Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2006-01-21 13:42:54 by DrJCPhilip []


The great advances made by science and technology and the vast amount of knowledge accumulating every day is a direct result of logical thinking. Logic is that branch of learning that tells how human experiences and speculations are to be evaluated.

Logic lays fairly strict guidelines to evaluate the processes by which knowledge is obtained. Further, it helps one in evaluating this knowledge itself.

Superstition is knowledge deduced or obtained without logic. Consequently, proofs in favour of a viewpoint are collected arbitrarily, while proofs against it are overlooked. The study is not systematic in any acceptable way. On the other hand, science is knowledge obtained by an objective combination of logic and repetitive experiments.

A reasonable study and appreciation of logic is necessary for any level of success in Christian Apologetics. There are at least two reasons for this. First, a study of logic helps the apologist to think and present his position objectively and accurately. Second, a large number of rational objections brought up against the Bible and the Christian faith stem from logically faulty deductions.

Deduction is a tricky matter, specially when faulty deduction are the weapon used by the other side. Unless an apologist has at least some acquaintance with the correct procedures of deduction and unless he is familiar with fallacies of deduction he will have a difficult time answering questions raised by the shrewd critic. In all probability, an unprepared apologist will waste his time on some non-issue, frustrating the sincere inquirer and loosing a strong case.

It is quite common these days to witness Christians rising up to answer the critic but only exposing their own incapability and frustration. Many times the objections raised by the critics are simply dumb, but the lack of preparation on the Christian's side prompt him to face the criticisms with equally dumb 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.

An apologist who has done his homework well, however, will be in a position to analyze the objections, place them into their appropriate category of fallacy, and then tear down the criticism into pieces. 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 (rule laying). Analytical sciences deal only with describing and analyzing information. Normative sciences, however, provide the basic norms and tools that are necessary for reliable analysis 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 of. One needs logic both to develop the model as well as 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 accepted it till that time 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 sciences. For the apologist practicing in the modern world, however, deductive logic is needed more frequently than the inductive counterpart.

A large number of technical terms are required to give a complete introduction to deductive logic, but in this discussion we will restrict ourselves to few words very important for the apologist. The first two terms are: PREMISES and DEDUCTION.

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 is 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 offered their
daughters as sacrifice regularly.


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 it.

Many of the objections brought up 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 times this would require a painstaking analysis on the part of the apologist, and it is expected that you are willing to pay this cost that's necessary 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 the 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 the apologist is willing to discipline himself 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 it rests upon false premises. It is true that both pornographic literature as well as Songs of Solomon contain descriptions of man-women relationship, but this is not sufficient ground to indict the Bible. The premises used by the critic are too few to arrive at a meaningful deduction.

At the outset itself it should be made clear that large number of medical textbooks contain for greater and far more intimate and explicit details of such relationship. Most of them also contain a liberal amount explicit photographs related to the subject. Yet none in his sound mind would label these books as 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 right-man right-woman relationship. The addition of this premise makes a lot of 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 proofs advanced by him 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.

---

Making correct deductions from given premises depends upon many factors. If any of these necessary factors is missing, then in all probability the deduction will be wrong. Such erroneous conclusions are often called "Fallacies Of Deduction". Fallacies have been collected, studied, analyzed, and classified into many categories. An acquaintance with these groups will help you to spot errors and explain them authoritatively.

It must be stressed once again that it is not the science of Logic that gives rise to these fallacies, but rather it is the misuse or careless use of Logic that causes error. Thankfully, the science of Logic itself provides the tools necessary to detect and analyze fallacies.

In this presentation of fallacies our aim is not to turn you into expert Logicians, but into capable apologists. Consequently the attempt here is not to present fallacies in exhaustive detail. Rather, we have selected only the most frequently encountered fallacies. Once a person masters these, he will be able to spot fallacies even if they fall outside these categories.

Errors of deduction can be divided into several categories, discussed in this chapter and the following ones:
.


1-Errors Of Deduction (Errors Of Conversion-Obversion): Many times one has to convert statements from one from to another. Strict rules governing such conversions are there, but if they are ignored errors of deduction or conversion-obversion happen. Let us consider the well known statement, "Every man is mortal". Now if this is to be converted into a sentence that stresses not the "man" part but the "mortal" part, what will the new form be ? The natural tendency is to say, "Every mortal is a man", but that is obviously wrong.

Every mortal need not be a man. It could be an animal. The correct form is, "some mortals are men".

In the same way from "Every Israelite crossed the see" one doesn't deduce that "Everyone who crossed the sea was an Israelite". Rather, the correct deduction would look like, "some of the people who crossed the sea were Israelites". Of course this "some" can be modified into "many" or "most" depending upon additional information, but such modification will first require the basic form of the deduction to be correct.

The conversion of "God is Love" into "Love is God" can also be placed into this category.


2- Errors Due To Ambiguity (Amphiboly): Plenty of words are required to construct sentences. Words are of many kinds -- general or particular, broad or narrow, technical or non technical. Each one has a place and occasion for use.

If a sentence is constructed using ambiguous words, the meaning will be susceptible to error. This is called error due to ambiguity. While it is an irritant in common life, it is a powerful tool in the hands of those who would like to manipulate people -- politicians, propagandists, fortune-tellers, or rationalists /atheists.

Look at the following statements: "At the age of twenty five my father shared the gospel with me". It is ambiguous whether the father or the son was twenty five years old when the incident took place. Or, "If you want to know all about hell, come next Sunday to our church".

The two ways into which these sentences lend themselves for interpretation introduces the error of ambiguity.

When the Bible is translated into different languages, this kind of difficulty arises frequently because no translator can check for all possible errors or all possible implications of a sentence. Further, no two languages convey the same meaning identically. Greek vocabulary has cases, tenses, voices, moods, and other factors that confer a high level of exactness that is not available in many languages. Consequently many translations might show errors of ambiguity here and there.

The famous quote, "thou are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18) comes into this category. It is difficult to translate this sentence with the same implications as found in Greek, and has therefore been misquoted by people to establish Peter's apostolic superiority.

