Apologetics

[twistedlinen]

It helps a lot for us to know what not to apply in arguments/debates or just simply presenting our stand or point of views. I copied this to a christian site long time ago and saved it to my documents. I hope it'll be helpful to everyone participating in Bible discussion Forum..

You can add anything you know that's not in the list.


Ad Hominem
This fallacy literally means a response “to the man” (rather than to the argument). The author takes great pride in his exegetical skills, while any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled not “consistent” , not “meaningful” , not “in depth” , a “mere presentation” , or not based on “definitive” works.

Name calling
Reasoning and conclusions are labeled “a non-response”, “shallow at best” , “simplistic arguments” , a “source of great confusion”, not “substantial”, “quite simply ridiculous” , “almost frightening” , “tremendous confusion”, “utterly amazing” , “completely fallacious” , “completely backward” , “the most amazing statement”, and even a “most torturous line of reasoning”.

Poisoning the Well
The effect of all this name calling entails another fallacy called “poisoning the well.” These statements work toward polluting the reader’s mind against a view rather than reasonably considering its merits. It is a debating technique geared to winning arguments, not to discovering truth. One persists in using a sinister term to describe a view.

 

[twistedlinen]

Straw Man
By reducing one’s view to a dreaded and commonly known erroneous position and then castigating it, the person will repeatedly find himself agreeing with the attacker’s critiques and wondering whose view it was scorching.

False Disjunctive
It wrongly assumes a reasoning process that goes something like this: Either your view is A c or it is Z. It is not A. Therefore, it is Z. This, of course, overlooks that there is at least one other view between A and Z.

Non Sequitur
The non sequitur fallacy occurs when the conclusion drawn does not follow logically from the premises given. A classic example of this occurs when one attempts to argue in this way: (1) Christ prays only for those for whom he died; (2) Christ prays only for those who are elect. (3) Hence, Christ died only for the elect.
However, this is an elementary error known as an undistributed middle term. In short, even if there are not more for whom He prays than those for whom He died, nevertheless, there may be more for whom He died than those for whom He prays. To make those for whom He died and the elect one and the same group involves a fallacy of illicit conversion of terms. It is like saying that if all horses have four legs, then all four-legged things are horses. Although (1) All Christ died for are in the only group for whom He presently intercedes in heaven, and (2) All the elect are in the only group for whom He presently intercedes, it does not follow that (3) All He died for are the elect only.

The Blind Pharisee
On the one hand, a person warns against the use of human illustrations. On the other hand, he approves of the use of human illustrations (his own).

The Sidestep
One sidesteps the major issues and focuses on the minor ones to hide the truth. Another term for this is majoring on the minors or minoring on the majors. Another form of the sidestep is when one no longer focuses on the issue at point and uses other means to woo the audience. An example of this is when one pretends to be the victim of the opposition and thus pretends to be persecuted, innocent, and completely helpless. This is an appeal to emotions and sympathy. The process of intellectual discretion is then bypassed by the emotions evoked by the sidestepper.

Forked Tongue
Another technique employed by some to further their position is to redefine terms that cover the harsh reality of a biblically, morally, and rationally indefensible view. Irresistible grace on the unwilling is labeled a “middle ground” between persuasion and coercion. This is a theological euphemism par excellence. How can an act of God that is absolutely contrary to the desires and will of a totally depraved human being who is dead in sin be anything less than coercive?
Moving the coercive’ act of God to the point of regeneration does not make it any less violent, for the totally dead person being regenerated is both unaware and unwilling of the operation of God upon him that is totally against his will and desires.

The Doublespeak
When one affirms that fallen humans can will, but yet they have no will ; that grace is irresistible, but yet it is not coercive ; that depraved humans are dead but are alive enough to hear and reject the gospel ; that God does not force anyone, but He regenerates them contrary to their will .

Pride and Exclusivism
When one calls its view “the XXX” view (emphasis added), while summarily dismissing other theologians of similar views, then cites who do not agree with major points in his presentation. When one immodestly announces, “I will be demonstrating” that A’s view “is in error” . Better to set forth one’s case and let the reader decide that. It speaks of “such obvious errors” of those who oppose it and of the “only way” to interpret such, when it is known that there are other ways. It claims the opponent’s position is “utterly without substantiation” and that its own conclusion is true “without question.”
Some would even go so far as to leave the realm of exegetical refutation and to pass an implied moral judgment on those who disagree with its interpretation, saying they express “unwillingness to accept what the text itself teaches” . Good and godly scholars on every side of this issue have long disagreed over how to interpret these and other texts. In response, one might suggest that a bit more intellectual openness, scholarly reserve, and spiritual humility would be appropriate.

 

[twistedlinen]

The Doctrinator
Briefly, this is when one builds a doctrine or essential or major point based on and around a certain minor point, usually taken out of context. Some who use this technique subscribe to literalism and no longer adhere to proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

Theologism
Briefly, this is the fallacy of assuming that the view that seems to give the most glory to God is true. After all, deists have argued that it gives more glory to God to believe that He created a world in which He never intervenes in the same way that it brings more glory to a mechanic to make a perfect machine that never needs repair. However, this does not follow, since truth is not determined by what appears to glorify God but by what actually fits with the facts.

The Interrogator
“Have you stopped beating your wife?" The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. (do you beat your wife?)

The Great Divider
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. It consists of assuming that a property of some thing must apply to its parts; or that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. "You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."
"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

Ad hoc
As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:
"I was healed from cancer."
"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."
"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"
"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

Anecdotal evidence
One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:
"There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured."
It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them.
Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years.

The Historian
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
Example: "For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution."

The Enforcer
An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right." The threat doesn't have to come directly from the person arguing. For example:
"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."
"... In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?"

The Happy Hog
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)