Critical Thinking Notes
Session 1: “The Virtue of a Disciplined Mind”
What is truth?
Truth is reality as perceived by God. God is the ultimate reality. He is before all things and in him
all things consist (Col. 1). How can we know what is true? Logic and reason, careful, biblically informed
thinking.
Objective truth vs. Subjective truth
Subjective truth is dependent on the subject. “Pistachio ice cream is delicious” is a subjective
truth claim. Tastes and likes are subjective truths. Objective truths are true apart from the subject.
“Jesus died and rose from the dead,” is an objective truth claim. It is true or false regardless of how we
feel about it.
Is there objective truth that can be known? To deny the existence of objective truth is to affirm
its existence. We have to know an objective truth to make the claim the truth can’t be objectively known.
Reason vs. Rationalism
Rationalism is a philosophy that claims reason alone is sufficient, denies revelation and makes a
god of the human mind. Rationalism is not right thinking because it turns a blind eye to the data of
revelation and refuses to submit to the God who undergirds and gives meaning to our reason. Apart
from the existence of an all-good, absolute personal mind, objective truth becomes meaningless.
Why should we care about the truth?
An all-good, all-wise, all-loving God is at the center of reality and reality is created by Him. We
were created by Him for reality. God has given us minds and the gift of reason to discover reality. Along
with this truth is the fact that we are accountable to God to live and act in certain ways that accord with
reality. However, humans have an ability to create or believe in a counterfeit reality, to have false ideas
about the way things are and how we should act.
Truth and error are before us. It is so challenging sometimes to be able to tell them apart. Why
should we care? God has revealed to us that HE is the author of truth, that he is kind and loving and
desires what is best for us. The author of lies and deception is a malevolent creature who hates us and
wants to see us ruined. Whenever we start to believe a lie, we are moving into a cruel and harsh “world”
created by one who wants to torture us. Any lie or false idea will ultimately lead us to ruin and despair.
On the other hand, truth is created by a loving God. When we embrace and accept the truth, we move
closer to reality, and closer to God Himself. For these reasons, truth should always be chosen over a lie,
even if it seems more painful in the short term.
Biblical reasons to pursue clear thinking
“
Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that
is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 1:13 NKJV
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this
world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and
acceptable and perfect will of God.” Romans 12:1-2 NKJV
“Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” 1 Thess 5:21-22 NKJV
“…Casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God,
bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10:5 NKJV
“
Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and
with all your mind.’” Matt 22:37
“
Learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the
widow. ‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they
shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.’” Isaiah 1:17-18
“
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Phil 2:5 NKJV
“
Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just,
whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any
virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.” Phil 4:8 NKJV
“
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness
brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be
neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. “ 2 Peter 1:5-8
Head vs. Heart?
The Bible never makes this distinction. Often when the Scriptures use the term heart it is in
reference to the whole person – the mind, will, and emotions.
The Bible warns about being hearers only and not doers of the Word (James 1). It is possible to
only have “head” knowledge: to know and not obey. But it is not possible to obey without first knowing.
James’ point was not to avoid knowing!
Does knowledge always puff up?
“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet
know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.” 1 Cor 8:1
This verse does not seem to be a warning against more learning or adding knowledge (a quick
read through proverbs will shatter that interpretation!). Instead, this verse seems to be a warning
against pride and an incorrect and over-inflated view of our knowledge, an attitude that would prevent
us from desiring the further seeking of knowledge that is commanded elsewhere in scripture.
Are you saying to become a cold logician who has no use for emotions or mystery?
I am advocating a kind of thinking that is open to and embraces all of God’s creation. Correct
thinking will acknowledge that reason has limits and that emotions play a big role in our life. Thinking
Christian-ly will allow mystery and delight. I am against any thinking that turns a blind eye towards data
or information that God wants us to have.
Isn’t God above logic? Shouldn’t we let the Holy Spirit move free and not constrict him with logic?
Logic is rooted in God’s character and in the fact that God cannot lie. God cannot be “illogical”
any more than He could deny himself. The doctrines of the Trinity may be beyond our comprehension
but they are not “illogical.” The Trinity is not one person and three persons; that would be illogical.
Rather it is one God (being or substance) and three persons – one What, three Who’s.
Doesn’t Paul warn us against being wise or a scholar?
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being
saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of
the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher
of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the
world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was
preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we
preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God
has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of
God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.” 1
Corinthians 1:18-25
Paul is not demeaning wisdom or knowledge in general but showing how foolish and futile our
thinking and knowledge is when we leave God out of it. God’s “foolishness” is wiser then man’s wisdom.
His “weakness” is far stronger than our greatest strength. But just because the world may wrongly see
God’s wisdom as folly, it does not mean that we should embrace folly or become simpletons. Our goal
should be to pursue real wisdom and real knowledge, the kind that begins with the fear of the Lord
(Proverbs 1). That is the only knowledge that is worth having. We should be willing to be seen as
simpletons and foolish by the world, as long as God does not see us that way!
Who is doing your thinking?
Right thinking will not happen automatically, as much as we would hope so. It takes work. The
book of Proverbs continually exhorts us to diligently pursue wisdom and knowledge. If we don’t do the
work of thinking correctly, someone else will do the thinking for us.
The ultimate goal in our thinking should be to think like Jesus. We will have to stand before God
and give an account for how we lived and what we believed. There is a right way to live and a wrong way
to live. There are true ideas that are beneficial and there are false ideas that are harmful. God has given
us the tools of reason and logic to help us discern the difference.
Right thinking cannot be achieved alone or in our own strength; we need to humbly admit our
need of others and God. We need his strength to overcome the deceptive power of the evil one.
“When pride comes, then comes shame; But with the humble is wisdom.” Proverbs 11:2
Some Christians are afraid to admit that they could be wrong; they think it shows a lack of faith
or a lack of confidence in God. But if our faith is in God and not in our powers of reason, we can admit
we could be wrong. Jesus said that those who seek will find (Matthew 7:7). When we have confidence in
that promise, we can have assurance that it is okay to question and be open to new ideas, because if we
really do want to know the truth and seek it in sincerity, God promises to guide us to it. If your attitude
is “I have all the truth I need - I know I am right! My version of Christianity is the only right one, my
interpretation is the only right one, and nothing is going to change my mind”, then you are in a
dangerous position. This attitude is a very common one; we all think we are right! But when you look at
the vast variety of beliefs, and combine that with the fact that there can only be one correct view of
reality, logically then, most people are wrong! A strong belief that you are right does not make you right.
I am not arguing for skepticism; I do believe that we can know the truth. What I am calling for is
a humble awareness that we could be wrong. Without this attitude we may find ourselves with a deathgrip on false ideas. Admitting that we could be wrong is not an admission that we don’t know the truth,
but rather that the truth is bigger than us and greater than we can comprehend, and we want to be
open to new ideas, because we don’t want to miss out on the truth. Some of you may feel like I am
painting a picture of a man with the top of his head opened up and new ideas continually pouring in.
Ideas just keep going in and overflowing. The mind never holds onto any certain ideas and says, “this is
true.” That is not what I’m saying. If someone is really seeking the truth, some things become obvious.
There is clearly a God. Jesus is clearly God in the flesh. The Bible is clearly God’s Word. Even though
these things are clear, it is still healthy to have the attitude, “I could be wrong, but it is going to take a
lot of evidence to convince me otherwise, and I firmly believe that evidence doesn’t exist.” After all, we
believe that Mormons and Muslims are in error and we would want them to admit that they could be
wrong. If a Mormon tells you, “I have faith, and there is no way I could be wrong,” your discussion with
him is over.
There are two extremes to avoid. The first says, “I have the truth and no one is going to change
me.” The other is to be so questioning of everything that you have no hope of actually ever knowing the
truth. Both extremes are deadly because both lead to the same result: you stop seeking the truth. Paul
tells us to question or test everything, but also tell us to hold fast what is good. Truth will pass the test.
Should we despair of ever actually knowing the truth? No, because thankfully truth is not just
cold, brute facts; truth is a Person. A wonderful Person who created us, who is seeking us, and wants to
be found by us. We can admit that we could be wrong because we have faith that God will never be
wrong, and that as long as we are seeking Him, we will be found by Him. We are constantly tempted to
settle for a false view of God, to develop an idol that replaces the living God. Saying, “I could be wrong”
is an admission of dependence that will keep us on our knees. Never stop seeking Him. “You will seek
me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” Jeremiah 29:13
He has revealed Himself and his requirements for us in creation, the Bible, and the incarnation.
If we look and around and carefully use the mind God has given us, He will lead us into all truth and His
eternal reward.
Notes:
Sessions 2 & 3: “Formal Logic” (It’s not as scary as it sounds…)
What is logic?
Logic is the study of right reason and valid inferences and the attending fallacies. In other words,
logic helps us know the difference between a valid and invalid implication. (I.e. Can we correctly assume
this conclusion to be true based on the offered evidence?) Logic also helps us be aware of the common
mistakes people make in their thinking and arguments.
Logic is based on some first principles, which are self-attesting. We know they are true, because
to deny them is to affirm them.
The law of non-contradiction
Two contradictory sentences cannot be true in the same way. (“There is a God” and “there is no
God” cannot both be true in the same sense. I am here and I am not here.)
Why study logic?
1. Logic will help you think in a more orderly way and increase your chances of arriving at true
conclusions.
2. Logic will help with your reading and writing skills.
3. Logic will even help make you happier, because it will lead you to truth.
4. An understanding of logic will make you a more persuasive person. Since we have a
responsibility to persuade people of the truth of Christianity and the fullness of life that God
offers, we should do everything we can to make our arguments effective.
Q. Shouldn’t we just love people into the Kingdom? After all, you can’t argue someone into being a
Christian.
