Tools of Apologetics 1.17.1
Logic And Fallacies Of Logic
Analyzing The Fallacies Of Logic Used Against The Christian Faith
Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian (Revised and expanded By Paul Edward)
Chapter 1
Logic And Fallacies Of Logic (An Introduction)
The great advances made by science and technology and the vast amount of knowledge accumulating every day are direct results of logical thinking. Logic is that branch of learning that tells how human experiences and speculations are to be evaluated. Logic lays down fairly strict guidelines to evaluate the processes by which knowledge is obtained. Further, logic helps one to evaluate this knowledge itself. As the author of Hebrews writes: “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Hebrews 5:14) In this we see that one of the great purposes of logic is to help us distinguish the good from the bad.
Superstition is knowledge deduced or obtained without logic, and speculation is deduction made without proof. Both of these methods are like castles built on the sea shore. All it takes is one wave of logic to wash them away, yet people use these flimsy methods all the time to support their positions or to justify their behaviours. In Job 38:2, God soundly rebukes Job for engaging in speculation concerning Job’s circumstances. God thunders from heaven, “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” Because these methods are flimsy, those who use them often resort to tricks to support their claims. Quite often proofs in favour of a viewpoint are collected arbitrarily, while proofs against it are overlooked. The study is not, in any acceptable way, systematic.
On the other hand, science is knowledge obtained by an objective combination of logic and repetitive experiments. As Isaiah wrote: “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.” (Isa 28:10) This verse shows us how logical thinking is systematic and sequential. True logical arguments build upward or outward from a solid foundation, with each step (called a premise) connected to another. Compare this to superstition or speculation, which is often random and disconnected.
Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 10:16 – “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” This verse shows us why a reasonable study and appreciation of logic is necessary for any level of success in Christian Apologetics. There are wolves among us, men and women who would pervert the truth for their own wicked ends and use any and all means to lead people astray. To combat these wolves, there are two important reasons why Christians need to study logic. First, a study of logic helps apologists to think and present their position objectively and accurately. Second, a large number of rational objections brought against the Bible and the Christian faith stem from logically faulty deductions.
Deduction is a tricky matter, especially when faulty deductions are the weapon used by the other side. Unless apologists have at least some acquaintance with the correct procedures of deduction and unless they are familiar with fallacies of deduction apologists will have a difficult time answering questions raised by the shrewd critic. In all probability unprepared apologists will waste time on a non-issue, frustrating the sincere inquirer and losing a strong case.
It is quite common these days to witness Christians rising up to answer the critics but only exposing their own inabilities and frustrations. Many times the objections raised by the critics are simply dumb, but the lack of preparation on Christians’ side prompts them to face the criticisms with equally ignorant answers. At the same time, many of the more sincere inquirers are frustrated by all this. They know that the objection doesn’t have any substance, but at the same time they perceive that the answer proposed by the unprepared person is equally ridiculous. This only adds to their agony.
Apologists who have done their homework well, however, will be in a position to analyse the objections, place them into their appropriate categories of logical fallacies, and then intelligently and systematically disprove the opponent’s argument. This approach is fast, reliable and — most important — convincing to every honest inquirer.
Logic And Other Sciences
All branches of learning can be divided into two groups: analytical and normative (which lays down rules). Analytical sciences deal only with describing and analyzing information. Normative sciences, however, provide the basic norms and tools that are necessary for reliable analyses and conclusions. Physical sciences like Physics, Chemistry and Botany and sociological sciences like Psychology, sociology, and history etc. are analytical sciences. On the other hand, logic and mathematics are normative sciences. The first category of information needs the second one for validating and establishing truth. Consider the widely publicized model of the atom. Atoms are physical realities while the atomic model is an invisible mathematical model that tries to represent actual atoms. The model in itself is only a description of the way an atom might be made. One needs logic both to develop the model and to deduce how close it might be to the physical atom. Or consider the proverbial story of Newton and the falling apple. Apples have always been falling and everyone had, till that time, accepted it as a fact of nature. But it is the application of logical thinking that made Newton deduce what might be happening. This means that Logic is that branch of learning that deals with inductions and deductions in every investigation. Hence Logic can even be called "the science of sciences". Obviously, no one can ignore the study of logic if he is serious about defending the Christian faith.
Deductive/Inductive Logic
Deduction and induction are the two basic approaches used in Logic to arrive at valid conclusions. In deduction one arrives at particular statements from general statements. Induction, on the other hand, starts from particulars and advances to general conclusions. Both approaches are equally valid and important for the sciences. For apologists practicing in the modern world, however, deductive logic is needed more frequently than its inductive counterpart. A large number of technical terms are required to give a complete introduction to deductive logic, but in this discussion we shall restrict ourselves to a few very important words for apologists. The first two terms are: PREMISES and DEDUCTIONS. Premises are the informative statements on the basis of which conclusions (or deductions) are made. In the correct kind of deductive reasoning, the conclusions follow necessarily from the information (Premises) that are given.
