Logical fallacies hijack discussion

[OzSpen]

In the thread, 'The doctrine of OSAS', a couple of us have been discussing the serious repercussions of Christians using logical fallacies in discussions on CyB. We have noticed some Christians violating the laws of logic in that particular thread.

What is a logical fallacy? 20WL Online Writing Lab (Purdue University) gives this definition:

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others ('Logical Fallacies').

This Purdue University link gives examples of these logical fallacies. Follow the link and you'll see examples of how the fallacies are used. One of the most helpful lists and explanations I've found has been The Nizkor Project Fallacies. One of the most common fallacies I hear or read Christians use is the red herring fallacy. This is explained as:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (The Nizkor Project - Red Herring).

This is an example of how I have heard Christians use it (it happened to me recently at a political meeting for a Member of Parliament who is an evangelical Christian).

1. Topic A: That Christian MP supports traditional marriage and not homosexual marriage; he's convinced God invented marriage and heterosexual marriage is God's order for humanity.
2. Topic B: That makes him a lousy Christian with such intolerance.
3. Topic A was abandoned.

How do you think Christians on this forum could use the following logical fallacies?

• Ad hominem;
• Begging the question (circular reasoning);
• Genetic fallacy;
• Poisoning the well;
• Straw man.

In identifying logical fallacies that a person uses, it is important to name the fallacy that is being used. Why would I make that statement?

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

 

[Butch5]

In the thread, 'The doctrine of OSAS', a couple of us have been discussing the serious repercussions of Christians using logical fallacies in discussions on CyB. We have noticed some Christians violating the laws of logic in that particular thread.

What is a logical fallacy? 20WL Online Writing Lab (Purdue University) gives this definition:

This Purdue University link gives examples of these logical fallacies. Follow the link and you'll see examples of how the fallacies are used. One of the most helpful lists and explanations I've found has been The Nizkor Project Fallacies. One of the most common fallacies I hear or read Christians use is the red herring fallacy. This is explained as:

This is an example of how I have heard Christians use it (it happened to me recently at a political meeting for a Member of Parliament who is an evangelical Christian).

1. Topic A: That Christian MP supports traditional marriage and not homosexual marriage; he's convinced God invented marriage and heterosexual marriage is God's order for humanity.
2. Topic B: That makes him a lousy Christian with such intolerance.
3. Topic A was abandoned.

How do you think Christians on this forum could use the following logical fallacies?

• Ad hominem;
• Begging the question (circular reasoning);
• Genetic fallacy;
• Poisoning the well;
• Straw man.

In identifying logical fallacies that a person uses, it is important to name the fallacy that is being used. Why would I make that statement?

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

HI Oz,

I agree. I too have seen too many logical fallacies from Christians. They are dangerous in that they can be used to lead Christians into false doctrines. However, They are also dangerous to the lost. When Christians discuss Christian things with the lost anyone who is intelligent is going to pick up on these fallacies. When they challenge the Christian on this it seems to end up rather ugly. I've seen how Christians won't acknowledge their fallacies in a save Christian environment, I seriously doubt they will acknowledge them in a hostile environment. Thus the lost person goes away thinking that Christianity is illogical because the Christian didn't weed out the fallacies in his belief system.

 

[justaname]

Fallacies are annoying and do not allow for discussion. I approach them each differently depending especially on the setting and the user of the fallacy. What must be done without question is to get the guilty party to understand they are unfairly or illogically arguing, and have them stop using that method for continuation of proper discussion or argumentation. Sometimes that is explaining to them what they are doing in simple terms and giving a relative example. Sometimes that is naming the fallacy they are using pointing them to that definition, yet here you may be deemed as a "know it all". Sometimes all you can do is discontinue the discussion.