A. True, but just preaching to people or just loving people isn’t enough to convert them either. Apart
from God’s working, nothing is sufficient to convert a person. However, with God’s power, many things
can be effective, including convincing arguments. Paul reasoned with people daily, and even God calls us
to reason with Him. God made people rational and we need to honor that aspect of people. People
cannot choose to believe something apart from evidence, no matter how powerful the motivation. If
someone offered you a million dollars to believe that there was a giant pink elephant in the room, could
you honestly do it? God has His responsibility to work on people and we have ours. Our job is to do our
part to the best of our ability, and a study of valid reason will make us more effective.
A word of caution. These tools of logic will give you more power in debate. But they must be used
carefully and with humility, or truth may become the first casualty. Our desire in using these tools
should always be to discover the truth, not to win an argument. The desire to win the argument can
have a blinding effect on a person. This is why James warns that if there is any self-seeking in us, we
should not boast and lie against the truth. He later adds that the wisdom that is from above is “pure,
peaceable, and willing to yield.” We must hold our ideas with a humble awareness that it is God’s truth
we are pursuing, not the vindication of our own ideas.
Q. Isn’t logic pagan because it was invented by Aristotle?
A. Aristotle did not invent it; he only discovered it. Again, logic is from God and is rooted in His
character.
Opinions, explanations, and arguments
In our reading or in conversation, people express their opinions about the way they think things
are or should be. When people use reasons and evidence to try and prove that their opinions are true
that is called an argument. In logic, an argument is not a heated emotional exchange - that is an
altercation. An argument is the combined reasons and evidence that proves the truth of your conclusion.
We need to be careful at this point, because sometimes people will try to substitute an
explanation rather than an argument. For example, if you ask a materialist to prove Darwinian evolution,
he may only give you an explanation of how natural selection works. We obviously need explanations,
but explanations are not arguments.
The three acts of the mind.
1st. Apprehension (terms) What do you mean?
2nd. Judging (propositions) What is the point?
3rd. Reasoning (arguments) How do you know that to be true?
1. Apprehension.
The first act of the mind happens when we grasp or understand a simple concept or thing or
term, like dog, person, life, joy, etc. The first act of the mind deals with the terms of an argument. A
term is a single concept in a proposition (Although it may have several words). Terms are either clear or
unclear.
2. Judging.
The second act of the mind happens when we make a judgment and relate two concepts or
terms and make a declarative statement, such as “God exists,” or “all men are mortal.” Declarative
statements contain a subject term and a predicate term and form a proposition. In the proposition “God
exists”, “God” is the subject and “exists” is the predicate. The subject is what we are talking about, the
predicate is what we are saying about it. Propositions are either true or false.
3. Reasoning.
The third act of the mind is where we move from two or more propositions that are accepted to
trying to prove that if these two propositions are true, then the conclusion must be true. An argument
contains premises which are the propositions you assume are true and the conclusion is the proposition
that is based on the premises. Arguments are either valid or invalid.
Valid vs. Invalid
An argument is valid when it is structured in a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true. However, sometimes even if the premises are true, the conclusion may not necessarily be
true; this is an invalid argument.
A valid argument: All dogs are four-legged animals. Tirzah is a dog. Therefore Tirzah is a four-legged
animal.
An invalid argument: All dogs are four-legged animals. Tirzah is a four-legged animal. Therefore Tirzah is
a dog. (Tirzah could be a cat) An invalid argument will contain a fallacy.
Three questions we must always ask based on the three acts of the mind.
1. Are the terms clear?
2. Are the premises true?
3. Is the reasoning valid?
If the answer is yes to all three, then the conclusion has to be true. It is a sound argument. To refute
an argument, you must at least demonstrate that a term is unclear, that a premise is false, or that the
argument contains a fallacy.
Deductive logic vs. Inductive logic
Deductive logic argues from the known (or general or universal) to the particular (All men are
mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.) Inductive logic argues the particular to more
general or universal principles. (All the people that we know of that lived in the past have been mortal,
therefore we must be mortal.) Deductive arguments yield certainty, and are either valid or invalid.
Inductive arguments yield only probability and are either strong or weak. Formal logic may seem
overwhelming and irrelevant at times, but it is simply the rules that ensure that the conclusion validly
follows from the argument; in other words, making sure the reasons and evidence are sufficient to
prove the point that is being made.
Four types of propositions
A proposition can only be a declarative sentence. Logic does not deal with interrogative
sentences (questions) or exclamatory sentences (Oh, WOW!).
All propositions can be classified under one of four types.
A=Universal affirmative. “All dogs are animals with four legs” (Subject – Distributed. Predicate - Undis.)
E= Universal negative. “No dogs are cats.” (Subject – Distributed. Predicate – Distributed)
I = Particular affirmative. “Some dogs have spots.” (Subject – Undis. Predicate –Undis.)
O= Particular negative. “Some dogs do not have long hair.” (Subject – Undis. Predicate – Distributed.)
Distribution of terms
A term is distributed if it is universal, I.e., if the proposition claims to know everything about the
class of things the term refers to. In “A” Propositions the subject is distributed but the predicate is not.
In “E” Both the subject and the predicate term are distributed. In “I” Propositions, neither term is
distributed. With “O” statements only the predicate term is distributed. (Note: all negative terms are
distributed. Why? In order to make a claim that a certain class of things does not have a certain
attribute, you have to know everything about the class. To say there is no gold in this room, you would
have to know everything about this room. Affirmative statements do not need to be distributed.)
Exercise 1: Identify the type of proposition (UA, UN, PA, PN) and whether the subject and the predicate
term are distributed or not.
1. No disciples of Jesus are unkind.
2. Paul was a champion of Christianity.
3. Some church attendees are not paying attention.
4. All Scripture is inspired.
5. Some theologians are wrong.
6. Each and every person needs to trust Christ for his salvation.
7. Nobody seeks God.
8. God is immutable.
9. They are not among the believers.
10. Those books are in the Bible.
11. Not all preachers are Protestant.
The Syllogism
A basic categorical syllogism has two premises and a conclusion. (All dogs have four legs. Tirzah is a dog.
Therefore Tirzah has four legs.)
Rules for a valid syllogism
1. A syllogism must have three and only three terms. Minor term=the subject of the conclusion
(Tirzah); the major term = the predicate of the conclusion (has four legs); and the middle term (dog).
2. A syllogism must have only three propositions. (Two premises and a conclusion)
3. The middle term must be distributed at least once.
4. No term that is undistributed in the premise may be distributed in the conclusion.
5. No syllogism may have two negative premises.
6. If one premise is negative the conclusion must be negative. If the conclusion is negative one
premise must be negative.
7. No syllogism may have two particular premises.
Formal Fallacies
Illicit Major – The major term (Predicate) is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise.
Example: War is not peace. Peace is good. Therefore War is not good.
Illicit Minor – The minor term (Subject) is distributed in the conclusion but not in the premise.
Example: Some killing is sin. All sin is willful disobedience. Therefore all killing is willful disobedience.
Undistributed Middle – The middle term is not distributed at least once.
Example: All angels are immortal. All saints are immortal. Therefore, all saints are angels.
Four-term fallacy - One of the terms is used in two different ways, thus smuggling a fourth term.
Example: All inspired writings are a part of the Bible. Mozart’s writings were inspired. Therefore
Mozart’s writing should be in the Bible.
Exercise 2. Which of the following syllogisms are valid? If invalid, which fallacy do they commit?
1. All agnostics deny any knowledge of God. Those who deny any knowledge of God do not make
sense. Therefore agnostics do not make sense.
2. Some people attend church. Some Christians attend church. Therefore some people are
Christians.
3. Everything that had a beginning must have a cause. The universe had a beginning. Therefore the
universe had a cause.
4. Some atheists are not moral. Renee is an atheist. Therefore Renee is not moral.
5. No books of the Bible are in error. Some books of the Bible are written by Paul. Therefore all
books written by Paul are not in error.
6. All men are sinners. I am a man. So I am a sinner.
7. The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot err. Thus the Bible cannot err.
8. All who have faith in Jesus are saved. Sharon does not have faith in Jesus. Sharon is not saved.
9. No Christians are saved. Some people are unsaved. So some people are not Christians.
10. Nothing is better than heaven. Life on earth is better than nothing. So life on earth must be
better than heaven.
11. All men are humans. All who are saved are humans. So all who are saved are men.
12. Some believers are Americans. Some church attendees are not American. So some believers are
church attendees.
13. All that exists is matter. God is not matter. Therefore God does not exist.
14. A moral absolute is necessary. God is necessary. Therefore God is the moral absolute.
15. Miracles do not exist. Miracles prove the existence of God. Therefore proof of the existence of
God does not exist.
16. Evil is not a substance. All substances are created by God. Therefore evil is not created by God.
17. What can be perceived by our senses is true. The existence of the soul is not perceived by the
senses. Therefore the existence of the soul is not true.
18. Compassion is a virtue. Justice is not compassion. Therefore justice is not a virtue.
Enthymemes
An Enthymeme is a syllogism where one of the propositions is only implied but not stated. It
comes from the Greek word “en-thymos” which means “in mind.” Enthymemes are very common in
ordinary speech. It is a good exercise to learn to spot the assumptions in these abbreviated syllogisms.
Examples of enthymemes:
1. Pro-lifers should break the law and block the door of abortion clinics because they are saving
lives.
2. If Mormonism is not of God it will die out, but it has not died out.
3. Jesus did miracles and only someone sent by God can do miracles.
4. I know that God exist because something must have started all this.
Compound Syllogisms
Two other forms of syllogisms that are common are the hypothetical syllogism (If/then) and the
disjunctive syllogism (Either/or). Different rules apply to these syllogisms, but these rules are much more
simple and easy to remember.
The Hypothetical Syllogism
The hypothetical syllogism starts with a hypothetical proposition such as “If it is raining, then the
road will be wet.” Instead of subjects and predicates, hypothetical syllogisms have two terms called the
antecedent which follows the “If” (If it is raining), and the consequent which follows the “then” (then the
road will be wet). There are only two valid forms of this argument.
