Christianity hasn’t
committed more atrocities than Islam. I know many loving Christian people who
go out of their way to help others regardless of the religious faith to which
the beneficiaries subscribe. Everyone in my church does volunteer work for the
community. We’ve all donated our life savings to the
homeless. You never hear about Muslims doing any of these things. Thus,
Christianity hasn’t committed more historical atrocities than Islam.” In this
instance, the speaker did nothing more than offer a few anecdotal evidences to
support the notion that Christianity is a kinder religion than Islam. However,
the speaker’s examples did not deal with the issue of which religion has
committed more atrocities in its history. Whether or not Christians perform
caring acts is entirely irrelevant to the debate. The speaker is deceitfully
attempting to divert the audience’s attention away from the topic at hand by
distracting them with irrelevant material.
Next, we have the cleverly titled straw man. This fallacy is committed
when the speaker alters or misrepresents the position of his opponent in order
to enable an easy but unwarranted attack. Suppose two sides are debating over
the existence of the Hebrew god. After side one proclaims that he probably doesn’t exist, side two might reply, “You say that God
probably doesn’t exist as though you had all the answers yourself. Tell us how
you know the universe didn’t need a creator.” Notice how the speaker begins his
retort by mentioning a specific god but quickly broadens his opponent’s stance
to include a decoy position of atheism. Side one never claimed that a god doesn’t exist, nor did he say that the universe didn’t
require a creator. Side two has maliciously
misrepresented his opposition because side one only claimed that the Hebrew god probably doesn’t exist. There’s an obvious and crucial difference between these two
positions.
Finally, no overview of poor logical
reasoning would be complete without mentioning the universal reply. If apologetic responses repeatedly have no
more value than “You just need to read the Bible to understand Jesus and God’s
word,” you’re probably wasting your time trying to
talk some sense into the speaker. Any statement capable of being
recycled by another religion never qualifies as evidence. Change Bible to Qur’an, Jesus to Muhammad, and God to Allah to produce an equally irrational “special insight” assertion
ready for Muslim consumption. If anything, belief only poisons the ability to
make an unbiased judgment of the evidence. Similarly, we cannot consider
personal experiences to be solid evidence for the legitimacy of a religious
system because members of all religions claim to have the same experiences. How
many times have you heard of God getting credit for curing someone’s cancer?
Strangely enough, so does Allah!
Now You’re
Ready To Understand
This chapter should provide you with a
sufficient overview of disingenuous arguments commonly used by apologists to
support their beliefs. Any Christian readers who have utilized these illogical
methods of argumentation should understand why they are not valid. Likewise,
anyone wishing to engage an apologist in biblical debate should always be very
mindful to avoid utilizing these logical fallacies. This successful avoidance
will no doubt facilitate the use of logically sound arguments. Thus, it would
serve anyone well to memorize these fallacies and be able to explain why they
are considered to be blatantly foolish methods of misguided argumentation. Now
that you have a basic understanding of the common apologetic stance, let’s analyze the Bible, without relying on such desperate
measures, to derive plausible explanations for its content.