For example :
Premise 1: If Rover is a dog, then Rover is an animal.
Premise 2: Rover is a dog.
————————————————————————
Deduction: We deduce that Rover is an animal.
The above deduction is not only correct, but it also follows necessarily from the two premises given. It should be noted, however, that the process of deduction doesn’t say anything about the validity/truth of the premises themselves. The premises must be validated BEFORE they are used for any deduction because if the premises are invalid, the deductions that necessarily follow will also be invalid. An example of invalid deduction arising out of one or more faulty premises is illustrated below:
Premise 1- All dogs have four legs.
Premise 2- The tail shall be counted as a leg.
——————————————————————-
Deduction - All dogs have five legs.
The deduction is theoretically correct, but not practically true because the second premise is incorrect. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one in real life! Making valid deductions is not easy even if the given premises are correct. For example :
Premise 1: If Rover is a dog, then Rover is an animal.
Premise 2: Rover is not a dog.
——————————————————–
Deduction: Therefore Rover is not an animal.
The above deduction is wrong because dogs are not the only animals. Rover could be a lion, cow, deer or even a man. This would make the premises right but the deduction wrong.
To make a deduction right and true to facts a number of conditions have to be satisfied: the premises must be true, the exact relations between the premises must be known, and correct principles of deduction should be used.
Critics who would like to challenge the reliability of the Bible often use wrong or unrelated premises to arrive at faulty deductions. These deductions are then presented as exhibits to discredit the Scriptures. What’s needed in such cases is to expose the faulty premises because then the wrong deductions will automatically be discredited. Some of the common statements with errors of deduction are :
Premise 1: Jepthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice.
Premise 2: The Israelites offered sacrifices regularly.
——————————————————–
Deduction: Therefore, Israelites regularly offered their
daughters as sacrifices.
Premise: God is Love
———————–
Deduction: Therefore, Love is God.
Premise 1: Obscene books contain descriptions of man-woman relationship
Premise 2: Songs of Solomon contains descriptions of man-women relationship.
———————————————————————
Deduction: Therefore, Songs of Solomon is an obscene book.
Premise: Scientists did not find God on their visit to space
———————————————————————-
Deduction: Therefore, God does not exist.
You will immediately perceive that all the deductions above are wrong, even if you are not able at this stage to present an exact analysis. You will, however, very soon be able to do so.
Many of the objections brought against the Bible are as straightforward as the four examples above. These are only very simple, representative cases. The actual arguments often are much subtle, with one false premise built upon many other false premises and assumptions. This means that most of the time this would require a painstaking analysis on the part of the apologists, and it is expected that you are willing to pay this necessary cost to attain excellence in Christian Apologetics. Many who question the Bible do so because of their ignorance or incomplete knowledge, but not all critics are incompetent. Many of them are highly learned scholars who are driven by a compulsive obsession to attack the Bible. Many of them are thoroughly equipped for the task, and they attack the Christian faith ruthlessly. They become formidable enemies of faith when they combine their scholarship with false deductions, loaded words and propaganda techniques. They devour the faith of many vulnerable (and not so vulnerable) believers, and they can be countered only if apologists are willing to discipline themselves to face the challenge.
The case of Songs of Solomon cited before has been a favorite argument for the critics. So much so that they have even been able to convince many believers that this book is out of place in the Bible. This is highly regrettable because their argument rests upon false premises. It is true that both pornographic literature as well as Songs of Solomon contain descriptions of a man-woman relationship, but this is not sufficient ground to indict the Bible. The premises used by the critics are too few to arrive at a meaningful deduction.
Right at the outset it should be made clear that a large number of medical textbooks contain far greater and far more intimate and explicit details of such relationships. Most of them also contain a liberal amount of explicit photographs related to the subject. Yet none in his sound mind would label these books pornographic. Similarly, Songs of Solomon has been written for a specific purpose, and not to manipulate carnal passions.
The purpose of pornographic literature is to stimulate lust in the reader while the purpose of medical books is scientific instruction. Similarly the purpose of Songs of Solomon is to teach the joys of a right-man right-woman relationship. The addition of this premise makes a vast difference in the deduction imposed by the critic.
An effective way in which errors of deduction have been combined with propaganda techniques can be seen in the famous speech of Bertrand Russel titled, "Why I Am Not A Christian". Almost all the proofs he advanced against the existence of God contain carefully chosen errors of logic coupled with manipulative speech. There is no substance in these arguments, yet people are influenced due to the well-placed logical fallacies.
Further, instead of disproving the existence of God, in this speech he come very close to the opposite conclusion — that is, accepting the existence of God. What’s more, in this speech (now, a widely circulated essay) he does not address the main issue at all ! Nowhere does he explain why he is not a Christian — except to imply that he doesn’t like Christianity! Yet people think that in this essay he refutes the historical basis of Christianity. This is the power of the propaganda techniques used by rationalists and atheists.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats