Lesson # 73 Logical fallacy wrap up

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #73

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian?  We continue to looking at essential tools for intelligent debate by identifying and avoiding Logical fallacies.

Appealing to Extremes: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections. Example: Debtor to creditor: Hey, you've already repossessed my car and my television. Why don't you just draw a quart of blood or carve a pound of flesh from my heart too? Paul uses a similar rhetorical extreme when speaking to the Judaizers suggesting if they continue to require circumcision why not castrate themselves, pointing out how wrong it was to continue require what God does not. 

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact. Example: If you had only tasted the stewed snails, I'm sure you would have liked them. Example: If Hitler had not invaded Russia and opened up two military fronts, the Nazis would surely have won the war.

Non Sequitar: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense any argument which fails to establish a connection between the premises and the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in which irrelevant reasons are offered to support a claim. Example: I wore a red shirt when I took the test, so that is probably why I did so well. Example: Mr. Boswell couldn't be the person who poisoned our pet, because he was always so nice to her. What shirt you where or how nice someone is does not make a factual connection to what took place. 

Red Herring: attempting to hide a weakness in an argument by drawing attention away from the real issue. A red herring fallacy is thus a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated. The name of the fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when a herring was dragged across the trail of a fox in order to throw the dogs off the scent. A variation of this is shifting to a related topic in essence changing the subject. Example: accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said you didn't like the color." Example: There's too much fuss and concern about saving the environment. We can't create an Eden on earth. And even if we could, remember Adam and Eve made a very bad choicer there as well.

Inconsistency: advancing an argument that is self-contradictory, or that is based on mutually inconsistent premises. Example: A used car salesperson says, "Hey, you can’t trust those other car salesmen. They’ll say anything to get you to buy a car." Example: A parent has just read a child the story of Cinderella. The child asks, "If the coach, and the footmen, and the beautiful clothes all turned back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass slipper didn’t change back too?" while I know you might be saying with the child “yea why?” I will ask you back into what? J

              Ok enough philosophy, we have had a year break from history and left that endeavor during the time of King Solomon. So back to history next month.

Have a blessed Valentine’s day and may your Lenten season be rich and full of preparation for Easter.

In Christ Robert Portier  

SMBI # 72

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #72

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian?  We continue, this month, to look at essential tools for intelligent debate by identifying and avoiding logical fallacies.

Tautology, also called a “circular argument”, involves defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion, just using different words. Example: “The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.” While this is a true statement, and Christians can agree that God’s word is a reliable witness to its own authority, we must also admit that this statement does not follow the rules of logic. In order for something to be logically true it must also be falsifiable. That is, it must be possible to present a counter-argument, which, if proven true, would disprove the original argument. In our example concerning the authority of scripture, we can look at the many falsifiable truth claims made in the Bible, which can be challenged and verified. We find that these claims always stand up to objective scrutiny, confirming the trustworthiness of the Biblical record. We must also acknowledge, however, that when scripture makes supernatural claims, it is the Holy Spirit who gives us access to faith in God’s word. Another, simpler example of tautology example would be, “We used the bone in a rock layer to date the rock layer to 10 million years. It is clear that the bones are 10 million years old because we found them in the 10-million-year old rock layer.”

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy which attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered. Example: “If climate change is a concern of our president and all of those well-known Hollywood actors, then it is most certainly true.” In reality, actual scientific data is what should be presented and discussed, rather than the opinions of politicians or actors.

Appeal to Tradition, A.K.A. “don't rock the boat” or “let sleeping dogs lie”, cites precedent or tradition alone. Example: “We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.” “Because we have always done it that way” is not a good or logical reason to do anything, so no matter how old or new a process or tradition is, we should always know why we do what we do so that it does not lose its purpose or meaning, and likewise, so that we don’t inhibit helpful changes without cause.