3-Fallacy of Accent: Some languages are so strict in their classification (parsing) of words that word-order or other manipulations in sentences do not make much difference in meaning. Greek and Sanskrit fall into this category. On the other hand, word-order is very important in languages like English or Hindi for example:

You can go
Can you go

use the same three words, but the word-order has changed the meaning radically. Grammar alone is not sufficient for meaning determination at many occasions in this kind of languages. This handicap can many times create havoc with meaning in these languages.

A good number of statements in such languages can be distorted by shifting the emphasis to a wrong word. For example, Lord Jesus commands His followers to love their neighbour. Thus whether it is by stressing a wrong word, wrong phrase, or whether it is by quoting out of context, the shift in meaning produced is called the error of accent. This kind of error is quit common among those who misquote the Bible for attacking it.



Formal fallacies, or errors of form, are another type within the fallacies of deduction, and occur when the laws of logical sentence construction are overlooked. Some of them are:


1-The Fallacy of Four Terms: In deductive logic one starts with the given premises and arrives at conclusions or logical deductions. In the simplest type of deduction, one starts with two related premises and arrives at a single conclusion. This combination is usually called a syllogism. For example.

All men are sinners
I am a man
.................................
Therefore I am a sinner

The above set of three statements is a syllogism and in such simple cases the premises are called the major premises and the minor premises. These two premises contain three important constituents: major term, minor term, and the middle term. These three terms and their relationship must conform to certain rules of logic. Every violation of these rules will give rise to errors of logic.

The fallacy of four term occurs when four terms occur instead of the permitted three. For example, look at the following premises:

All men are sinners.
All angles are spirits.

The above statements contain four terms (men, sinners, angels, and spirits) but there is no common middle term between the premises. No valid deduction is possible from such syllogisms.

The example given above does not look very threatening because even a child can see that they cannot be used to obtain a valid deduction. However, there is a variation of this fallacy of four terms that is of great interest to apologists. In this fallacy, the syllogism apparently contains only three terms as demanded by logic. However, it really has four terms due to a catch: the middle term is used with two different meanings in the two premises. For example,

The judge looked into the case
Boxes are a type of case
.............................................
The judge looked into a box

The conclusion is false because the middle term "case" has two different meanings here. In the first premise it means a court-case while in the second premise it refers to container to put something in. Therefore even though there are only three terms here, it is actually a case of four-term fallacy because the middle term has been used with two different meanings. The same type of error can be seen when the major or minor terms have more than one meaning in the given context.

Examples related to Bible abound, but the classic case is the strong of the woman who refused to believe that the Israelites carried the ark of covenant with them because nobody could carry Noah's ark on their shoulders. The argument goes something like this:

Noah built a giant ark
Israelites carried the ark through the wilderness
..............................................................................
Israelites carried Noah's ark through the wilderness


Another common example is, Evolution is change

We see change everywhere
.............................................
We see evolution everywhere

Even though change is seen everywhere, this is drastically different from the "change" that is demanded by proponents of evolution. Change in the universe always produces degeneration whereas evolution is supposed to be a self-building change. Thus the word "change" has been used with two different meanings here, giving rise to the fallacy of four terms in support of evolution.


2-Error of undistributed Middle: The middle-term is very important for arriving at deductions because it is this term that establishes the connection between the two given premises. For deduction to work properly, the given middle term must be common to both of the given premises in a meaningful way.

If the given middle-term does not satisfy this condition, then the first premise will have the first half of the middle term while the second premise will contain the second half of the middle term, and the deduction will turn out to be ridiculous. For example.


All dogs have four legs
All tables have four legs
..........................................
Therefore all dogs are tables

The conclusion is not only false but also ridiculous. The correct way of presenting it would be:


All dogs have four legs
Rover is a dog
.................................
Rover has four legs


and,

All tables have four legs
This is my table
....................................
My table has four legs

Further, a person who understands the rules of deduction and distribution of the middle term might make a move adventurous deduction and safely conclude; All dogs have four legs


All tables have four legs
All dogs have four legs
..................................................................
Therefore all dogs and tables have four legs



3-Error due to illicit major: Not only should the middle term be distributed, the major term of the major premise should also be distributed properly. If the major term is stated in way that it cannot be connected or related to other terms, then the "distribution" is improper. For example.

Every cat is a mammal
A dog is not a cat
.................................
A dog is not a mammal

Or,

Every man is a sinner
A Woman is not a man
....................................-
A woman is not a sinner

The conclusion is obviously false. The proper way of stating the case can be illustrated in two stages:

Every man is a sinner.
Every woman is a sinner
...................................................
Every man and woman is a sinner

and,

Every man and woman is a sinner
A woman is not a man
..........................................
A woman is not a man, but she is a sinner



4-Error due to illicit minor: Just as the major term should be distributed properly in the major premises, the minor term should also be properly distributed in the minor premises. The error produced by non distribution is seen in:

Every generous person is liked by the poor
Every generous person is meek
...............................................................
Every meek person is liked by the poor

The conclusion is obviously false because every meek person need not be generous. The correct way of stating the case would go something like this:

Every generous person is meek
Not every meek person is generous
......................................................
Some meek persons are generous

and,

Every generous person is liked by the poor
Some meek persons are generous
...............................................................
Some meek persons are liked by the poor


The following are some spiritual examples of the same fallacy:

Every Christian is a child of God
Every Christian is an ambassador
......................................................
Every ambassador is a child of God

The Bible is the inspired Word of God
The Bible contains the speeches of men, animals, spirits, and God
...................................................................................................-
The speeches of men, animals, spirits, and God in Bible are the
inspired Word of God


5-Fallacy arising out of two negative premises: Negative premises are a very important constituent of human language, and accurate deductions would not have been possible in many cases if they did not exist. However, negative premises in themselves may not always furnish sufficient information to make a meaningful deduction.