The Modus Ponens (The way of affirmation) which means to Affirm the Antecedent.
Example of Modus Ponens: If it is raining, then the road will be wet. It is raining. Therefore the
road must be wet.
The Modus Tollens (The way of denial) or Denying the Consequent.
Example of Modus Tollens: If it is raining then the road will be wet. The road is not wet.
Therefore it must not be raining.
It is invalid to deny the antecedent (If it is raining, then the ground will be wet. In is not raining.
Therefore the ground must be dry.), because an effect can have more than one cause. The road may be
wet because someone has a leaky radiator or a van stopped and let out a bunch of little boys. It is also
invalid to affirm the consequent for the same reason. (The road is wet, therefore it must be raining.)
Exercise 3: Which of the following are valid hypothetical syllogisms?
1. If anyone is born of God, then he loves is brother. Adolph does not love his brother. Therefore,
Adolph is not born of God.
2. If there is design in the universe, then there must be a Designer. There is design in the universe.
Therefore, there must be a Designer.
3. If reincarnation is true, then past life regression therapy will work. Past life regression therapy
works. Therefore, reincarnation is true.
4. If God exists, then man has meaning in life. Man has meaning in life. Therefore, God exists.
5. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then we are lost in our sins. Christ did rise from the dead.
Therefore, we are not lost in our sins.
6. If the Bible is the Word of God then it is inerrant. The Bible is the Word of God. Therefore the
Bible is inerrant
7. Sally will go to church, if she becomes a Christian. Sally went to church. Therefore Sally became
a Christian.
8. If Darwinian evolution is true, then the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. The second law
of thermodynamics is true. Therefore, evolution is wrong.
9. If two propositions contradict, then they can’t both be true. These two propositions don’t
contradict. Therefore, they must be true.
10. If God exists, miracles are possible. Miracles are possible. Therefore, God exists.
11. If Jesus were God, then he would appear whenever I asked. He does not appear whenever I ask.
Therefore Jesus must not be God.
Exercise 4. These hypothetical syllogisms are written in plain language. Some have enthymemes.
Evaluate.
1. If the objective of marriage were contentment, then the discontent of either part would be a
sufficient reason for annulling it. (Note: this is missing the next premise and the conclusion)
2. “Total pacifism might be a good principle if every one were to follow it. But not everyone does
so it isn’t. (Gilbert Harman in The Nature of Morality.)
3. If God did not exist, we would feel so alone that we would be unable to endure the universe
without Him. This feeling is known to exist. Therefore God does not exist.
4. To be great is to be misunderstood. I am misunderstood. Therefore I am great.
5. If I live for Christ Jesus the Bible says I will suffer persecution. I am being persecuted, so I must
be doing what Christ wants.
6. People who are creative and artistic struggle with algebra. I struggle with algebra, so I must be
artistic.
Reductio ad absurdum
Another form of the hypothetical argument is the “Reductio ad absurdum.” It seeks to
demonstrate that if your opponent’s view were true there would be absurd consequences. So it’s saying,
“If your view were true, then these crazy ideas would be true. These crazy ideas are not true; therefore
your original idea can’t be true. “ It is really a Modus Tollens argument.
Examples (Some are taken from Tactics by Greg Koukl)
Idea: The government should not put murders to death because Jesus would forgive them. On
the basis of this reasoning the government should not punish any crime because it could always be
argued that Jesus would forgive. But the Bible says that it is the government’s job to punish evil doers. (1
Peter 2)
Idea. If God exists, He could stop this piece of chalk from breaking. The professor would drop
the chalk and watch it break and smile smugly. It would be easy for a student to refute this idea, by
taking a piece of chalk and giving it to a fellow student, saying, “If you drop this piece of chalk and it
breaks, then I don’t exist.” The student drops the chalk, it breaks, and the first student can smile at the
professor and say, “See? I don’t exist.”
Idea: Determinism is true – humans don’t have free will. If that statement were true, we would
have no reason to accept its truth, because we have no free choice in what we believe. So if someone is
trying to convince you that determinism is true, simply tell him that you are not free to agree with him
because you’ve been pre-determined to believe in free will.
Idea: Homosexuality is okay because it is a natural desire. The idea here is that what is natural
must be okay. But some men have a natural desire to bash gays. Should these men feel free to give in to
their desires to beat up homosexuals because it is a “natural” desire?
Disjunctive syllogisms
Another type of syllogism is the disjunctive syllogism. This is the either/or type. With a strong
disjunctive syllogism, the two options are contradictory, meaning if one is true the other has to be false.
(Either this fingerprint belongs to a man or a woman.) It is impossible for both to be true. A weak
disjunctive is when the options are only contrary, but it is possible for both to be true. (Either he is a
villain or a fool.) Because of the possibility of both being true, the only valid form of the disjunctive
syllogism is to deny one of the options. (If a man does not believe in God, he is either is willfully blind, or
very unintelligent. He is not unintelligent, so he must be willfully blind.) C.S. Lewis used a disjunctive
form when he argued that Jesus was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord. Jesus could not have been a lunatic or
a liar, so he must be Lord.
Exercise 5: Evaluate these disjunctive syllogisms.
1. Life was either caused by evolution or design. We see proof of evolution, so life was not caused
by design.
2. Either everyone is saved, or God saves some people and damns others regardless of anything we
do, or people must do something to be saved. Some people are not saved, and Scripture tells us
that our actions affect what God decides to do with us, therefore we must do something in
order to be saved.
3. Either an all-good, all-loving God exists or evil exists. Evil exists. Therefore an all-good, all-loving
God does not exist.
4. Either God or nature causes disasters. Nature causes disasters. Therefore God does not.
5. Either God is sovereign or I have free will. I have free will, therefore God is not sovereign.
Dilemmas
A dilemma is a disjunctive syllogism that gives us two or more hypothetical premises to choose
from. A constructive dilemma is affirmative. A destructive dilemma is negative.
Constructive dilemma: If you have a happy marriage, you will attain happiness. If you have an
unhappy marriage, you will attain wisdom. You must either have a happy marriage or an unhappy one.
Therefore you will attain either happiness or wisdom.
Complex constructive Dilemma: “If God exists, then unbelievers are insane, like children who
deny the existence of their own parent; and if God does not exist, then believers are insane, like adults
who still believe in an invisible playmate. But either God exists, or He does not exist. Therefore either
believers or unbelievers are insane.”
Examples: “An unhappy alternative is before you, Elizabeth. From this day you must be a
stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins,
and I will never see you again if you do.” (Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice)
Sorites: chain syllogisms
Sorites are simply a chain of syllogisms. Paul uses a sorites in Rom. 5:3-5, “Suffering produces
endurance, endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint
us.” We can translate that into “all who suffer persevere, all who persevere develop character, all who
develop character have hope, all who have hope will not be disappointed, therefore those who suffer
will not be disappointed.”
Example of how a sorites can go wrong: He who drinks wine gets drunk. He who gets drunk
sleeps. He who sleeps does not sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. Therefore, he who drinks wine
goes to heaven.
Notes:
Session 3 & 4: “Informal Fallacies”
A fallacy is simply a faulty argument. The formal fallacies we looked at earlier are mistakes in the
form of the argument. You can check a formal argument for validity apart from the content by using
symbols. Informal fallacies deal with the content of the argument, or the way the content was gathered.
There are dozens of classified informal fallacies. They are not clear cut and some of them overlap.
However, most of the fallacies can be classified under three categories.
Fallacies of ambiguity
The meaning or the use of language is unclear.
Fallacies of presumption
The facts are either overlooked, evaded, or distorted.
Fallacies of relevance
An attempt is made to distract from the main issues and get you to accept or reject a conclusion
for irrelevant reasons.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
-
Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation happens when the meaning of a term changes in the course of an
argument or when a term is used in two different ways.
“Only men are rational. Women are not men. Therefore women are not rational.” The first use
of the term “men” means humanity vs. animals. The second use of “men” refers to the males vs.
females.
“All laws need a lawgiver. The laws of nature are laws. Thus the laws of nature require a
lawgiver.” Law is being used into different ways. The laws that need a lawgiver are prescriptive laws.
Laws for the way things should be. The laws of nature are descriptive. The way things are. It is not
immoral to “break” the law of gravity.
Equivocation is often the basis of humor and puns such as Benjamin Franklin’s famous line, “If
we don’t hang together, we will most assuredly all hang separately.”
- Amphiboly
Amphiboly comes from the Greek word “ampho” and means double. The fallacy of amphiboly
happens when the argument is structured in a way that it can be taken in two different ways. It differs
from equivocation where the term changes meaning. In amphiboly the meaning of the overall statement
is unclear.
Examples: “Save soap and waste paper.” “I shall waste no time in reading your paper.”
“Beautiful homes available. Get there first! They won’t last long.” Sign in laundromat: “When the buzzer
sounds, please remove your clothes.”
- Accent
The fallacy of accent occurs when the meaning of the statement changes depending on where
the emphasis is placed. This fallacy usually happens in writing (such as Facebook statuses) when the
authors tone and emphasis cannot be heard. Examples:
I love you. (Even if no one else does, I love you.)
I love you? (You think I have feelings for you?)
I love you? (What makes you think I would love you!)
Or, “You never looked better.” (Sarcasm or compliment?)
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The Pharisees read this law to mean that they didn’t
have to love anyone else. But Jesus set the record straight when he said we had to love our enemies as
well.
- Hypostatization or Misplaced Concreteness
An abstract idea is an idea that can be drawn out of concrete things. A red billiard ball is a
concrete thing but “redness” and “roundness” are abstract ideas. The fallacy of Hypostatization (hipasta-tie-zation) is when people attribute concreteness or personification to abstract ideas. This can
happen when we deceive ourselves that we love “humanity” but just can’t stand our neighbor.