Appeal to the Crowd is a fallacy which refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Example: “If living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.” Moral norms and truth are not established by popular opinion, however, but by the Creator. Another example: “That professor’s test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.” Fairness, however, is established by facts, not opinions. And finally, “Molecules-to-Man Evolution must be true since most scientists believe it.” Scientific fact is determined using the scientific method, not by polling the beliefs of scientists. (Who, incidentally, are in fact much more divided on the issue than people like Bill Nye would have you believe.)

Slippery Slope, A.K.A. “the domino theory”, suggests that if one step or action is taken, it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assumes a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome. This was often used as a reason for our nation’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict. “If we let them fall, then one country after another will similarly fall to communism.” It is illogical to say that one event causes another, only because they are connected or similar. We can acknowledge their similarity or connectedness while at the same time acknowledging that one did not cause the other.

We will spend one more session on logical fallacies next month.

Have a blessed New Year,

Pastor Portier

Lesson #71 Logical Fallacies continued

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #71

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian? In this issue we continue to provide essential tools for intelligent debate by helping you identify and avoid logical fallacies. In essence, a logical fallacy is an error of reasoning. It occurs when someone adopts a position or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position which is based on reasoning that breaks down due to poor structure. Logical fallacies can be classified as formal or informal, and some are more common than others. The most common ones have been named and defined; here we will take a walk through some and give examples to help you understand them.

Bifurcation, also known as “either-or”, “black or white”, “all or nothing”, or “false dilemma”. This example assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. That is, that something is either a member of one or the other category, but never both or a member of some third category. Example: to assert, “You are either for me or against me”. There are other possibilities, of course; perhaps I am ambivalent or apathetic towards you, or maybe I have no cause to be either; if you are running for president of never-never-land, my lack of citizenship there means that I cannot vote in that election so the assertion could not even apply.

Tu Quoque, also known as “look who's talking” or, “two wrongs make a right”, points to a similar wrong or error committed by another. This is used to change the topic or to point out that an argument is hypocritical. Instead of engaging the original argument, it responds to a critique with a different critique. Example: “The church should not condemn gay marriage because many people in the church cohabitate or sleep around.” The fact that Christians are sinners who violate the 6^th commandment has no bearing on the truth of God’s word about gay marriage. Physical intimacy belongs in monogamous, heterosexual marriage. All who violate this commandment (in whatever fashion) should seek and receive God’s forgiveness. The same is true for those involved in gay marriage.

Equivocation, also known as “complex question”, allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s) of the argument. Example: “Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.” In this example, “man” has the meaning of “all mankind” the first time it is used, and “male” (gender) the second time it is used.

Begging the Question entails making an argument that contains or is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. Example: “Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.” While this statement is true, it begs the question, “Can the unborn properly be called babies?” A better way to state this would be, “Because it can be proved with simple biology that the unborn are, in every way, physiologically unique lives, it follows logically that abortion is murder, when murder is defined as the taking of an innocent life.” Another example, in the form of a loaded question, would be, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” This of course begs the question, “do you beat your wife?”

Straw Man:  mischaracterizing or misstating your opponent's position or arguing against a weaker, irrelevant portion of that position. Example: “mandatory seat belt laws could never be enforced. You can't issue citations to dead people”. This assumes all people who violate such a law will die because of their actions.

If you would like to read more about this topic, here are some good websites to visit: “yourlogicalfallacyis.com” or “commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm” Enough fallacies for now, more next month.

In Christ,

Robert Portier

Lesson #70 Logical fallicies

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #70

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian?  The next couple of issues are going to provide essential tools for intelligent debate by helping you identify and avoid logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is, in essence, an error of reasoning. It occurs when someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on reasoning that breaks down due to poor structure. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and as such, have been named and defined. There are both formal and informal fallacies but we will just take a walk through some logical fallacies and give examples to help you understand them.

Let’s start with some of the more common ones that we deal with as Christians. The one you will experience the most is the ad hominem attack, from the Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", because the fallacy does not respond to the substance of the argument made, it responds by attacking the character of the person making the argument. The ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious however; for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact. Questioning the trustworthiness of a witness is one valid method for helping to determine the truth of their claims. However many people often use this method to dismiss Biblical truth, and here is my favorite example:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (Richard Dawkins)

Besides being offensive and blasphemous, this statement actually commits a number of fallacies but as an ad hominem attack on God, Dawkins is in essence saying you should not believe in God because He is so mean (I always wonder why he is so angry about a God he argues does not exist or how that non-existent God can be mean?)  We deal with this error all the time as Christians when we speak the truth in love about the truth claims of scripture. For example:

Person 1: “You should not do that sinful thing. It is bad for you and others. Please stop and ask for and receive God’s forgiveness.”

Person 2: “You are a mean judgmental Christian! Do not talk to me anymore!”

Notice that this ad hominem attack also is self-defeating; judgmentally condemning you for being judgmental!

Let’s look at other logical fallacies:

Faulty Cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes a correlation or association for causation by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other. For example: “A black cat crossed your path yesterday and, sure enough, you were involved in an accident later that same afternoon.”

Sweeping Generalization (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of every part, or that which is true in most instances will be true in all instances. This is also sometimes known as “stereotyping”. For example: “They must be rich because they are members of the country club, and everybody who belongs to that club is rich.”

Hasty Generalization draws a conclusion by referring to a small or unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization. This is similar to citing Anecdotal Evidence. For example: “All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked one for an autograph and he told me to get lost.”

Faulty Analogy (either literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects. For example: Many Germans today shy away from German patriotism because they feel that… “German patriotism is equal to Nazism.” The underlined part is the faulty analogy.

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right." For example: “We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.” This is also known as one of the weakest forms of argumentation based on the silence of the evidence.

But enough fallacies for now. More next month!

In Christ,

Robert Portier

SMBI #69 Logic

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #69

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian?  We looked at specialized branches last time, and now we come to my favorite category: logic. Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. Without getting too deep into a bunch of logic jargon and defining every kind and category of logic, we will address two main methods of drawing conclusions, each with an example. We will then jump into my favorite type of logic and that is, its use as a rhetorical tool in order to logically explain and present the basis for ones conclusions, along with a fun list of logical fallacies that most people use to their own logical demise.

              Arguments use reasoning that is either deductive or inductive. First let’s look at deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning consists of a list of premises that lead to a deduction based on those premises; for example: 1. all people have hands. 2. You are a person. 3. Therefore, you have hands. Notice that while this is a logical statement made using deductive reasoning, it is not necessarily true in all cases. The first statement is not absolutely true; some people do not have hands for any number of reasons, so, while logic is served, truth may not be. The other type of reasoning is inductive reasoning. This one deals more in the realm of probability, making predictive statements based on what is known. For example: 1. every life form we know of requires water to live, 2. therefore every future life form we discover will probably need water to live, that would be a logical induction.

              I will probably spend the rest of this year addressing logical fallacies, because we run into them every day, and depending on whose list you use and how you categorize them, there are probably about 20 or so main logical fallacies, while some list over a hundred different types. I would like to address a few oddballs this month that fit in this category.

              First, there is a debate among philosophical scholars regarding whether this particular example is a method of reasoning or a logical fallacy. As a reasoning method it is called abductive reasoning and as a logical fallacy it is called “pros hoc ergo propter hoc”. I gave an example of this a few years back when comparing the lives of Lincoln and Kennedy. The two men’s lives, while separated by 100 years had many similarities, but we know that even though they were very similar, they were two real men who lived different lives. But this (reasoning method / logical fallacy) could be used to argue that Lincoln was either the cause of Kennedy, or Kennedy is a fabrication based on Lincoln. This of course seems ridiculous to assert, but liberal biblical scholars use this method regularly in higher criticism to dismiss biblical truths they disagree with. For example Noah’s flood they claim is a compilation of other ancient flood accounts.