Therefore it is a rule of syllogism that it is not possible to arrive at a meaningful deduction from two negative premises. Whenever a deduction is made from such premises, the conclusion is bound to be erroneous. For example,

Anger is not good
Treachery is not anger
..........................................
Therefore treachery is good

Error of this type is seen when people use negatives to attack statements of the Bible. A large number of objections brought up against persons or events falls into this category. (These objections are usually based upon history/archaeology). The typical argument goes something like this,

1. (I do not believe what Luke has recorded).
2. Politarches mentioned in the book of Acts are
not found mentioned outside the Bible
.......................................................................................
"Politarches" is a term that does not exist outside the Bible

The first premise above is shown in brackets because even though it is the first and the major premise upon which the critics base their arguments, they do not mention it openly or explicitly. Acknowledgment to the existence of this premise comes out very rarely only from them. But whether they acknowledge its existence or not, it is always there as a negative premise.

The second premise, as it is almost always presented, is also negative. Thus the deduction is bound to be erroneous. The difficulty is compounded by the critic's assertion that the second premise is the major premise -- which it is not.

In fact the above objection has been raised against Dr. Luke by many critics, The term "politarch" was not found in archaeological records for a very long time, but eventually it was found in some inscription vindicating Dr. Luke and illustrating the fallacy of arguing from two negative premises.

Similar arguments have been raised about almost all historical narratives of the Bible. Once a person understands the logical fallacy of such arguments, he can cut the critic to the proper size.


6-Fallacy arising out of two particular premises: Premises can embrace a wide area or just a narrow field. However, for obtaining a meaningful deduction it is essential that the given premises meet each other at some point. Therefore, according to the rules of syllogism, it is not possible to arrive at a valuable deduction from particular statements (that are so narrow that they do not meet each other). If this is done, the deduction will be false. For example,

Some radio broadcasts are false propaganda
Some radio broadcasts are educational
..............................................................................
Some educational broadcasts are false propaganda

The deduction is wrong. For it to be right or valid, at least one of the premises must be universal. For example,

All radio broadcasts contain some error
Some radio broadcasts are educational
.........................................................
All educational broadcasts contain some error


7-Fallacy arising out of denying the antecedent: Many hypothetical statements will have two parts: the antecedent (precedent) and the consequent. The fulfillment of the consequent depends upon the fulfillment of the precedent. In such cases, the precedent should not be denied because this would give rise to erroneous deduction. For example,

If it rains, she will not take a bath
It did not rain
................................................
She took a bath.

The conclusion cannot be sustained, and therefore the deduction is invalid. This is because the major premise (the precedent) does not indicate that she will surely take a bath in the absence of rain. For a valid deduction, another premise and another set of syllogism is necessary. This will be :

If it rains, she will not take a bath
It did not rain.
................................................
No deduction.

and,

If it does not rain, she will take a bath
It did not rain.
......................................................
She took a bath.

In this, and many other cases, the information usually given might not be sufficient for valid deduction. The best course in such cases would be to seek additional information, not jumping into erroneous conclusions from improper premises.


8-Fallacy arising out of affirming the consequent: In hypothetical statements that have a precedent as well as a consequent, the consequent depends upon the precedent but not necessarily the other way round. Thus any deduction made when the consequence is denied is bound to be false. For example,

If it rains, she will not take a bath
She did not take a bath
................................................
It rained

The conclusion is invalid because it doesn't say that not taking of a bath would take place only when it rains. In fact she might decide not to take bath even when it is not raining. Thus not taking of bath does not guarantee that it did not rain.

This one is used a lot against the Christian faith, and people easily fall in for it. For example,

If God exists, people should be happy (they should not suffer)
People are not happy (they suffer)
....................................................................................
God does not exist

The consequent depends upon the precedent, but not necessarily the other way round.


9-Fallacies arising out of improper disjunction: Many premises contain more than one possibility. Sometimes only one of them is true while at other times both of them might be true. The way in which the premise is stated should make this clear. Many times people use disjunctive statements so that one possibility seems to exclude the other, even though both should have been given equal weight. If the premises themselves are wrong, the conclusion is bound to be wrong. For example,

Either the driver or the conductor is accountable to the owner
The conductor is accountable to the owner
.............................................................................................
The driver is not accountable to the owner.

The conclusion is not valid in most cases because both the driver as well as the conductor in a bus are accountable to the owners. The error arises not due to faulty deduction, but due to improperly stated premises. In this case the "either" should be replaced with "both" to make the premises right.


10-Material Fallacies: Even if a given syllogism satisfies all the rules of logic, the conclusion will still be wrong if the premises contain error about the subject matter being discussed. These are called material fallacies. For example,

Every dog has four legs
The tail shall also be counted as a leg
...............................................................
Therefore every dog has a total of five legs.

The above deduction necessarily follows from the given premises, yet it is wrong because the second premise is erroneous. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg !

This kind of argument is very common among those who like to criticize the Bible. Many of them first establish a false premise, then obtain a false deduction, and then use this deduction to attack the Bible. For example.

Paul could not have written the epistles
The computer doesn't indicate that Paul wrote the Epistles
..........................................................................................
The computer indicates that Paul DID NOT write the Epistles.

The argument above has been brought up by many, but it contains material fallacy because neither of the premises have been established.

A recent one, from a book attacking the morality of the Bible has an argument that can be expressed as:

Cain got married
Eve was the only woman on earth at that time
.....................................................................
Cain married his own mother

The book then goes on to attack the Bible by claiming that it teaches incest.

Two other types of material fallacies are also common. They are called FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION and FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

Fallacy Of Presumption: What is being deduced should necessarily follow from the components of the syllogism. If a deduction has been made that does not automatically follow from the premises, then the person making the deduction has presumed something additional also as true. This kind of a material fallacy is called Fallacy of presumption.

Fallacies of presumption are widespread, and many times it is difficult to discover them because people who make these assumptions do not readily reveal them. Almost everyone who has camped against the Bible or the Christian faith has based a good amount of their arguments upon presumptions that are not obvious or visible to others. Also, many of them have successfully played upon the presumptions which are widespread against the Christian faith and thought. For example.

