Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Apologetics 101

Forewarned is forearmed: Seeing through 5 common logical fallacies

“I have no other but a woman’s reason;
I think him so, because I think him so.

That’s Shakespeare poking fun at the irrationality of a female character in his comedy The Two Gentlemen of Verona. It’s the lack of logic that makes this a bit funny.

But that sort of illogic is found just as often among men. How many times have you heard a man pontificate and yet really say no more than “I feel that is what the Bible teaches. I don’t really know why, but that’s what I believe.” In other words, “I think it’s so, because I think it’s so.” Now when it concerns the Bible, that sort of illogic isn’t even a bit funny!

Fun with fallacies

Illogical thinking and logical fallacies came with sin. The two illustrations above are both examples of a fallacy called Circular Reasoning. A classic Peanuts cartoon that you might remember had the following dialogue:

First Panel
Lucy: “You don’t believe me, do you? Well it’s a scientific fact that girls are smarter than boys.”
Linus wisely say nothing

Second Panel
Lucy: “And do you know who discovered it?”
Again Linus maintains his detachment and says nothing.

Third Panel
Lucy: “Woman scientists!”
Linus loses the argument and his composure.

In this circular argument Lucy asserts girls are smarter than boys because scientists have proven it. We know these scientists are right because they are girls, and girls are smarter! Obviously the comic strip is humorous because of the logical fallacy. So we don’t have to be one hundred per cent logical all the time – we can have some fun with illogic.

Nor must we always draw the same conclusion from the same scenario. I married a beautiful woman. Now, forty years later, she has a few grey hairs and maybe even a wrinkle or two. To me she is more beautiful than ever. You may think that’s illogical, but that’s because you don’t see her the way I do.

I have a son who is convinced Coca Cola has more flavor than Pepsi, but in a blind taste test he always picks Pepsi as the best. That has never changed his conviction, because, as he puts it, “the Coke sample must have been stale.” I shake my head at his pig-headedness – but his delusion is not of material significance.

Nevertheless, logical fallacies came with sin, and it is important to recognize them when they are used to mislead or misrepresent.

Ad Hominem

In the book The Fallacy Detective readers are taught to recognize various techniques used commonly to mislead or misdirect an argument. One of these has a fancy Latin name, Ad Hominem, which means literally “to the person.” In practice it is a personal attack, questioning the motives or the reputation of the opponent, instead of disproving his position. Already in the Garden of Eden we see this technique used successfully. God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would surely die. Satan denied this, and claimed that God had a hidden motive to lie to Adam and Eve – Satan attacked God’s character: “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good evil.” An absolute lie, but in Eve’s eyes God’s credibility has been undermined and she falls for Satan’s whole scenario.

In politics we see this technique used so often that the term “smear campaign” has become part of our vocabulary

Red Herring

Another frequently used tactic is the Red Herring, an irrelevant point brought in to divert the attention from the real problem or matter at hand. A red herring is a dead fish, an over-ripe dead fish, which a trainer uses to test tracking dogs. The dog is to follow the moose trail, or whatever you’re tracking, and not be diverted by the scent of the red herring that has been dragged across the primary trail.

Now reflect on the behavior of Moses when the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. God has for him an assignment that Moses does not want. Does he say so? Oh no! “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh…?” “What if they do not believe me or listen to me…?” “I have never been eloquent… I am slow of speech.” Finally, after God has armed him with an assortment of signs and miracles to overcome all his so-called objections, Moses reveals the real problem – he just does not want to go: “O LORD, please send someone else to do it.” That’s what it was all about! The objections were just red herrings!

As kids we have all use this tactic in its most elementary form. Mom asks “How come your boots have water in them again?” The reply invariably is something like “Oh mom, you ought to see Johnny’s. His boots were filled right to the top.”

Genetic Fallacy

The Genetic Fallacy is another personal attack fallacy. Yet it does not attack the person, but attacks the argument for where it came from: it condemns the argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it. For example, a couple of years ago I read an excellent article on biblical headship. It was good solid scriptural material. Yet it was criticized by a few because it had been written by a bachelor.

On one occasion Moses too received that sort of criticism. Two Hebrew men were fighting and Moses asked the one in the wrong “Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?” The man avoided the question by criticizing the source: “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?”

A few years ago I listened to author Scott Klusendorf speak eloquently against abortion. Said one woman in the audience: “What do you know about this? You are not a woman.” She found it necessary to attack the person who brought the message because she was unable to undermine the message itself.

Faulty Appeal to Authority

One fallacy that is of particular importance to us as Christians is the Faulty Appeal to Authority. In our debates and discussions we, as Christians, properly appeal to the authority of the Word of God. Similarly, we use quotes from The Heidelberg Catechism, The Canons of Dort or The Apostles’ Creed, again quite properly because they have an authority derived from their faithfulness to the Scriptures. Likewise, we quote Synod decisions as authoritative because, as stated in Article 31 of the Church Order, “whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered binding (i.e. authoritative), unless it be proved to be in conflict with the Word of God.”

All of these are examples of a proper appeal to authority. A faulty appeal to authority, for example, is demonstrated by the Pharisees when they appealed to the traditions of men as authoritative. In Mark 7 we read of one such tradition: goods that could have been used to support needy parents could be withheld from them by pledging the goods to the temple service. Such a pledge did not have to specify a date of fulfillment. Thus the unfaithful son continued to profit from the property withheld from his parents. It was all quite legal according to the tradition of the elders as taught by the Pharisees.

Christ warned them that their teachings were a faulty appeal to these traditions as authoritative, because these traditions were in conflict with God’s Word. He said to them “…Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ …but you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘whatever help you might have received from me is a gift devoted to God’, then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down…”

In everyday discussions we have all run into the same difficulty. “We’ve always done it that way” is sometimes the final determination, no matter what the pros or cons of the considerations.

More frequently a faulty appeal to authority is an appeal to someone who has no special expertise in the area being discussed. Simply put, if you want to quote someone on the best way to treat an enlarged prostate, quote an urologist, not a young auto young mechanic who has neither studied nor experienced the problem.

Yet that sort of thing happens all the time. Movie stars tell us about the benefits of particular toothpaste, hockey players hype the nutrition value of a popular cereal, or bishops are interviewed about military strategy or economic plans.

The Either-Or Fallacy

In this short essay we only have room to tackle one more bit of illogical thinking – the Either-Or fallacy (in their book, The Fallacy Detective, the authors tackle about two dozen different fallacies). When someone asserts that we must choose between two things, when in fact we have more than two alternatives, he is using this fallacy. You’ve heard or used it, I’m sure: “If I do the chores I won’t be able to finish my homework and the teacher will fail me.” One of the options, failing, is so absurd or unthinkable that we are being manipulated to choose the other option. This fallacy is obvious to any experienced mother. She realizes that there is another possibility: Don’t procrastinate, and you’ll be able to do both.

Conclusion

So what’s the point of all this? Every day we are faced with questionable logic in our secular newspapers and even in our Christian publications. Often we accept their conclusions intuitively, because our own reasoning skills are very poor. Learning to recognize the most common logical fallacies will enable us to listen and to read more critically and analytically. Forewarned is forearmed!

This was originally published in the July/August 2004 issue under the title “Forewarned is forearmed: how to recognize the most common logical fallacies.”



News, Politics

What if we said what we mean? – political party edition

Another election campaign has come and gone, and one of the bigger disappointments might simply be, did anyone defend anything that really mattered?

The Conservatives ran a slogan promising "Canada First – For a Change,” but the changes party leader Pierre Poilievre promised were practical, more than principled. What did he stand for? Change and Canada? The Liberals could have run with that too – Carney, after all, ran on the platform of not being Trudeau. And that seemed change enough for the electors, who gave his party yet another term.

But where were the unborn left in this campaign? And what about the many vulnerable elderly or disabled Canadians who, in our culture of death, are now seen as having lives not worth living? Who is going to stand up for them? The mainstream parties weren't going to go there.

There's a trend working its way around the web asking, what if companies had to use "brutally honest slogans" that told the truth about their products? What might that look like? Some of the suggestions include:

  • IKEA: Come for the meatballs. Stay cause you can't find your way out.
  • Facebook: Come procrastinate
  • YouTube: Don't let your kids read the comments

What if political parties had to do the same and say what they actually meant? If they had to be blunt and truthful, what would their slogans look like? I'd suggest they might look something like this:

LIBERALS

Vote for us and get the government you deserve
Pitching you a bright future, hoping you’ll forget our seedy past
Abortion…done! Gay marriage…done! Euthanasia…done! Transgenderism...
We listen; We care; We pass out your money everywhere
At least we aren’t the scary Conservatives!
Proudly aborting the next generation of voters
UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT!!! Serving the same old menu.

CONSERVATIVES

When it comes to moral issues…that’s all we have to say.
Christian voters should be seen but not heard
Money matters. Unborn children don’t.
Still the lesser of two evils!
Fiscally? Conservative! Morally? Well...
At least we aren't the scary Liberals
Christians welcome…at the back of the bus.