“A priori” is reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience. This is falsely cited as evidence for preconceived notions like: the Resurrection cannot happen, or the evolutionists who explain how simple things over time can become more complex, like genetic information appearing out of a bubbling primordial ooze, (Which has never been observed), to assert that miracles cannot happen. These are all A priori assertions not scientific conclusions.

              The other little thing I wanted to address this month is the self-defeating statement. This is a thought or an idea that by its very expression defeats or cancels itself. For example “this statement is false”. The only way for that statement to be false is for it to be true. This basically is a logical collapse, but in a postmodern world where everybody gets to “choose for themselves” what is true, self-defeating and contradictory statements abound. One of my favorites is “There is no such thing as absolute truth”. (Except of course that absolutely true statement??) That makes about as much logical sense as asserting “I make no absolute statements” (…except of course that one). J

              For the next few months here at the Bible Institute we will discuss logical fallacies, hopefully giving you a nice bag of rhetorical defense tactics to protect you from any ad hominem, strawman or red herring attacks you may suffer.

In Christ,

Pastor Portier

Lesson # 68 Specialized Branches of philosophy

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #68

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian?  We looked at Ethics and political philosophy last time, and now we come to a sort of catch-all for multiple specialized branches of philosophy. There are a number of realms of philosophy which some would debate should or should not be on this list, but for the sake of this article we will look briefly at six of these specialized branches.

Philosophy of language explores the nature, origins, and use of language. This is different from linguistics which is the scientific study of language. Philosophy of language is concerned with four questions: the nature of meaning, language use, language cognition (understanding), and the relationship between language and reality. This area of philosophy, combined with linguistics and study of the history of language, is helpful in identifying the origins of all language groups, which of course, is the plain south of the mountains of Ararat where one language was split into many at the Tower of Babel.     

Philosophy of law, also called jurisprudence, studies basic questions about law and legal systems, such as "what is law?", "what are the criteria for legal validity?", "what is the relationship between law and morality?", and similar questions. You can often hear people say that one cannot legislate morality, but the truth is that every law is a legislation of a moral code.

Philosophy of mind studies the nature of the mind; mental events, functions, properties, and consciousness, and the relationship of all of these to the physical body, particularly the brain. This is a large area of study with many different areas of research seeking to understand and define the mind. Dualism, Monism, Mysterianism, Externalism, Internalism, and Naturalism are all “isms” that are used in this area of philosophy. It even has philosophies contained within it, Philosophy of perception and Philosophy of mind and science are considered part this area of philosophy.

Philosophy of science explores the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science. The central questions of this area of study are concerned with what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. The Lutheran scientist Johannes Kepler described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him”. Christians are not opposed to science; we invented it as a way to clearly read God’s book of creation!

Metaphilosophy, sometimes called the philosophy of philosophy, is 'the investigation of the nature of philosophy.' Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods.

Philosophy of religion is the branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious vocabulary and texts, and the relationship of religion and science. Other areas of philosophy used to work within this one include metaphysics and logic. This area of philosophy, in discussing the question of the existence of God, is where we get all the “isms” that describe the understanding of God. For example, Theism (the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities), Pantheism (the belief that God is immanent, existing as part of all things), Panentheism (the belief that God encompasses all things but is greater than all things; that is to say that he is both immanent and transcendent), Deism (the belief that God does exist but does not interact with the universe), Monotheism (the belief that a single deity exists), Polytheism (the belief that multiple deities exist), Henotheism (the belief that multiple deities may or may not exist, though there is a single supreme deity), Agnosticism (the belief that the existence or non-existence of deities or God is currently unknown or unknowable and cannot be proven), Atheism (the rejection of belief in the existence of deities), and lastly, Apatheism (apathy towards the existence of any supreme being).