Example:
“Mother Nature has designed a marvelous ecosystem.” Mother Nature is an abstract idea it has
no concrete power or intelligence, it can’t “design” anything.
Abstract ideas are easier to criticize or condemn. It is easy to be critical of your “church” but
when it comes down to the concrete individuals, you can’t fault them. It is the same thing with blaming
“capitalism” or “the system” or “them.”
- Composition
This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts will be true of the whole. But the whole taken
together has a whole different set of attributes. A grain of wheat is very light, but a bushel of wheat is
very heavy. Canada discovered this fallacy the hard way at the 1998 Olympics in Nagano when they saw
that a hockey team comprised of the best players in the world does not necessarily make it the best
team in the world.
Example: This cake is made of the finest ingredients in the world, so it must be a terrific cake. (Perhaps,
though the ingredients were put together with the wrong ratios.)
- Division
This fallacy assumes the opposite. That what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. “Jose
was a part of the Super bowl winning team, so he must be an awesome football player.” Maybe Jose
was just a bench player. “Canadians are such a polite people. Since Joe is from Canada I just know he will
be polite.”
Exercise 6: Classify the following fallacies.
1. Tourists taken in.
2. Irishmen are scattered all over the world. Pat, being Irish, must be scattered all over the world.
3. Evil makes you think. Thinking makes you wise. Being wise is good. Therefore evil makes you
good.
4. The world owes me a living.
5. You say nothing eloquently.
6. Your argument is sound, in fact it is nothing but sound!
7. England expects every man to do his duty!
8. Country folk call the evening meal supper; city people, dinner.
9. If you can tie a knot, you can create a beautiful rug.
10. I know evolution is true, because we see evolution happening all around us.
11. We stand behind every bed we sell.
12. You may think as you please…
13. If you think our waitresses are rude, you should see our manager.
14. A mob is no worse than the individuals comprise it.
15. Nothing is better than going on a date with Emily. Eating Brussels sprouts is better than nothing.
Therefore eating Brussels sprouts is better than going on a date with Emily.
16. Muslims are moving into France, he’s a Muslim, so we know where he is moving.
17. (headline) Elderly Often Burn Victims.
18. Every one of the actors in the movie is great, so it has to be a great movie!
19. Life wants to preserve itself. Life wants to spread.
20. Man to woman, “Jesus said to love your neighbor, so why don’t you love me?”
Fallacies of Presumption
Overlooking the Facts
- Sweeping Generalization
Fallacy of sweeping generalization makes the mistake of applying general principles to all cases
and ignoring the fact that there are often exceptions to the rule. Running is good for your health, so Joe
who has a serious heart condition should get out and run more. Strenuous exercise can be very
dangerous for someone who has a heart condition.
Example: Jesus said to live by the golden rule. I would want you to give me cocaine, so I’m going
to give you cocaine.
We also commit this fallacy when we let clichés do our thinking. But for almost every cliché
there is one that contradicts it. “Haste makes waste.” “The early bird gets the worm.” “The second
mouse gets the cheese.”
- Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when someone jumps to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
Example: All men are jerks. I know – I was married to three of them. Or, the weather here in Alberta is a
lot warmer than in BC. These last three days have been so hot.
- Bifurcation (Black-and-white fallacy)
This occurs when we are presented only two alternatives, when in reality there is often one or
more alternatives. Example: A girl tells her boyfriend, “Either you love me or you hate me.” This also
occurs when someone gives a faulty dilemma. “Either God is not all good, because he doesn’t want to
get rid of evil. Or He wants to eliminate evil, but doesn’t have the power. But because evil exists, God is
either weak or unloving.” This dilemma ignores the possibility that God is all good and all powerful and
he has a good purpose for evil.
Exercise 7:
Classify these fallacies.
1. Women are so sentimental. My mother and sisters always cry at the movies; my father and I
never do.
2. There are two kinds of people in this world: the have’s and the have-not’s.
3. Since it is right to speak the truth, it is therefore right to tell our friends what we think of them.
4. Either she knew everything that was going on, in which case she’s a liar, or, alternatively, she’s a
fool and knew nothing.
5. If you work hard, you will get good grades.
6. Doctors are all alike. They don’t know any more than you or I do. This is the third false diagnosis
I’ve heard in a month.
Evading the Facts
- Begging the Question (circular reasoning)
This happens when people hide the conclusion in the premise, or give you an argument that is
really just a restatement of a conclusion. Example: How do you know the Bible is true? Because the Bible
is God’s word. How do you know it is God’s word? Because it says so. (The only reason you would accept
that argument is if you already agree with the conclusion – that the Bible is God’s word.)
-
Question-begging Epithets (slanting the language)
This happens when you claim to be neutral, but use emotionally charged words or phrases that
indirectly communicate your position/opinion on an issue. The media is guilty of this fallacy when they
use terms like pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. Examples: “The scheming, bigoted efforts of the board
of education have finally come to fruition.” “The stagnant orthodoxy of our church refuses to let the
leadership be open-minded in examining these exciting new ideas.”
-
Complex Question
This mistake takes place when someone combines what should be two questions with two
answers into one question and expects you to answer it with one answer. Examples: Have you stopped
beating your wife? It should be two questions – “Have you ever beaten your wife?” “If so, have you
stopped beating her?” Or, in a court of law, “What did you use to wipe your fingerprints off the gun?”
People use this fallacy to distort the results of surveys. I.e. When the question is phrased, “Do
you think laws should be passed that would limit women’s choice?” versus, “Do you think the unborn
should be protected?”, you’ll get vastly different results.
- Special Pleading
This happens when we apply a double-standard, one for ourselves, one for other people.
Example: When we ask people personal questions, we’re being caring and thoughtful. When other
people ask us personal questions, they’re being nosy. We are firm on our beliefs, while other people are
pig-headed.
Exercise 8:
Classify these fallacies.
1. Haste makes waste, because hurried activity is always careless activity.
2. “We’re worried about your son, Mr. Morris,” said the 6th grade teacher. “He seems lazy. He
persuades young Stewart to do all his work.”“Lazy?!” exclaims Mr. Morris. “That’s executive
ability!”
3. Which one of you left the door open?
4. Who made God?
5. This bill ought to be deplored by all right-thinking people.
6. Let’s stock up before the hoarders get here.
7. The world was not created by God, for matter has always existed. Therefore the world must
have always existed.
8. Do you think we should keep having this useless meeting or not?
9. The accused will be given a fair trial before he is hanged.
10. Do you believe the Bible is true when is says that women are inferior to men?
11. Can God make a rock so big that He can’t life it?
Distorting the Facts
- Faulty Analogy
Analogies are powerful means of persuasion, and a legitimate form of reasoning. It’s helpful for
our thinking to notice that two things are alike in this area, so they must be alike in other areas as well.
False analogy happens when we compare things that have obvious differences, and ignore the
differences. Example: We should be bold and in people’s faces with our evangelism and not worry about
offending them. After all, if someone was in a burning building, we would grab them and haul them to
safety. (This is faulty because someone can be saved from a burning building against their will, but
people can’t be saved from hell or enter a relationship with Jesus Christ apart from their will. So we
need to exercise more care in our evangelism.)
- Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (or False Cause, but the Latin sounds cooler)
This means “after this, therefore because of this.” This fallacy assumes that just because
something happens after an event, it must be caused by the event. Example: The man in Nova Scotia
who claimed back in the 70s, “Ever since they changed from Fahrenheit to Celsius, the weather’s been
so much colder.” Or the rooster who took pride in causing the sun to rise every morning with his
crowing. In medicine it can be especially challenging to determine causes. There is some debate whether
vaccination got rid of epidemics like polio or if better hygiene was the cause.
- Slippery Slope
This wrongly assumes that making one choice will lead to a whole bunch of undesirable
consequences, and overlooks the fact that you can make this one choice (take a step closer to the edge)
without falling over the edge. Barney Fife committed this fallacy on the Andy Griffith Show. Andy
rebuked Barney for giving out speeding tickets to truckers who were going 5 miles over the speed limit
in town, because, he told Barney, “those truckers need the extra 5 miles an hour to get up the hill.” But
Barney retorted fallaciously, “You give ‘em 55, they’ll take 60. You give ‘em 60, they’ll take 65. You give
‘em 65 – “ and he continued on until Andy interrupted him. Example: Groups like the Amish possibly
commit this fallacy when they think that adding electricity will result in a wholesale fall into worldliness.
- Red Herring
This fallacy supposedly gets its name from an old practice of criminals who would take a red (i.e.
old and ripe) herring across his trail to distract the dogs that were chasing him down. The red herring
fallacy happens when someone tries to distract another person from the main issue of the argument by
dragging into the discussion an unrelated topic. Example: Someone wrote an article about Corn Flakes
not having any nutritional value, to which a Corn Flakes spokesperson replied, “This cereal is nutritious
because it’s eaten with milk, which has great nutritional value.” The best way to rebut a red herring is to
respond, “True, but irrelevant.”
Exercise 9:
Classify these fallacies.
1. I do not permit students to ask questions in the class, because if I allow one student to ask a
question, then everyone starts asking questions, and the first thing you know, there’s no time
for my lecture.
2. Student government is a mistake from the beginning. Look what happens in homes where
parents let the children run things their own way!
3. Television can’t be harmful to children because it occupies their attention for hours, and thus
keeps them off the street.
4. Mud has healing qualities, because Jesus put some mud in the man’s eyes and his sight was
restored.
5. If we let the women in this church start wearing pants instead of dresses, next thing you know,
the women will be wearing all sorts of unmentionable things. A man won’t be able to come to
church with his eyes open!
6. “Why are you putting all those lemons around your yard?” “To keep the elephants away.” “But
there are no elephants for thousands of miles?” “See? It works!”
7. If you study logic, you will become so rationalistic that you will lose your first love for God. Your
heart for God will become pure head knowledge.
8. I took a dose of Sinus Blast and two days later my cold cleared right up.
9. "Doctors are allowed to look up difficult diagnoses in their medical textbooks, so students
should be able to look up tough test questions in their texts."
Fallacies of Relevance
This next set of fallacies all commit the same mistake of causing us to accept or reject an idea for
irrelevant reasons.
Personal attack fallacies
- Genetic Fallacy
This fallacy makes the mistake of attacking the origins (or genesis) of an idea, rather than deal with
the validity of the idea itself. For example: “Sigmund Freud’s theory of projecting guilt should be
rejected because he was a perverse, godless man.” If we are to be careful thinkers we have to test the
ideas apart from the people who teach them. All truth is God’s truth, and just because wicked or
unscrupulous men happen to notice something true about the world, this does not make their
observations invalid.
- Abusive Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem in Latin means “argument to the man.” All of the personal attack fallacies fall under
the category of attacking the man rather than attacking the idea or the argument itself. The abusive ad
hominem happens when someone insults or degrades a person so that we are less likely to accept his
ideas. Example: “Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality should be rejected for a couple reasons. One,
he didn’t understand that homosexuality can be an inborn desire, and two, the guy was probably
homophobic.”
- Circumstantial Ad Hominem
This fallacy attacks a person’s motivation for holding an idea rather than evaluating his arguments
for the idea. Example: “Senator Jones is against the bill that provides a ban on hand guns, because he
owns a fire arms store.” Senator Jones may have a strong constitutional argument to support his views
and the fact that his business would suffer if the bill was passed is irrelevant to the strength of his
argument. Our wanting something to be true does not make it false!
- Tu Quoque
This fallacy (pronounced too kwo-kwa) in Latin means “you also.” It tries to attack an argument by
saying it should be rejected because the person arguing does not live according to it. “You can’t tell me
smoking causes lung cancer, because you smoke!” The fact that someone is addicted to smoking does
not change his argument that smoking is harmful to your health. Jimmy Swaggart’s warnings against
adultery remain valid even though he himself fell into adultery. This fallacy is also committed when we
try to justify our sinful actions by pointing to someone else who does it. But two wrongs don’t make a
right.
- Poisoning the well
When someone tries to attack a person’s credibility before he even has a chance to speak, this is
called “poisoning the well.” Example, “My opponent in tonight’s debate believes that the world is only
six thousand years old. Someone who is so willfully ignorant of the overwhelming evidence cannot be
trusted in scientific matters.” In a court of law, where a witness’s credibility is relevant to his testimony,
demonstrating that the witness has a history of being dishonest is perfectly acceptable.
Straw Man
A straw man is easier to knock over than a real man. This fallacy is committed when a person
distorts or misrepresents his opponents and refutes the distorted argument rather than the argument
that was actually put forth.
Example: Atheists have refuted the “Kalaam” cosmological argument by distorting it. “If
everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause. If God doesn’t need a cause, then the universe
doesn’t need a cause.” The actual argument states that “Whatever begins to exist, needs a cause. The
universe begins to exist, therefore the universe needs a cause.” God does not need a cause, because He
has always existed.
The medieval debaters had a practice that should be adopted today. Before a debater was
allowed a refutation, he had to repeat his opponent’s view and the arguments for it to his opponent’s
satisfaction. Only then could he begin to refute it. This would be a valuable practice in any dispute.
Mob appeal
This fallacy seeks to convince people of the truth of argument by appealing to the emotions or
stirring up anger or a sense of pride. This can be a very effective way to persuade people. Many
dictators and world leaders have made good use of it. However, millions people have been led astray by
powerful rhetoric.
Appeal to Pity
This fallacy occurs when someone appeals to your emotions instead of reason or your sense of
right or wrong. There is nothing wrong with appealing to emotions for the sake of the truth. It becomes
a problem when the appeal to the emotions is done to persuade people to accept something they
otherwise would know is wrong. An example of this is when the pro-abortionist tries to get others to
accept the practice of abortion by telling us a sad story of a teen or young girl who was raped and now
her life will be ruined if she is not allowed to kill her baby. While it is truly heart-wrenching to hear a
story like that, it still does not make it right to kill an innocent human baby. Appeals to pity are
dangerous because our emotions are unthinking and do not have a sense of right and wrong. Emotions
are in a different category than truth. When people think with their emotions, they can be led to accept
some foolish ideas. Appeals to pity have effectively convinced people to reject the validity of the Old
Testament because of the seemingly horrible things God asked his people to do. There is more to those
situations than first meets the eye, but when the emotions are stirred up it is hard to think clearly.
Faulty appeal to authority
- The authority of the one
Taking things on authority is legitimate. In fact, most of what we know we have had to take on
authority. It becomes a fallacy when we cite as an authority someone who is not an expert in the subject
we are arguing. Example: “Ho Chi Minh was not a tyrant!” “How do you know that?” “Because Jane
Fonda said so!” Unfortunately in this culture, we give a lot of weight to celebrities, but just because
someone has the ability to act or shoot a puck does not mean they are an expert in all fields. And just
because someone has a Ph.D. in one area, does not necessarily qualify to him be an authority in other
fields. Many intelligent people have made very foolish mistakes and done sloppy thinking in spiritual
matters. When someone cites an authority we need to make sure the so-called “authority” is really
qualified to address the issue.
It is also improper to simply cite an expert when the topic under discussion is a controversial one,
i.e. one with “experts” on both sides of the debate. In areas of theology such as eschatology (the study
of end times) where there are multiple widely held positions, it is not enough to prove your position by
citing a well-known preacher who agrees with you. Better to have researched the issue yourself, and
then you can give your own reasons.
- The authority of the majority
Just because many or most people believe an idea does not make it true. Truth cannot be
determined by majority vote. It is funny how the media can make something popular merely by giving it
air time, and then media anchor-people will report that a song, movie, or book is at the top of the
charts. Then because something is at the top of the charts, people start to check it out because if it’s on
the top of the charts it must be great – millions of people can’t be wrong! Compounding the problem is
our desire to “fit in.” We naturally don’t want to be odd or weird; this desire can manipulate our tastes
so we start to like something just because so many other people do. Advertisements of course make
maximum use of this. When you look back at all the horrid and cheesy clothing fashions people have
worn, it is amazing how a desire to be popular or “with it” warped people’s sense of fashion!
-
Snob Appeal
This fallacy works in reverse of the last one. The appeal to the majority assumes that the
majority must be right. But “Snob Appeal” reaches out to people who assume that the majority are
usually wrong, but that they themselves are the elite, the enlightened ones. Most of us at one time find
ourselves in a group with convictions, beliefs or practices that is set apart from the rest of the world.
This may be home schooling, home church, a political group, a denomination. It is easy to become smug
and revel in the fact that we are doing everything right and those poor deluded souls elsewhere are
foolishly in the wrong. This is dangerous because pride distorts reality. This desire to be in an elite group
can make some people susceptible to false ideas, because they want to be on the cutting edge and may
be too quick to adopt new ideas.
Appeal to Ignorance (or argument from silence)
This fallacy is committed when someone wants us to accept an idea because it hasn’t been
proven wrong, or to accept that an idea is true, because we don’t know for sure that is false. This is a
fallacy because “ignorance” or non-evidence cannot logically prove anything. Example: “There must be
life in outer space, because no one has ever proved that there isn’t.”
This fallacy is also committed when someone shifts the “burden of proof” onto the person who
is not making the claim, and says, “Since you can’t prove me wrong, my idea must be true.” In reality,
the “burden of proof” (or the obligation to offer proof or evidence) lies with the person who is making
the claim, or with the person whose claim is less probable. If a person is making a claim that all religions
are equal, or that there is no truth, that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, rather than get defensive and
feel like we have to prove them wrong, just relax and put the burden of proof back on them. They are
making the claim; it is their job to try and prove it. However, if you are the one making the claim, you
better have your arguments and reasons ready (1 Peter 3:15).
Appeal to fear (Appeal to force)
The Latin name for this fallacy is Ad Baculum or “appeal to the stick”. This fallacy uses brute
force instead of reason. It tries to cower people into accepting a belief or action. The only safe guard
against this fallacy is being grounded in the fear of the Lord, and fearing Him who can destroy the soul in
hell, rather than those who can only harm our temporary bodies. We need an eternal perspective to find
the strength to do what is right regardless of what we will face down here.
Non Sequiter
This Latin phrase simply means, “does not follow.” As you start paying attention to people and
the reasons they give, you will be amazed at shallow and illogical people’s reasoning can be. “I’m gonna
vote for so and so, because he is so good looking.” It is a Non Sequiter to think that good looks equals
bad judgment. It is also just as foolish to be against someone for office because they talk funny or are
less than remotely handsome.
Exercise 10
Classify these fallacies of relevance.
1. “Before you answer, just remember who pays your salary!”
2. According to 75% of convicted felons, the American justice system is unjust.
3. Judge: “You have been convicted of petty larceny.” Prisoner: “Your honor, I just looked up your
salary; you make $200,000 a year. If I’m a thief, you’re a bigger one!”
4. “He can’t prove he earned this money, so he must have stolen it.”
5. “Capital punishment can’t be wrong; 75% of people are in favor of it.”
6. “Aristotle? I’ve never heard of him, so he can’t be that important.”
7. “The New Testament writers can be trusted as objective, because they were believers; they
wanted people to believe Jesus was God.”
8. “Creationists believe that the world was created on Oct.23, 4004 B.C., but we have archeological
artifacts that date back to 10,000 and 20,000 BC, so creationists are obviously wrong.”
9. “Officer, I don’t deserve a speeding ticket. My dog just died and my mother-in-law just moved in
and I am being audited by the Internal Revenue Agency.”