Here is a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[Barrd]

HI Oz,

I agree. I too have seen too many logical fallacies from Christians. They are dangerous in that they can be used to lead Christians into false doctrines. However, They are also dangerous to the lost. When Christians discuss Christian things with the lost anyone who is intelligent is going to pick up on these fallacies. When they challenge the Christian on this it seems to end up rather ugly. I've seen how Christians won't acknowledge their fallacies in a save Christian environment, I seriously doubt they will acknowledge them in a hostile environment. Thus the lost person goes away thinking that Christianity is illogical because the Christian didn't weed out the fallacies in his belief system.

I agree.
We must take care how we conduct ourselves, even here, in a "safe Christian environment"....after all, this is the internet, and we can't be sure that everyone we meet, even in a forum like this one, is what he or she claims to be.
One thing that immediately makes me suspicious is when someone hides details such as his/her gender, or marital status, or even their age.
Of course I don't expect folks to reveal their address, or such data...but when they won't even tell you if they are male or female, my antennae go up.

Does anyone else feel that way?

 

[mjrhealth]

Whatever happened to the Holy Spirit, or is He just a figment of mans imagination?

Oh but we have the bible. books, cds, dvds colleges who need Him any more, lust just trust mans reasoing.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Oh how it would be that man could just trust God..

 

[mjrhealth]

Does anyone else feel that way?

No, cause it is irellevant. There is no male or female in the spirit.

 

[OzSpen]

Whatever happened to the Holy Spirit, or is He just a figment of mans imagination?

Oh but we have the bible. books, cds, dvds colleges who need Him any more, lust just trust mans reasoing.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Oh how it would be that man could just trust God..

Here you are giving us a red herring logical fallacy. You have demonstrated my very point. Don't you understand what you have done with your kind of response as a red herring? I'm not sure you know what a logical fallacy is when you violate the logical rules of discussion like you have done with this post.

 

[OzSpen]

No, cause it is irellevant. There is no male or female in the spirit.

How does that relate to the topic of this thread?

 

[mjrhealth]

How does that relate to the topic of this thread?

Why dont you ask her....
never seeing a red heering...what do they looklike, do they taste nice.

Logical reasoning, trying to fit God into teh image of man... bible speaks of that somewhere.

There is no logic to God, His ways are not our ways His thoughts not ours.. No matter how big a box you create you will not fit Him in it.

In all His Love

 

[ATP]

You're basically avoiding confrontation by posting fallacies. Instead of posting red herring whatever..try asking a question or post a scripture that you think will confirm your belief. How else are you going to learn about the scripture at hand, for example Eph 4:30 NIV.

Do you people realize how much I've learned about the Grace covenant and the NT by asking questions and challenging others. Oz is the only person I know who posts fallacy red herring stuff, and I've been on many forums. You make me wanna pull my hair out Oz, because to me you are giving up on the debate because you have no answer.

Oz, stop hiding behind these fallacy posts and challenge us with scripture, debates, strong conversation and maybe coffee etc...

 

[OzSpen]

HI Oz,

I agree. I too have seen too many logical fallacies from Christians. They are dangerous in that they can be used to lead Christians into false doctrines. However, They are also dangerous to the lost. When Christians discuss Christian things with the lost anyone who is intelligent is going to pick up on these fallacies. When they challenge the Christian on this it seems to end up rather ugly. I've seen how Christians won't acknowledge their fallacies in a save Christian environment, I seriously doubt they will acknowledge them in a hostile environment. Thus the lost person goes away thinking that Christianity is illogical because the Christian didn't weed out the fallacies in his belief system.

My experience is that many Christians do not know logical fallacies and do not recognise them when they use them. However, humility requires all of us to acknowledge that we are learners and anyone who helps us to see the fallacies we use should be commended.

In relation to the OP, why don't you flesh out for us how Christians could practise these logical fallacies:

• Ad hominem;
• Begging the question (circular reasoning).

We've already had an example in this thread of a Christian who used a red herring fallacy. Why don't you create 2 examples, based on this post by me, of how those 2 logical fallacies could be committed?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Why dont you ask her....
never seeing a red heering...what do they looklike, do they taste nice.

Logical reasoning, trying to fit God into teh image of man... bible speaks of that somewhere.