I would also add to the above list Scientism (the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview), and Humanism (the belief that the collective sum of human learning is the most authoritative worldview). Humanist beliefs hold to the potential value and goodness of human beings. Humanism is also a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively. I add these to the list because many who hold to them do so with religious fervor, and these two positions in essence are choosing the collective human mind as God. Those who hold these views would claim to be agnostic, atheist, or apatheist but they are in fact are placing their faith in the human mind. That concludes our discussion of specialized branches; next time we will address my favorite area of philosophy: logic.

In Christ,

Pastor Portier

SMBI # 67 Ethics and Political Philosophy

Smoky Mountain Bible Institute

(Est. 2009) Lesson #67

Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter to a Christian?  We looked at Metaphysics last time, and considering some of the poor choices recently made by our Supreme Court, now is a very opportune time for us to examine our next topics: ethics and political philosophy.

If you wanted to become a real expert in this topic you could apply to the Political Science department of Manchester University which offers a Master of Arts in Ethics and Political Philosophy. If, however, you are only interested in a cursory overview of the topic, you have come to the right place!

Political philosophy is the study of topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. It also studies what these things are, why (or even if) they are needed, what, if anything, makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever.

Political philosophy asks the question, “what ought to be a person's relationship to society?” The subject seeks the application of ethical concepts to the social sphere and thus deals with the variety of forms of government and social structures that people could live in – and in so doing, it also provides a standard by which to analyze and judge existing institutions and relationships.

The term "political philosophy" is synonymous with to the term “political ideology”, and often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief, or attitude, about politics. Some consider it to be a sub-discipline of political science. We have in this topic scientific theory and philosophical ideas covering some of the same ground. For example, theoretical fields in the social sciences like economic theory are better handled scientifically, but they are still valid fields for philosophical questions.

The two are intimately linked by a range of philosophical issues and methods, but political philosophy can be distinguished from political science. Political science predominantly deals with existing states of affairs, and insofar as it is possible to be amoral in its descriptions, it seeks a positive analysis of social affairs – for example, constitutional issues, voting behavior, the balance of power, the effect of judicial review, and so forth. Political philosophy generates visions of the good social life: of what ought to be the ruling set of values and institutions that combine men and women together. The subject matter is broad and connects readily with various branches and sub-disciplines of philosophy including philosophy of law and of economics. Political philosophy is where one would seek to define terms like Liberalism, Conservativism, Socialism, Anarchism, and Environmentalism.

Historically speaking, the political philosophies that exist today are a product of thousands of years of trial and error. We can see by looking at the cultures, individuals, and eras of history that they are all foundational to the political philosophies that exist today For example, the ancient Hebrew, Chinese, Greek, and Indian cultures, medieval Christianity, individuals like Saint Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Islamic culture as it dominated during its golden age, medieval Europe, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Niccolo Machiavelli, and John Locke, just to name a few.

What the framers of modern day governments have tried to do, is learn from the past in a very utilitarian way seeking to use what works best. However, with respect to the life of a given civilization or government, a roughly 200-year cycle noted by an 18^th century Scottish scholar seems to hold true: “bondage, to spiritual faith, to courage, to liberty, to abundance to selfishness, to complacency, to apathy, to dependence, then starting over with bondage.” And because of human sin tempered by the grace of God we can see the perpetual motion of the sociological machine in various stages throughout the modern world’s civilizations.

I feel that our society is somewhere between the abundance and apathy part of the cycle. But we as Christians always have reason to be confident and thankful for God’s gift of provision in our lives. Some say our society suffers from a case of “affluenza”. But even while our high court sacrifices children and families on the altar of personal rights over and against God’s truth, we can and should still strive to be good citizens of the land we call home.

But we must keep in mind that we are citizens of two kingdoms. We thank God for the gift of the kingdom on earth of which we are citizens, and as long as that kingdom functions in line with God and his truth, we gladly submit and obey as good citizens should. However, when our earthly kingdom makes laws that are contrary to God’s, we must obey God rather than men, and be prepared to pay the price of that stand for God’s truth. Enough about politics though, next month let’s look at specialized branches of philosophy. Till then…

In Christ,

Pastor Portier