NEW DEMOCRATS

The tenth commandment was only meant for rich people.
More government is always the answer.
Every child deserves two loving… daycare workers
Liberals delivered euthanasia, but we thought of it first!
We deny the unborn are people. We won't deny Steve is a girl.
We spell “Compassion” M-O-N-E-Y.
On-call Liberal lapdog

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY

If your vote is your voice, what are you saying?
When you vote pro-choice, you aren’t pro-life
As long as "lesser evil" is enough, you'll never get better
Our goal needs to be volume, not victory... but we keep forgetting
How bad do the Conservatives have to get?
Keeping quiet about God to win is a bad trade
Vote for them and get the government you deserve

Pictured generated with ChatGPT.


Today's Devotional

May 22 - Redemption through the Son

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” - John 3:14,15 

Scripture reading: Numbers 21:4-9

The experience of the Israelites described in Numbers 21 seems far removed from us. Yet we have something in common: Each one of us has been bitten by the >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Casting our burdens: Gospel of John (Lazarus)

Serving #849 of Manna, prepared by Steven Swets, is called "Casting our burdens" (Gospel of John (Lazarus)).











Red heart icon with + sign.
Family, Movie Reviews

Belle and Sebastian

Drama 2013 / 99 minutes Rating: 8/10 In the middle of World War II, Sebastian, a seven-year-old orphan, lives  with a grandfather figure, César, high in the French Alps. There are two enemies they have to contend with – "the Beast," a wild dog who is killing sheep, and the Nazis, who are are also taking what they will from the farmers. The Nazis are also trying to stop the flow of Jews escaping through the nearby mountain passes that lead into Switzerland. Sebastian is largely left to wander around on his own during the days – César doesn't making him go to school. During his wandering the boy learns more than the adults suspect. He knows about the refugees. And he knows something no one else does: the "Beast" isn't a wild dog at all. Maybe something is killing the sheep, but the giant dog he met is friendly, and would never think about eating sheep. Sebastian cleans the gray dog up, turning her white, and names her Belle. This being a dog drama, Belle is not beloved as quickly by the rest of the town, or by César, who still think her a sheep-killer. But she wins them over, one by one, by coming to their aid, against wolves, and against the Nazis. Cautions Sebastian doesn't tell César about Belle at first, and young viewers should be told that they shouldn't keep secrets from their parents (or, parent-figure, in this case). One oddity: as he is being put to bed, Sébastien asks an adult sister-figure, Angélina, whether she licks her boyfriend's ears, because he's heard that's what "real lovers" do. It is a passing question, quickly swatted away with a smile that is meant to show Sebastian is indeed a seven-year-old boy, yet to develop any filters between what's in his brain and what comes out of his mouth. When it comes to language, the English dub seems to be problem-free, but if you watch it in the original French, bastard and ass come up in the English captioning, though that's pretty much it. There's lots of guns, but only a little violence. A sheep gets killed right at the start, and later on Sebastian gets saved from a Nazi soldier when Belle jumps in and bites the German. A smidge of blood is shown. The most frightening scene is when Belle gets shot. It might be unexpected for younger viewers, which will make it all the more shocking, though you can offer reassurances that Belle will recover. Finally, adults will realize that César's family and friends think he drinks too much (and they are right), but I don't know that kids will even notice. Conclusion This is a much loved story that has been retold again and again. It started as a French TV live-action series in 1965, became a popular French children's novel in 1966, spawned a Japanese anime adaption in the 1980s, before being adapted for the silver screen in this version. And it has returned to TV since, in a French-Canadian production in 2017. Though it is not a true story, it is true that Jews escaped through the Pyrenees mountain passes, and were helped by the locals, who were risking their own lives in offering aid. So this is a fun one from a historical perspective. Titled Belle et Sébastien in the original French, its foreign origin gives it a slightly different rhythm and style that brings with it a novel appeal. Wide, lingering shots of the snowy mountain tops and valleys, and frequent quiet conversations give this an overall calm feel, but it isn't too much so – there are still Nazis to contend with and wolves to chase away. That said, it might be too calm for littles used to non-stop frenetic action. And the scary scenes will be a bit much for under 9 too. The English-dubbed version is more readily available, but if you don't mind reading captions, try to find the original French edition, Belle et Sébastien. I think hearing the actors' own voices will draws you further in, or, at least, it did so for me (though there are a couple few words - see cautions above). And the French version seems to be about 5 minutes longer, though I didn't notice any additions. Overall, a great family film for 9 and up, so long as your littles are up for a few short frightening scenes. ...