The fundamentalists believe in fiat creation
(Fundamentalists are narrow-minded bigots)
..................................................................
The fundamentalists believe in fiat creation
because they are narrow-minded bigots.

The premise shown in parenthesis is usually not stated publicly, but its presence is assumed by the attacker. Most of the rationalists use arguments in such a manner that their listeners unconsciously supply this presumption without even being aware of what they are doing. This way everyone listening to them is convinced that a logical discussion of the topic has yielded conclusions against the Bible. In reality it is not logic but the illogical presumption that has influenced people to make a deduction against the Bible.

Fallacy Of Equivocation: Words can be used in many ways. For example, some words are so broad and general in nature that they are capable of being stretched. On using them, the conclusion is bound to be misleading. This kind of usage is a great tool of attack in the hands of those people who would like to discredit the Christian faith. They usually start with the well-known meaning of the "broad" word, and eventually switch over to that meaning which brings them benefit. This is fallacy of equivocation. For example,

Change is the rule of nature
Moral standards are changing everywhere
...............................................................
Changing moral standards are the rule

The conclusion is false because even though change is seen everywhere, these natural changes are different from the contrived change that is seen in the moral realm. Natural changes takes place because they are the rule of nature, but not so with contrived change. The fact that they have to be contrived shows that they are not natural.



Deduction can run into grave error when meaning of words used are not maintained consistently. clever debaters frequently use this kind of verbal manipulation, the major categories of which are:


1. Errors due to ambiguous terms: Words can be of many types, and not all of them are suitable for use in syllogisms. For logical deduction the terms used should be specific in their meaning and interpretation. If the words used have multiple meanings, or if their meaning is ambiguous, then the deduction will tend to be wrong.

Words like star, art, junction, fix, sickness, etc. tend to have many meanings. Unqualified use of these words is likely to give rise to errors of deduction.

Statements which use ambiguous terms, or terms with multiple meanings, will not be sufficiently clear for meaningful deduction. The major term, the minor term, as well as the middle term should be free of this error before a correct conclusion can be obtained.


2. Fallacy arising out of figure of speech: Figures of speech are a necessary part of any living language. Almost all people use words in a non-literal way, but here we are not referring to that kind of use. Rather, our reference is to different words which originate from one and the same root. Also, some words have the same form, but different meanings (homonyms).

The use of different words coming from the same root, and the use of homonyms, cause quite a lot of confusion in deduction. This is called fallacy arising out of figures of speech. Consider the following example:

Question: Did you eat the "whole"...?
Answer: How could I ever eat the "hole".....!


3. Fallacy of composition: Many times an event affects one or more persons in a group. Or, a particular action/principle might be found that affects individuals. If these kinds of things are then extrapolated to the whole group without justification, the result would be false. This is called the fallacy of composition. For example,


A cannot eat the whole food
B cannot eat the whole food
C cannot eat the whole food
.............................................
A, B, and C together cannot eat the whole food.

Even to a casual listener it is obvious that this conclusion need not be true. Yet this kind of fallacy is often called upon to attack Christians. For example,


A is a Christian, but is a very bad character.
B is a Christian, but is a very bad character.
...............................................................--
All Christians are bad characters.

This is a common way of attack from those who would like to oppose Christians. When this fallacy is repeated frequently, many start thinking that it is true.

Various shades of this argument is frequently directed against Christianity and the Christian faith. This is what's done by rationalists and humanists throughout the world. The same is the way the Christian community in India has been discredited through movies. Indian movies often depict Christians as the worst people in society (drunkards, things, murderers, immoral and owners of gambling/prostitution dens). Consequently, most Indians believe the Christians are the dirt of the society.


4. Fallacy of Division: This is the exact opposite of the fallacy of composition. When something that is applicable only to a group (or entity) as a whole is applied wrongly to individual members of that group this kind of fallacy arises. For example,


No one can read the whole Bible in a day
Proverbs is a part of the Bible
............................................................
Therefore none can read Provers in a day

Obviously the deduction is false


5 Fallacy of accident: Many times the meaning of a certain statement might apply only in a general way. At other times a particular statement might be valid in a particular way. But if the general statement is applied to particulars, or if the particular statement is applied in a general way, the fallacy of accident takes place. For example,


Indians are religious
Rajan is an Indian
..............................
Rajan is religious.

The above conclusion need not be correct because its method of deduction is faulty. While Indians in general are religious, every Indian need not be religious. Further, the major premise does not imply this about each and every individual. The same error, but in the opposite way is seen in he following example.


A typist must be efficient in his job
My office employs a large number of typists
..................................................................
All typists in my office are efficient.

The conclusion need not be correct because the major premise does not indicate that all typists in a given office are surely going to be efficient. Going from particular to general is seen frequently in erroneous philosophies and generalizations:


Avoiding work is good when one is sick
Therefore avoiding work is good always

Albert Einstein demonstrated that time is relative
Therefore Einstein demonstrated that everything is relative
Therefore there are no absolutes !


6 Fallacy of dilemma: We have already seen that the major and minor premises must have some definite connection with each other. But if the terms in the major premises are not connected with each other, and when the minor premise is not properly connected with the major premise, no meaningful deduction is possible.

If a person is forced to make a deduction from premises that are not properly connected, this forced deduction will in all probability be wrong. This kind of error is called the fallacy of dilemma.



Proving or disproving of a given statement through logical deduction has to take a clear-cut and non ambiguous path. Certain basic principles guide and control this procedure, and anything that violates this procedure destroys the process of deduction. The results arrived in such a manner will be wrong due to the fallacies of concept. These fallacies can be divided into the following groups :


1. The error of circular reasoning (Petition Principii): Every syllogism has certain component statements in it, and a logical deduction has to come out of them. But before this deduction can be true, the components of the syllogism (i.e., the premises) themselves must be true.

The deduction obtained from the syllogism cannot be obtained to establish the reliability or unreliability of the premises themselves ! Their truth should be established independent of the deduction, even before the deduction is ever attempted.