10. “Forty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong!”
11. “No breath of scandal has ever touched the Senator, so he must be impeccably honest.”
12. “Pre-tribulation Premillenialism must be true, because John MacArthur believes in it.”
13. “My opponent tonight believes every word of the Bible; that means he believes in slavery and
the oppression of women.”
14. Darwinian evolution has yet to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, but it is just a
matter of time before they do!
15. Thomas Aquinas was a Roman Catholic; you are wasting your time reading his stuff.
Conclusion
The number of fallacies may seem overwhelming and you may be wondering how you will
remember them all. The great thing is you don’t have to remember the name, but you will find that just
being shown these mistakes will help you be more aware of them. I also want to warn you from using
these fallacies as weapons. It will be tempting in the course of debate or an altercation, when you see
your opponent commit one of these fallacies to throw a label at him, “You just committed the ad
misericordiam fallacy”, (appeal to pity) and feel like that is a sufficient rebuttal. But just because
someone offers a faulty argument does not make his conclusion false. I may be guilty of using circular
reasoning in trying to prove that the Bible is God’s word, but that does not change the fact that the Bible
really is the inspired Word of God. Our goal should always be the humble pursuit of truth, not winning or
personal glory!
When our goal is merely winning an argument, we will be closed-minded and the only
conclusion we will be able to accept is our own. But we are not infallible enough to warrant that
attitude.
Exercise 11:
Identify the fallacy.
1. “I live by the river, drop in sometime.”
2. “Why should we believe Solomon when he says to ‘be satisfied with the wife of your youth,’
when he wasn’t.”
3. “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a
friend of tax collectors and "sinners."’ “
4. “There can’t be a God because I haven’t seen any proof for him.”
5. “But, Columbus, no one believes the world is round.”
6. “The Christian belief that Christ forgives their sins makes them dangerous, because they no
longer feel accountable – they know they will be forgiven.”
7. “Miracles are impossible.” “How do you know?” “Because they have never happened.” But how
do you know that miracles have never happened?” “Because a miracle would violate a law of
nature, and that is impossible.”
8. “Belief is God is like a belief in Santa Claus.”
9. “All Christians are hypocrites, just look at Jim and Tammy-Faye Bakker.”
10. Jewish apologist: “Christians believe in three gods, but the Old Testament says there is only one
God.”
11. “I would want someone to give me the answers for the math test, so I am going to give the
answers to my buddy.”
12. “Where did God come from?”
13. “You are defending the existence of God because you need a security blanket against the harsh
realities of life.”
14. “You’d better believe that Christianity is true or you will go to hell.”
15. “We Christians have to choose. Either we break the law and block the doors to abortion clinics,
or we take the guilt of the death of the unborn upon ourselves.”
16. “Our pastor told us that evolution couldn’t possibly be true.”
17. “I couldn’t work for NASA because some safety regulations demand that some missions be
aborted and I don’t believe in abortion.”
18. “ I do not think that when you have to look at the painful, lingering death of someone you love,
you will still believe that euthanasia is wrong.”
19. “Why would I want to see the Keukenhof Flower garden? It’s just a bunch of flowers!”
20. “The Dick Van Dyke Show is just terrific; I know this episode we haven’t seen yet will be a good
one.”
21. “Are you that funny little man from that funny little school?”
22. “Every time I go to a Hurricanes game, they lose. I think I’m bad luck.”
23. “Nature has given us our sense of right and wrong.”
24. “Only Hollywood could produce a film like this.”
25. “I can tell from the few days that I have been here that the weather is so much nicer in Alberta!”
26. Billboard: Come to us for unwanted pregnancies.
27. “The bigoted fundamentalist clubbed the poor homosexual with harsh verse after verse.”
28. “I’m not bossy! I’m decisive!”
29. “It is so cruel to take a calf away from its mother and slaughter it! How would you feel I if took
your child away and ate it!”
30. “As soon as the Roman Empire adopted the Christian religion, it crumbled. I think that is strong
proof we need a separation of church and state.”
31. In 1698 Psalm books began to be printed with proper musical notation. Someone objected in
the New England Chronicle, “Truly today I have a great jealousy that if we begin to sing by rule,
the next thing will be to pray by rule, and preach by rule, and then comes popery.”
32. Patrick stole a pig from the Widow Maloney. When he was brought before the Court, the judge
said to him, “Well Patrick, when you are brought face to face with Widow Maloney and her pig
on Judgment Day, what are you going to have to say for yourself?!” Patrick replied, “You say the
pig will be there, Sir? Then I’ll say, Mrs. Maloney, there is your pig!”
Many examples and exercises were taken from the following recommended books:
Socratic Logic – by Peter Kreeft
With Good Reason – by S. Morris Engle
Come Let Us Reason - by Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks
Tactics – by Greg Koukl
Notes:
Session 6: “Thinking Critically about Culture: Abortion and Homosexuality”
Abortion Facts
- Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has unrestricted abortion laws.
- There are roughly 100,000 abortions a year in Canada (The exact figure is unknown because the
law does not require reporting an abortion.) That is about 30 abortions per every 100 live births.
- There are about 42 million abortions a year world-wide.
- In the U.S., there are about 3,700 abortions a day, and about 18 percent of those are done on
women who claim to be born again/evangelical. If that is true, over 700 evangelical Christians
are killing their babies every day!
- The Canadian courts have determined that baby is not a legally protected “person” until fully
out of the womb.
- Only one in four Canadians call themselves pro-life, but only 30% favor the current unrestricted
abortion laws and over 70% believe that a woman should be informed about the stage of
development of the baby and have an ultrasound before making her choice to have an abortion.
The abortion debate hinges on one issue – What is the unborn?
If the unborn is simply an impersonal blob of tissue, then there is no need to get defensive
about the issue. Nobody protests when a woman has a cyst removed. But if the unborn is a human
person, then there is no amount of justification for murdering an innocent human being. That is the
main issue. Keep bringing it back this point. The women’s right to choose, the women’s right to privacy,
rape, incest – none of those things justify the murder of human life.
What is the Unborn?
Randy Alcorn says there are three objective questions to ask in determining the classification of
the unborn.
1. Is it human? That is, did it come from humans?
2. Is it a genetically unique individual?
3. Is it alive and growing?
If the answer is yes to all three, it is a human person worthy of our protection.
Four factors that should not determine personhood
There are only four differences between the unborn and a toddler. It can be helpful to walk
people through these. You can remember them with the SLED acronym (from Greg Koukl).
S-Size or Physical Appearance
Does a person gain value by getting bigger? Men are usually bigger than women; does that
make them more valuable? Is Shaquille O’Neil more human than Hillary Clinton because he’s bigger?
Should we discriminate based on appearance? In the past dictators have killed people based on their
appearance; it is called ethnic cleansing or genocide. A human’s value should not be based on their size
or looks.
L-Level of Development
Should a person be penalized for not having a greater level of ability? Does a man whose arms
never developed have less value than a perfectly formed human? Sadly there is so much wrong
information about how much a baby has developed at the time of abortion. A woman on a college
campus was shown some pictures of the unborn, and she refused to believe it. She insisted it was trick
photography. Elsewhere, a pro-choice picture showed only a pool of blood and that caption said that
this was the contents that were removed when the uterus was emptied. In reality, by the time the
earliest abortions are performed, the child already has every body part it will ever have. “In the final six
months, nothing new develops or begins functioning. The child only grows and matures.”
E-Environment
Should a person’s rights or worth be based on our location or environment? Is a person more
human when they stand in a church than when they step out? It is truly maddening, the logic of this.
There was a legal case in 1983 where the doctor bungled an abortion but the baby survived; it came out
in extreme pain and badly burned by the saline. The doctor was then charged for murder because the
baby was outside the womb when he finished killing it! How in the world can anyone think that a six
inch trip through the birth canal magically transforms a “fetus” into a human? One nurse was converted
to the prolife position when she was struck by the irony of watching doctors and nurses working
feverishly to save the lives of babies who were born prematurely, yet down the hall, babies – the same
age – were being coldly and brutally murdered.
D-Degree of Dependence
Is our dependence a worthy factor in determining personhood? The six month old is more
dependent than the six year old; should that give the six year old more legal protection? Humans are not
fully independent till they’re about 16 (much later in some cases!). What about the adults who are
dependent on pace-makers or insulin pumps? Should they be considered non-human? Besides,
shouldn’t a greater level of dependency in a person make us more inclined to protect them?
Pro-choice Fallacies
Red Herring
“It’s a woman’s right to choose!” “It should be between the woman and her doctor,” “It’s the
woman’s body and no law should be telling her what she should do with it.” These are all common
refrains, aimed to shut people up. But these are classic red herrings that divert from the real issue.
Randy Alcorn has gone to colleges and started his talk, “I was introduced as pro-life, but I am really prochoice. I believe a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. She is free to choose
and it is none of our business what choice she makes. We may not like what she does but we should not
impose our morals on her.”
He gets lots of nods of agreement. Then he shocks them with this, “Yes, I am prochoice. That’s
why I believe a man has the right to rape a woman. I believe the man has the right to do whatever he
wants with his body. He is free to choose and it is none of our business what choice he makes. We may
not like what he does but we should not impose our morals on him.”
The first version sounds open-minded and tolerant, but the second version sounds horrific.
What makes the difference? In the case of the rape, another innocent human is involved. Well guess
what? So does an abortion! That is why the issue is always “Is the unborn a human or not?” Greg Koukl
teaches people to “trot out a two year old” in response to any of these red herring arguments. If it is
wrong to kill a two year old who was conceived in rape or incest, then it is wrong to kill a baby. If a
woman is not free to kill her two year old, then she shouldn’t be free to kill her baby. If we should have
laws that restrict mothers from killing her toddler, then we should have laws restricting mothers from
killing their un-born baby. The personhood of the unborn is always the main issue, don’t get side
tracked.
Faulty Analogy
There is a pro-choice analogy that is frequently used. It goes like this. “Imagine that you wake up
one morning and find that there is a limp, unconscious famous violinist strapped to your back, with
tubes attached to your body. You discover to your horror, that this violinist is leeching life from you. You
have been kidnapped by ‘The Music Lover Society’ and they are using your blood to keep this leech and
parasite alive. Now consider that you are not only responsible to keep this musician alive for nine
months but for nine years. Wouldn’t it be outrageous to be forced to keep this parasite alive?”
This analogy is misleading for several reasons.
1. Over 99% of pregnancies are the result of sexual relations that occurred with mutual consent.
Less than one percent of abortions are for pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest.
2. Pregnancy is a much more positive experience than the one listed above. Most pregnant women
can continue to enjoy a high quality of life.
3. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. It is really only the last 7 months that carry any
inconvenience. After that a woman is free to put her child up for adoption.
4. In a real pregnancy there is a maternal bond that the mother feels with the baby, totally
different than anything she’d feel for the cold stranger violinist.
5. A two year old child can sometimes be more of an “inconvenience” than the unborn, but
nobody in their right mind would think it morally justifiable to kill the toddler.
Another misleading analogy has to do with the claim that the fetus is a part of the mother’s body
and that removing the fetus is like having a kidney removed. There is a major difference in that the child
has its own genetic code and its own body parts. Saying that the fetus is simply part of the woman’s
body results in the absurd idea that in half of pregnancies the woman has a male sex organ.
Slanting the Language
Pro-abortion people are very careful what language they use. Language shapes how we feel
about things. You will never hear them refer to the unborn as a baby. It is always a “fetus” or “P.O.C.”
(Product of conception.) “Fetus” is a Latin word that means “Young one” or “Little Child.” Deep down
people instinctively know the truth that it is a human baby that is developing. Women don’t say, “I just
felt a blob or a POC kick my tummy.” They say “a baby.”
Responding to a final argument
“We don’t know when the fetus becomes a person.” it is easy to prove that life begins at
conception. However, even if we grant them the truth of that statement, that “we don’t know when life
begins,” that is an argument against abortion! Greg Koukl uses this illustration: You are doing the dishes,
and you hear your boy come up behind you and ask “Mommy, can I kill this?” What is your first
thought? What is it? If it is a bug, then yes. The boy’s sister? No way! Another illustration - If you are
hunting and carrying a rifle and you see the bushes rustle, are you going to shoot because “you don’t
know if it is a human or not?” Absolutely not! You will not shoot until you know for sure that is not a
human!
Recommended Books:
Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments – By Randy Alcorn
The Unaborted Socrates – By Peter Kreeft
Notes:
Homosexuality
There is so much confusion regarding homosexuality. Men or women who find themselves
fighting same-sex attraction feel lost and alone. Seemingly they only face two options – keep up the
false façade and hide their feelings and thus continue to struggle alone. The other option is to come out
of the closet and embrace their homosexual identity. If they do this, they risk cutting off their Christian
fellowship and worse, their actions will violate God’s design and incur guilt. This will alienate the
struggling person from fellowship with God, which is the only thing that satisfies and gives us to strength
to resist temptation. Because there are so many in the church who are facing such a hopeless dilemma,
what we need is some clear thinking that will shine God’s light into the darkness and the truth can set
these dear people free. Unfortunately I don’t have enough time to give this topic the thorough
treatment it deserves, so I plead with you to take the time to equip yourselves in learning how to help
those battling same-sex attraction. I have listed some highly recommended resources below. In the
mean time there are a few points I want to make.
Battling same-sex attraction does not make you a homosexual!
Young people who face homosexual temptation start to feel afraid that they might be
homosexual and have to deal with the bondage that comes with such an identity. Once a person sees
himself as a homosexual, with that identity comes a sense of despair and a hopeless feeling that he
won’t be able to change or that he will never get to enjoy a normal life and marriage. This identity
creates a host of problems. But we need to proclaim the truth that God’s way of life is available to all
people. And that we all face struggles and temptations to adopt a way of life that is contrary to the life
God designed. The young person fighting same-sex desires, should not feel alone. All young men face
temptation to lust after someone that God does not intend for them. It is the same for every young
person: the only place that is safe to give expression to our sexual desires in marriage. Outside of
marriage lust, homosexual or heterosexual, is going to bring devastation. God’s rules are for our
pleasure.
There is no proven scientific evidence that demonstrates that people are born homosexual.
This of course will be a controversial claim, since it is been a long held myth that there is
overwhelming evidence that some people are born homosexual and have no choice in the matter. I
encourage you to look into it for yourselves.
However, even if you grant that some people are born with homosexual desires, it does not
justify the expression of those desires. As noted earlier, being born with a natural desire to bash
homosexuals does not make it right. Being born with a natural desire to rape a woman does not make it
right. There is some evidence that some people are born with a greater tendency towards alcoholism,
but that does not justify giving in to it.
Nature cannot give us moral rules. You cannot get an “ought” from an “is.” We are born broken
people and tainted by sin. We all fight “natural” desires to sin. Our moral sense is one thing that
separates us from the animals. When we are hungry, we curb our appetite rather than steal. When we
get angry, God’s law prevents us from giving expression to that anger and murdering. Once again, the
situation is the same for all humans: To surrender our bodies to God and curb our “natural” desires, or
continue is sin and guilt.
Campaigning for law reform has its place, but only love will reach the homosexual and give
him the hope of change.
Sadly, the only attitude towards homosexuality that most gays ever see is the angry protesting
and vehement expressions of God’s hatred toward the homosexual. A young person in the church who
only hears this attitude is going to be terrified to be honest about his struggles for fear of rejection and
that people will be repulsed his admission. When someone tries to battle their lust alone, they are
doomed for failure. Our children and those outside the church need to see a demonstration of love and
concern for the homosexual, so that anyone secretly struggling will feel safe to be open about their
temptations.
There are two extremes that the church sadly falls into. On the one side the church rightly
expresses its disapproval of homosexual sin, but it does so without love and care and an offer of help.
On the other end of the spectrum, is the church that shows grace, but also complete acceptance of the
homosexuals’ choices. Neither of these extremes helps the homosexual. Homosexuality is wrong
because it brings devastation. If a person was drinking poison it would not be loving to just show
complete acceptance and not warn with the person and plead with them to stop. At the same time, a
harsh insensitive rebuke is not likely to compel the poison drinker to quit either. We need to express the
attitude of Christ that he showed to the woman caught in adultery. “Neither do I condemn you, go and
sin no more.”
There are several wrong misinterpretations of Scripture that are being used by Gay Christians.
You would be wise to do some research on these misinterpretations and how to respond to
them and other arguments that are being used to advance the gay agenda.
Don’t expect it to be easy or to see quick results.
When a person is living in sin, there is a sense of guilt that is very painful. That person will do all
they can to gloss over that feeling and will try to justify their actions. Anyone who reminds them of their
guilt will incur an angry response. This is why Christians who reach out with complete love and
understanding and offer a hope of change often end up angering homosexuals. The reason for this is
that the homosexual has been rationalizing away their guilt by telling themselves that they were born
this way- that this is the way God made them. So even if this is wrong, they don’t need to worry about it
because they couldn’t change if they wanted to. When Christians offer help or the mere suggestion that
change is possible, that they may be responsible for some wrong choices, it pricks their conscience and
makes them mad. It will take lots of love, patience, gentleness, and the power of the Holy Spirit to bring
about change. But these people are so worthy of the sacrifice. There are thousands of people whose
eyes have been opened and are now happily married to a heterosexual spouse. These people testify to
the joy and freedom that can be found in Jesus Christ.
Recommended Resources:
Books:
The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible– by Joe Dallas (an exhomosexual) (Book formerly titled A Strong Delusion)
Desires in Conflict – by Joe Dallas
Someone I Love is Gay – by Anita Worthen and Bob Davies
Web Site:
www.exodusinternational.org
(If you don’t have time to read the books at least check this site out and read their articles, they
are offer some much love and wisdom so that you can be equipped to help a struggling brother or sister
in Christ.)
Notes:
Session 7 Judging God – Thinking critically in a time of doubt
He was a man passionate for God. In his late teens, Charles was rescued from a life of rubbish
and filled with the Holy Spirit. His conversion dramatically changed the course of his life. Eager to put his
new found faith into practice, Charles poured his life into evangelism. In his early twenties, he became
close friends with Billy Graham. They hit the spotlight almost simultaneously. Their sincerity and fervent,
yet thoughtful invitations to Christ were an effective combination. Charles’ success continued into his
thirties. After attending Princeton Seminary, he carried on his evangelistic mission. A sought-after
speaker and an able debater with a very compelling personality, he persuaded many to go to the
mission field or to attend seminary. He also hosted a weekly show on CBS and was a rising star in the
Presbyterian denomination. If you were looking for a hero of the faith, Charles Templeton was your
man.
Despite his outward fervor and success, Charles was haunted by intellectual doubts about his
faith. He simply could not reconcile what the Bible had to say with his own intuition and the “facts” of
history and science. Charles judged the God of the Old Testament as a “petty, jealous, inept, vindictive,
unjust, tribal god.” This god repented from making men and then killed them with a flood, hardened the
heart of Pharaoh so he could murder all of Egypt’s firstborns, and ruthlessly commanded the slaughter
of entire people groups. To Charles, this god simply was not compatible with the God of love he had
been told about. Regarding the story of Job, Charles asked “How would you feel if God killed all your
children just to make a point in an argument?” He denounced the story and the god as “immoral.”