If a deduction is used to establish the truth of the given premises, the logician is in error. This is called the error of circular reasoning. It is quite common both in radical theology as well as in evolutionary/humanistic thinking. For example:

Miracles are impossible and therefore the Bible is false.
The Bible is false because miracles have been shown to be false.

The earth is billions of years old, because evolution demands long ages.
Evolution must be true because the earth is billions of years old.

Rock music must be good because everybody like it.
Everybody likes rock music because if is good.


2. Fallacy of multiple questions: An interrogation might require a whole chain of questions, but each question in this chain must ask one and only one question. It should be possible for the questioned person to respond with a YES or NO answer. If the YES or NO answer results in unsaid or wrong implications, the interrogator has (in all probability) hidden other questions or statements in his simple-looking question. Thus by choosing the YES or NO answer, the person is forced to imply statements that may or may not be true. This is called the fallacy of multiple questions. It is a powerful tool in the hands of interrogators and mind manipulators.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" or " are you drunk today" are questions of this kind, when put to people who don't indulge in these activities. Whether the responder answers yes or no, the additional implication cannot be denied -- that he is a wife-beater or drunkard. In logical deduction, the correct way of deduction, the correct way of deducing would be:

Do you beat your wife ?
If yes, have you stopped beating her ?

Do you drink ?
If so, are you drunk today ?

In the fallacious questions mentioned above, the first question of the syllogism is hidden so cleverly that irrespective of the response, the first question is answered in the affirmative. This is a deceptive method of putting one's prejudiced statements in the mouth of another person. It is seen at work in all kinds of loaded statements and is an effective weapon to neutralize someone who does not understand the trick. The following are some examples :

Don't you know that science has disproved the existence of God !
Don't you know that science has disproved the Bible !
Do you still believe in the Bible ?
Are you still with that religious crowd ?

Like the light-weight judo expert who is able to unbalance and throw away his heavy opponent, the fallacy of multiple questions can throw most people off balance. The injury can be serious. The best intellectual strategy is to counter the question with a powerful question.

When someone says, "Don't you know that science has disproved the existence of God" it is best not to say "No that's wrong". The protest will take you to a weak defensive position instead of a powerful offensive ! The best would be to ask, "Is that so ? Then please tell me what experiment of science has disproved God". This will not only put your adversary on the defensive, but will also expose the logical fallacy of his stand.


3. Fallacy of sidetracking (Ignoratio Elenchi): When the subject matter being discussed is complex, or when it relates to a subject that involves emotions of the listeners/readers, it is easy to sidetrack them knowingly or unknowingly. The cleaver debater manipulates their emotions and ends up discussing an issue that is not at all part of the story. Yet the listener is so much absorbed in the story that they never notice this deviation. This is called the fallacy of sidetracking, and many a person makes his living out of it !

The masses (or the mob) are not known for objective and logical thinking on important issues. Consequently, sidetracking has become a widely used trick to cheat people. People who practice this trick have even developed their own fool-proof methods, and five of them are given below.


A-The Fallacy Of Argument By Accusation (Argumentum Ad Hominem): In a particular argument one's opponent might have the stronger and correct points, yet many a times one might be able to discover some weakness or abnormality in his character that can be played up and magnified in front of the masses.

Interestingly, the attack is directed against a person and not against the issues that he is discussing, yet one gets definite results out of this manipulation. Once the opponent is discredited by playing up the emotions of the masses, his position is weakened. This is because the masses are not interested in a logical discussion of the issues involved.

Whenever the relation of Bible and science is discussed, the opponents suppress the real issues. They immediately bring up nasty stories about how the organized religion opposed science. The whole debate becomes charged with emotions, and many jump to conclusions against the Bible without entering into a logical investigation of the matter. This is the reason why people who oppose the Bible in a debate have to be reminded repeatedly to stick to facts.

B-The Fallacy Of Argument By Mob Emotions (Argumentum Ad Populum): Emotion is a strong force, and in the hands of a skilled speaker or writer it becomes a destructively powerful tool. Such a person can incite the mob to forget reality, to behave in any way that this person desires. It is common to see this kind of persons manipulating the emotions of people, instead of sticking to facts in the debate.

Human emotions span a wide spectrum -- from self pity to strong hatred, and from sadness up to uncontrolled ecstasy. Anyone who disregards reason and logic to manipulate human emotions is trying to win his case by appealing to the fallacy of mob emotions.

C-The Fallacy Of Argument By Exploiting The Ignorance Of Listeners (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam): Whenever there is a public controversy, a good number of people get interested in the debate. Many of them even jump into the argument. However very few of them might have sufficient knowledge or background in the subject to understand the issues involved. Consequently, a good debater can exploit their ignorance to his advantage and win the debate without even presenting his case.

A large number of arguments in politics, morality, population-control, modern music, and similar subjects move along this line. People who campaign for destruction always know more than the average person, and he effectively wins his case even though his argument is nothing except a logical fallacy.

D-The Fallacy Of Argument By Appealing To The Opinion Of Famous People. (Argumentum Ad Verecundium): Humans are born hero worshipers. They soon discover that some people have been able to do things which they have not been able to do, and immediately start respecting the achievers. Knowingly or unknowingly this respect very soon changes into admiration or even deep reverence. When this revered person issues a statement, the followers accept it as God's word.

The respect given to people of education, achievement, or position is often exploited by people who try to quote them as authorities. Due to the respect commanded by these men, their word is used as an authoritative statement without consideration to whether they are competent to issue statements on the subject under consideration. Further, almost none of the followers stop to evaluate the logic behind such statements. To them the authority of the person issuing the proclamation is sufficient proof. This kind of argument is a fallacy of logic.

The opinion of authorities in different fields do have certain legitimate value, but when the proper boundaries are not followed the argument becomes a fallacy. It becomes a fallacy because a person's opinion need not be right merely because he enjoys a position of respect or authority. More serious than this, the method of logic does not depend upon the opinions of people. Rather, it depends upon facts and their mutual interrelation. Therefore all arguments and deductions must ultimately be based upon facts and not upon what people say.