I read about Charles Templeton’s spiritual derailment in his book, Farewell to God: My Reasons
for Rejecting the Christian Faith. People like Templeton pique my curiosity. Like a moth drawn to a
candle flame, I am attracted to atheist websites. I want to understand how “the other side” thinks so
that I know how to reach them. I also want to better equip young people to respond to the objections of
agnostics like Templeton. But as I read the writings of former Christians and “ex-apologists,” my faith is
shaken and my heart is saddened. The website, www.ex-christians.net, has the testimonials of hundreds
who have abandoned the faith.
In my earlier years, I was naïvely optimistic about the facts of Christianity. The evidence was so
clear, I reasoned, and the arguments so compelling, that anyone who walked away from the faith must
have been simply uninformed. If only these people would read The Case for Christ or, I Don’t have
Enough Faith to be an Atheist, then they would be able to see! But I was deeply disturbed to hear about
former apologists walking away. “What ominous information have these people discovered that caused
them to lose faith?” I feared that I too would discover some dark secret revelation and my own deconversion process would some day be chronicled online. I had to dig deeper. As I read the arguments
and reasons given by those “un-born-again,” I realized I wasn’t as equipped to answer their objections
as I had thought. Here I encountered the “bitter root of unbelief that defiles many.” (Heb 12:15 NLT)
What is this compelling case against Christianity? It isn’t well-documented historical details, or
airtight logical proofs against God and Jesus Christ. Rather, it is bitter emotional attacks on the character
of God. These writers question the idea of a God who sends billions to eternal conscious torment in hell:
Hitler burned Anne Frank for an hour and we call him a despot, but God will burn her for all eternity! I
also found several variations on the basic problem of evil: A God who stands by while cancer destroys a
little girl and while another girl is raped and beaten can’t be good. If any father just stood there and let
his son be run over by a truck, we all would call him cruel and immoral, yet God sits on His hands and lets
tragedy after tragedy ruin those He is supposed to love! A God who once condoned slavery and
commanded genocide, a God who leaves the fate of the billions of un-evangelized in the hands of a
bumbling, self-centered church… To the sensitive “de-converted,” such a God is blatantly immoral and
cannot exist.
Reading these charges against the God that I thought I knew battered my faith. In some ways I
felt betrayed and disappointed. As a bitter root of unbelief sprang up, I began to resent God. I fired my
own accusations against Him, “Is picking up sticks on the Sabbath really worthy of death? Why do You
create people against their will, put them where they won’t even have a chance to hear about Jesus,
withhold Your grace from them so they cannot choose You, and then punish them for all eternity? Why
don’t You just show Yourself to those who doubt? Your appearing didn’t violate Paul’s free will!” The
residue of these bitter accusations formed a dark cloud of doubt over my soul. The doctrine of hell
especially began to gnaw at me. After years of studying apologetics, I was shocked to find myself
doubting His existence.
1. Step back from the emotional weight of these arguments and evaluate them critically.
Stepping back from the emotional weight of these arguments, I decided to evaluate them
critically. I soon realized that none of them could refute the overwhelming scientific and philosophical
proof that there is a God. Just because a person doesn’t like God is certainly no proof that He doesn’t
exist! Among these atheist writings, I saw no historical disproof of Jesus’ miracles or resurrection – only
unfounded dismissals.
I felt a wave of relief when I realized that, as an apologist, I didn’t have to answer why God does
what He does (a nearly impossible task) but rather show that these arguments do not refute the strong
case for God’s existence. In fact, if there is a God, you would expect Him to do things beyond our
comprehension.
2. When dealing with the charge that God is immoral, we need to ask the question, “By
what standard can God be judged immoral?”
But what about the charge that God is immoral or cruel? The question is begging to be asked,
“By what standard can God be judged immoral?” The standard of man? Hardly! The irony is that if there
is no God, there is no standard of morality. If there is no standard of good, then there is no rule for the
way things should be. Morality would be nothing more than a changing description of what is. Slavery,
genocide, and rape, in the atheist’s naturalistic worldview, can’t be called immoral because there is
nothing outside of nature by which we can measure moral or immoral. So the atheist has no logical
footing to call God or Christianity “immoral.”
3. Recognize a critical fact. We are in no position to judge God.
As for the doctrine of hell and other charges that call God’s character into question, I recognized
a critical fact. I am in no position to judge God. What percent of all knowledge do I possess? Far less than
even one percent! I could never judge the plot of a book or the mind of the author from one phrase in
that book. I could never judge the master plan of a blueprint if all I saw was a fragment that contained
intersecting lines. Yet, here I was – a mere man – judging the plan of God from my extremely limited
vantage point! Something that appears to be an act of cruelty can turn out to be an act of kindness
when more information is revealed. A man plunging steel into another man has the appearance of
cruelty – until you discover that the steel is a scalpel and the man is a surgeon removing a cancerous
tumor.
Who am I to judge God? I don’t know who will be saved or who won’t be. I don’t know all the
factors that prompted to God ask His people to wipe out the Canaanites. I don’t know what happens to
someone after they die, so how can I accuse God of being unjust? I have insufficient data to make an
accurate judgment! When Job began to chew the root of unbelief, he spit out the same questions that
continue to be hurled at God today. God answered by putting Job in the hot seat. A few simple
questions and Job was repenting in the dust, very much aware of little he really knew.
4. We don’t know the whole plan of God, but we can know His heart.
Jesus Christ is the clearest revelation of God’s character. In Jesus, we find someone who longs to free
the captives and to heal the broken-hearted, Someone who forgave His enemies while on the cross, and
laid down His life for His sheep. Revealed in Christ, we see that God is pure goodness – there is nothing
evil in Him. This should bring us comfort, but it should also alarm us. The wrath and jealousy of God flow
from this uncorrupted goodness. Because we are corrupt, we don’t get upset with sin and can’t
comprehend the wrath of God. We turn a blind eye to the destructive power of sin… until it affects us
with its deadly sting. It is easy to wink at lust until your wife is raped. Then sin’s destructive power is
suddenly abhorred. But the omniscient God knows in detail the destructive power of Evil. His love fuels
His wrath.
We also have an enemy who complicates the problem. For millennia, Satan has been using his power of
deception to cast doubt on the goodness of God. He causes men to sin, tempts them to destroy
themselves, sabotages the paradise that God has given us, and then blames God! People, God is not the
problem. He is the solution to our problem. If you walk away from God, you reject the only source of
goodness. Yes, in this tiny piece of the picture, we see decay and misery and injustice, but we also see an
abundance of goodness. If you are going to blame God for the evil in the world, at least thank Him for
His goodness while you’re at it. Think about your own life. He has showered you with pleasure and joy
and the hope of heaven where every wrong will be made right.
5. Question the alternative
I have chosen to trust the character of God. He is the source of life and goodness. Apart from
Him, words like goodness, justice, and morality are only illusions. Sure, there are some really tough
questions when it comes to God’s plan and all the evil in the world. But how can I stop believing in the
God who gave us the good gifts in life and instead put my faith in man, who is responsible for all this
misery and pain? If I walk away from God, my problems only increase.
At this point, you may be wondering if I have chosen the route of intellectual suicide in order to
keep my faith. Am I letting my emotions override my mind? Absolutely not! Rather than be blinded by
emotional rhetoric, I choose to think critically. When one encounters difficulties in his faith or
worldview, it is easy to give up and walk away. But what will take its place? Yes, as a Christian, I struggle
to reconcile the loving God revealed in Christ with the evil and suffering in the world, but if were to walk
away from God; my intellectual problems would only increase. Can I really believe that the complex
human body is the result of nothingness exploding? If matter is all that is, then thinking is nothing more
than a chemical reaction – and the idea of truth disappears. For if someone disagrees with me, I can’t
call his ideas untrue. His brain is merely having a different interaction of atoms. For an atheist, the
intellectual problem of evil dissolves but the actual problem of pain and suffering still remains, only now
there is no hope of a solution.
Admitting that I only see a miniscule fraction of the big picture is not turning my brain off.
Intellectual honesty means intellectual humility. Far from intellectual suicide, I choose to remain faithful
to the One who makes thought valid and reason possible.
6. No God? No Good, No Truth.
The only way we would be justified in trusting our minds is if they can be traced back to an
ultimate mind. If our minds can only be traced to blind, irrational forces, then we have no reason to
trust our minds’ ability to apprehend objective truth. If the cause of our minds is capricious spirits, why
should we trust our minds? Perhaps the gods are only playing with us, deceiving us?
We as Christians can trust our minds and/or senses because we acknowledge that they were created by
a loving, truthful God. Reason and logic are the tools that God has given us to grasp and apprehend
truth. Logic is grounded in the fact that God cannot lie.
An atheist has no good reason with which to persuade a Christian to abandon a belief in God. If
the atheist is right, our brains are ultimately the product of irrational random chance and we have no
power of choice. Because we need to be able to choose to correctly label an idea as true or false, then
under the atheist’s beliefs, truth and false become meaningless. In order to be free to choose, we need
an immaterial mind and soul that stands outside the natural material forces.
I don’t see how it is foolish to take the word of the Man who conquered death and who has had
more impact on this world than any dynasty or dictator. What would be foolish, is to take the word of
mortal man over the word of God in the flesh. When you begin to doubt the character of God or if God
is even there, meditate on how little you know, then look to Jesus. Ask yourself: Who are you going to
believe? Another human who also only sees a tiny piece of the picture? Or someone who confirmed His
claim to be God by rising from the dead? Who else has the words of life?
In Christ, I don’t find all the answers to my intellectual problems, but I do find soothing comfort
in the midst of my struggles. Only in Christ do I find hope and assurance. I cannot grasp God’s purposes
for why He does what He does. But I know with confidence that the One who is defines goodness is
good, and that the One is the standard of justice will do justly.
Charles Templeton remained agnostic till he died of Alzheimer’s disease in 2001. His life is a
sober warning of the danger of putting our faith in limited and misinformed reason, rather than in the
God of the universe, the One revealed in Jesus Christ. Don’t waste your life by making the same costly
mistake.