E-The Fallacy Of Argument By Threatening (Argumentum Ad Baculum): Logic requires that all arguments be settled by following the rules of deduction and induction. However, when some writers and speakers see that this approach is not working in their favour, they resort to the use of brute force to win their case. This is not logic, but argument by threatening. The results will obviously be false.

The force used to win arguments might be actual or potential, and the nature of force might be social or even physical. Resorting to such force might bring an apparent victory, but the actual argument has not been won or settled using logic. On the contrary, this kind of activity, in the arena of logical discussion, is an acknowledgment that the argument is weak or baseless and that's why it requires something other than reason and logic to win the case. It is an acknowledgment of failure.

Summary (The Fallacy Of Sidetracking): The fallacy of sidetracking is an important tool in the hands of those who oppose truth. They have developed at least five powerful variants of this fallacy. All of these fallacies are used liberally by those who oppose the Bible in the Bible/Science and Creation/Evolution discussion.

Use of sidetracking is a good evidence that the opponent lacks evidence to favour him. Logic can be used to expose and tear his argument to pieces.



The logical processes of both deduction as well as induction are necessary to gain a better understanding of things around us. Both of these processes have definite methods of working, and fallacies arise when either of these is used improperly. The fallacies arising out of faulty induction can be divided into four categories :

1-Fallacies Due To Faulty Language.
2-Fallacies Due To Faulty Observation.
3-Fallacies Due To Faulty Logic.
4-Fallacies Due To Human Nature.

Each one of the above needs to be studied in detail, as is done below:


A good amount of ambiguity and uncertainty is found in the language used commonly for conversation. In spite of this handicap people are able to communicate sufficiently well with each other because their day to day experience helps them to see through the flexibilities of language. However, this kind of flexibility and ambiguity is not allowed in language used for logical deduction and induction.

For proper and valid logic-related activity, the statements used should be non-ambiguous, precise, and capable of only one interpretation. When a person does not adhere to these requirements, his arguments produce several kinds of fallacies. Some of these fallacies, connected to faulty language are :

1. Fallacy due to multiple meaning: Multiple meaning for the same word is a strength as well as weakness of human languages. It is a strength when a few words help a person to communicate a variety of meanings. It becomes a weakness when a person wants to express himself accurately and without the possibility of distortion or multiple meanings.

Logic deals with accurate conclusions and communications. Therefore one should choose as precise a vocabulary as possible. Words that admit multiple meanings, and that require a whole lot of context to express a particular meaning, should find no place in discourses of logic. Yet people at times pick up unsuitable words -- words that have multiple meanings, and where it is difficult to determine the precise meaning implied. The errors introduced by the use of such words is called fallacy of multiple meaning.

The use of "change" as a synonym for "evolution" is one example. The use of "education" for "indoctrination" and the use of "imagination" for "fantasy" are examples of the fallacy of multiple meaning.

Radical scholars, proponents of evolution, and pushers of all kinds of deviant views are experts at using this fallacy to confuse and enslave people.


2. Fallacy due to undefined terms: Many commonly used words are never defined, but people still use them because they can "guess" the meaning. But such words might develop a great "spread" in meaning, so that two persons might mean entirely different things when they use the same word.

When commonly used but undefined terms are used in an argument, the fallacy of undefined terms can come up. Take the word "miracle" for example. In a debate a person might be using this word to denote the achievements of science/technology like giant dams, remote controlled aeroplanes, space travel or super computers. Another person might be using the same word to denote things like the changing of water into wine, walking on water, and resurrection of the dead. As long as the two sides do not make their definitions clear, the debate will go on endlessly without a meaningful conclusion.

Undefined words might hide under them connotations that are unexamined, and that are not substantiated, yet that exert a certain influence upon people. Since the hidden connotation is not examined or verified for truth, the argument goes into wrong directions and erroneous conclusions. This kind of terms block the process of effective reasoning, and give rise to broad creeds that have no logical basis behind them.

Words like democracy, culture, secular, prohibition (of liquor), discipline, etc. are some examples in this category. These words mean different things to different people, and therefore each one argues from his or here premise, never reaching a definite conclusion.

Among Christians words like fundamentalist, evangelical, inerrancy, creationist, and rational, etc. fall into this category. The term "evangelical" has been stretched so much in the present generation that people standing at the two extremities of this group would not even recognize each other. Therefore, for any discussion to bear fruit, the intended meaning of these terms must be made clear before beginning the discussion.


3. Fallacies due to figurative language: People use figurative language quite often to create special effects or to give a special emphasis. Brave persons are often compared with lions, the glory of persons is compared with sun, and the sweetness of speech is compared with honey.

Figurative speech takes numerous forms, some of them obvious and some very subtle. If figurative speech and its type is not recognized, the sentence containing it will be liable to misinterpretation. This type of misinterpretation leads to many fallacies, and the field of Bible-interpretation is no exception.

"Four corners" of the earth are mentioned many times in the Bible. "Pillars" of the earth are mentioned when discussing the earth's stability. When the nature and actions of God are mentioned, terms related to human nature and actions are used to describe them. All of this is figurative speech, and their non-literal or figurative nature must be understood or acknowledged before any right kind of conclusion can be made.




A correct observation of things and phenomena is necessary before one can make a correct inference. Further, these observations have to be as comprehensive and complete as possible so as to minimize or exclude wrong conclusions.

Non-observation of crucial facts, and even mal-observation of correct facts, leads to faulty and false conclusions. Human prejudices, preconceptions, tendencies to observe only what is favourable, to ignore what is hostile, and similar biases make many of the reported observations less than complete or reliable.

Good/bad signs and omens, superstitions, and unfounded fears are common examples of faulty observation. The same is the reason for confusing a twisted rope with a snake and a flying bedsheet on a clothesline with a demon.

A large number of quotations from Bible produced by rationalists come under this category of faulty observations. Most of their quotes are incomplete, and many of their observations are hasty.

A good example is the criticism of a famous atheist that the Bible condones immorality because it says that David was, "uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself". (II Samuel 6 : 20). The author, however, fails to point out that these were the words of a contemptuous woman (his wife Michal), who "despised him in her heart" because he danced in public. Obviously, the comments of a person who was not objective were not going to be accurate.

What's more, the historical portion of the same narrative says that "David was wearing a linen ephod" (II Samuel 6 : 14). Ephod was a special piece of garment, meant specifically to cover nakedness, and not to uncover it, contrary to what Michal said in her despising tones !




Logic deals with accurate reasoning, and a good number of examples have been included in this series. However, real-life cases are not all that simple or straight forward. Therefore, the difficulty of practical cases coupled with the possibility of error at every stage of reasoning gives rise to errors that can be called, Fallacies Due To Faulty Reasoning. Two widespread fallacies of this group are as follows :


1. Fallacies of hypothesis: An important task of induction is to discover causes and their effects. Most of the times the discovery of cause/effect phenomena on a strict scientific basis is a difficult task. Consequently many people knowingly or unknowingly abandon the strict objective approach and stoop down to hasty generalizations. Almost all such generalizations tend to be wrong.

A limited number of carelessly made generalizations turn out to be right, but this is more due to accident and less due to the process of logic. Since the purpose of logic is not to discover truth through accidents, this method is invalid.

When two events follow each other closely, then many people conclude (without sufficient investigation) that the first event was the cause and second the effect. Consider the example of a superstitions mother. If someone pays a good compliment about the good health of her child, and if the child falls sick or starts weeping after that, she immediately finds a cause-and-effect relation there. She feels that this person's "evil" eye, tongue or feeling has caused the sickness. Such people do not consider contrary evidence, because once logic is despised, error has to be defended.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been used by many a teacher to propagate false generalizations. It is common to hear teachers of social sciences and humanities saying that Einstein proved that everything in the Universe, including social and ethical values, are relative. Thus generalization is false because what Einstein proposed relates only to matter and energy, and not to anything else.

When false causes are proposed to explain an unrelated phenomena, and when false generalizations are made, the conclusions are wrong due to false reasoning, and is called fallacy of Hypothesis.


2. Fallacies due to hasty generalization: In the previous category we discussed the fallacy of "improper" generalization. In such cases the foundation is some well known truth or theory, but the generalization is false. There is another type of generalization that is more widespread, and also more erroneous.

When sufficient proof is not available in support of a cherished hypothesis, or when proof is difficult to obtain, people who are eager to come to a conclusion hastily advance a generalization from the incomplete data available. Such conclusions do not depend upon proper examination of a sufficient amount of data, but rather upon opinions, prejudices and circumstantial evidence. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Logic demands that no inference be made before sufficient and compelling evidence is available.




Man is supposed to be objective and rational in his thinking, but things doesn't always happen this way. On the contrary, many ideas and concepts have such a power to influence and subdue the minds of men in such way that they find it difficult to break free from the subtle influence of these erroneous ideas.

Logic demands that inferences be based only upon principles of Logic Every non-logical influence is to be rejected to safeguard truth. However, many influences are so subtle and powerful that many times they colour the interpretations and inferences of even the most learned thinkers. Some of the most common influences are as follows :

1 - The influence of tribe.
2 - The influence of nature.
3 - The influence of the market-place.
4 - The influence of popular ideas.


Let us look at each one in detail:


1- The influence of tribe: Here the word "tribe" refers to any closely knit or closely identifying group. It is easier for any idea to make home within a given group than across groups. The group identity and mutual acceptance help easy mass acceptance or rejection of ideas.

At times certain false ideas become widespread and popular in almost every group of people, and almost everyone in that group presupposes or accepts this idea as "the given". All evaluations are influenced by these presuppositions. Consequently the evaluations, judgments, and inferences made under these influences will be biased and prejudiced. The process of logic will be distorted, and the conclusions arrived at will be false.

People who belong to the "liberal" (or, more appropriately, the radical) wing of theology are a good example of this. Their conclusions are so heavily influenced by the beliefs of their "tribe" that most of them are not willing to listen seriously to people of differing inclinations. Many of them even refuse to consider scholars having a different viewpoint as men of learning, even if they are competent scholars. The influence of tribe is strong enough to deny the scholarship of others on non scholarly basis.


2. Influence of nature: In addition to the subtle influence of his tribe, every person has his own subtle ideas and fancies that influence his judgments. The educational background, the type of friends, and the type of books that one reads, all influence one's perspective. This makes some people narrow-minded, others conservative, and still others radical in their outlook.

Some people perceive only the bad and disappointing points, while others have a more mature perception. Very few people are able to break away from the prejudices of their individual perspective to view all the sides of a given problem.

A logically sound inference is not possible without breaking away from one's personal biases. This is the reason why researched papers and monographs are first scrutinized or critiqued by other experts before publication.


3. Influence of the market-place: All words have primary meanings: the meanings found in dictionaries. However, language is such a dynamic entity that phrases and words can be used to imply or communicate non standard meanings.

When inappropriate words, or words with wrong implications tagged to them, are used to describe people, things, or ideas, a lot of confusion and misunderstanding results. In such a subjective environment, some widely used terms might even represent things that do not exist or are false.

Wrong or improper terms, when used mindlessly and repeatedly, confuse the issues instead of clarifying them. This is known as the influence of the market place, and this is the root cause of many logical fallacies.

An interesting example of this fallacy is seen in almost every popular Christian/Non-Christian religious dialogue. Most people who indulge in such a communication are not trained for the task. They don't have even the remotest idea about "presuppositions". Consequently, they naively assume that the meaning attached to theological terms by the Christian marketplace are identical with the meanings attached to these words by, say, the Hindu marketplace.

However, the meaning and purpose attached by different religions to words like sin, salvation, after-life, justification, grace, saviour, and righteousness, etc. are radically different from each other. Therefore, whenever people belonging to different religions discuss theological subjects, the vocabulary they use might be the same, but the meaning each one attaches to these words is different. Each one interprets the vocabulary (and consequently, the statements) according to the influence of the "market-place" around him. Thus inter-religious dialogues continue endlessly without arriving at any meaningful conclusion. This is one example of error of logic due to the influence of market place.

The error cited above can be eliminated only if each party defines the theological words before they use them. This has been done in Christian/Hindu dialogues by many who practice what is called "presuppositional apologetics". Not surprisingly, this kind of apologetics results in definite conclusions.

4. Influence of popular ideas: It has been noted throughout history that different ideas and opinions catch the fancy of different people. These ideas differ from society to society and generation to generation, and they influence almost everyone in a given population. These ideas might originate from religious leaders, philosophers, propagandists, or even from the scientific community, but what is distinguishing about them is the near total control that they exert upon the thinking of people. Since they subject all their evaluations for truth to these opinions, many fallacies and considerable error are introduced in the resulting inferences.

For example, in the middle ages the Aristotelian philosophy and a number of extreme religious (non Biblical) ideas dominated the minds of men. Consequently they rejected several scientific discoveries because these did not adjust well with these popular ideas. Today the hypothesis of mega-evolution and related hypotheses have taken the same place. Secular humanism has gained wide popularity. Most people judge even issues of life and death with these hypotheses firmly established at the back of their minds, and end up compromising the process of logic.

The present views about the worthlessness of human fetus can be traced to the influence of evolution. At the same time, the psychological deification of man can be traced to the influence of humanism.

The influences of tribes, nature, market place, and popular ideas are very much obvious in much of the present-day writings critical of the Bible and the Christian faith. Any work that counters these critics without first exposing their biases, prejudices, and presuppositions will only result in an endless series of inconclusive charges and countercharges. However, if the biases are exposed first, it becomes easy to demonstrate that the critic is not expounding the results of researches. Rather, he is using research as a pretext to project his presuppositions as his conclusions ! This is a fallacy of logic.
Conclusion !!

Induction and deduction are powerful tools of logical reasoning. All logical reasoning must be governed by rules of induction and deduction. This is not easy because of the variety of rules, the complexity of everyday problems, and man's perpetual desire to come to a quick conclusions. Consequently, many popular inferences are rendered wrong and even ridiculous.

When people attack the Bible and the Christian faith, a good number of them are so prejudiced that an objective, logical, analysis is rendered impossible. In fact most of them start with the assumption that they must demonstrate that the Bible is indeed full of errors, and this only makes the matters worse. This bias encourages them to overlook even the most basic principles of logic. But the rules of logic are so clear and penetrating that anyone with a good background in logic can analyze them and expose their errors and biases.

Interestingly, a few persons among these critics have a good background in formal logic. Instead of using this knowledge to provide an objective analysis, they use their knowledge of logic only to confuse and throw people off the track. It is much more difficult to take this group to task, compared to the uninitiated, because their knowledge of logic makes their presentation deceptively subtle. Only a very good acquaintance with logic and much reading/analysis of this type of writings will make the apologist competent for the task.

A statement, writing, or lecture of a critic might contain more than one fallacy of logic. At times many of these fallacies might be mingled with each other in such a way that separating them one from another might become nearly impossible. The problem might be complicated further because of a limitation of logic -- the classification of errors cannot be made strictly exclusive, nor can they be made exhaustive.

This implies that the apologist must always expect some overlap, and also an element of surprise when he meets for the first time, a category of error that he had not studied before.

An overlap of errors makes the task of the apologist tough, but strengthens his thesis. He can demonstrate that the critic's argument suffers from multiple errors of logic. At the same time the apologist's previous background in logic and apologetics will help him not only to oppose new categories of fallacies, but also to detect the precise reasons why this argument depends upon a fallacy of logic.

Logic is not an easy subject for most people. Many who aspire to become apologists will surely discover this. However, a mastery of fallacies of logic will make them accurate expositors of Christian evidences. In fact no apologist will ever be able to rise above ambiguity without mastering certain minimum syllabus of logic. Thus even if a candidate for apologetics finds logic uninteresting, he must discipline himself to study it. Very soon he will get interested, and once he starts applying it to combat the errors of critics he will admit that now there is no turning back.


Reference And Comments:

1. An integration of errors of logic and the methods of propaganda to win over people effectively against the Christian faith can be seen in, Bertrand Russel, Why I Am Not A Christian (and other essays on religion and related subjects), Simon And Schuster, New York, 1957, 267pp.

2. You will be able to observe numerous errors of logic if you read any publication of rationalists/atheists, provided you are armed with the information given in the present writing.

3. Almost any school or college textbook on logic will give you a broad overview of the subject. They will not relate the subject to the Christian faith, but the background that you can gain from them is invaluable.

4. A lot of universities offer logic as part of their philosophy courses. Checking with bookshops selling college level textbooks might bring up a lot of easily understandable and reasonably priced books.

5. The more advanced books are not necessary for a beginner in apologetics. Consult them only after gaining some background first.

Original article contributed by Dr. Johnson C. Philip. Revised by:

You are welcome to correct, revise, and expand this article. Add your name at the end of "Revised By" after you work on this article. All revisions will be monitored by the EditAlls. CRG Wiki is dedicated to conservative theology, and it is essential for all submissions to conform to this position. You need to be a registered user before you can edit any of these articles.

New articles should be sent to DrJCP@hotpop.com and should not be added directly. We welcome articles on all aspects of theology and apologetics.

You are welcome to freely reuse this article under GPL. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights∞ for details).

---

Biblical Archeology | Bible Survey | Biblical Expositor | Free Theology Courses | SBS India  |  Brethren Assembly Free Bible Seminary | Free Apologetics/Christian Encyclopedia | Free Print-Communication Courses | CRG Wiki Free Child Evangelism Courses | TMM Hospital | Agape Outreach |  Physics4U | Free Correspondence Courses