There is no logic to God, His ways are not our ways His thoughts not ours.. No matter how big a box you create you will not fit Him in it.

In all His Love

I'm talking about your comment and the OP. You seem to be living in another world where you claim that there is no logic to God. Come on, mate! What kind of a Bible do you read? Is it a Bible with words, grammar, sentences, paragraphs (semantics)? If it is, these are examples of God demonstrating his logical results in the universe.

The mere fact that you are attempting to converse on this forum with a logical discussion demonstrates that God has given you the ability to attempt to be logical.

However, you have built a straw man fallacy here with your view that 'there is no logic to God'. That is an irrational, straw man fallacy. God has built logic into his universe, but because of the fall of human beings into sin, we botch up logic like you have done with your response to me.

We cannot have a logical conversation when you want to deny the very logic that God has built into the universe to be able to communicate on this forum.

I call you to be a reasonable man who learns the nature of logical fallacies and quits using them.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

Remember Saul, Pharisee of Pharisses ,

considered all his learning as dung compared to knowing the risen Lord...after his eyes where opened and when He became Paul.

God is spirit, and the time is when we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

In all His Love

 

[justaname]

I'm talking about your comment and the OP. You seem to be living in another world where you claim that there is no logic to God. Come on, mate! What kind of a Bible do you read? Is it a Bible with words, grammar, sentences, paragraphs (semantics)? If it is, these are examples of God demonstrating his logical results in the universe.

The mere fact that you are attempting to converse on this forum with a logical discussion demonstrates that God has given you the ability to attempt to be logical.

However, you have built a straw man fallacy here with your view that 'there is no logic to God'. That is an irrational, straw man fallacy. God has built logic into his universe, but because of the fall of human beings into sin, we botch up logic like you have done with your response to me.

We cannot have a logical conversation when you want to deny the very logic that God has built into the universe to be able to communicate on this forum.

I call you to be a reasonable man who learns the nature of logical fallacies and quits using them.

Oz

So true here. Without the laws of logic where God is the author, there is only chaos.

 

[FHII]

I don't want to debate the use of this system or philosophy or rules of engagement (for lack of a better term), but I do want to bring up a few questions.

1. What would this system do with one who uses the Socratic Method of reasoning? That is, one who asks a series of questions in order to find a better and concrete conclusion.

2. What of Ecc 12:13 which tells us to hear the conclusion of the whole matter?

I ask these first two questions because it seems to me that one could dismiss an arguement too early. In other words, someone can make a statement which to you may not be relevant when if you'd hold your peace, the relevence will appear.

3. What shall we do with the apostles, servants and even Jesus himself who appear (at least on the surface) to violate such rules?

I have 4 examples in mind, but let me expound on one: In Matthew 12 we find the Pharisees criticizing Jesus and his disciples for picking corn and preparing it on the Sabbath. Jesus starts his reply by talking about David eating the shewbread. Now, he (Jesus) quickly offers a second point and then a third to make his entire response valid. But initially, he was talking about David and the shewbread while the Pharisees were talking about working on the Sabbath. That alone seems tp be a red herring arguement. Like I said, Jesus quickly brought it into relevance, but my point is that Jesus did point to sonething else outside the initial complaint. Which of course, brings us back to tge importance of hearing the conclusion.

4. Is it possible that this system could self destruct? Again, lack of a better term. But I have seen questions posted which are baiting in nature. That is, the question is so carefully asked that theree is only one answer which is logical, yet the question itself is flawed? All objections to the question can be dismissed by waving the red herring flag or any other of these fallacy flags. No, I don't have an example to present, but I'm sure that veterans of this board have seen it before.

Again, I'm not looking to debate or argue. My intentions are simply to point out possible problems that might arise. I have no real problem with such a philosophy other than oneshould be careful with it. It seems to me tgat someone could easily hide behind it and ultimately still be wrong.

 

[epostle1]

I don't want to debate the use of this system or philosophy or rules of engagement (for lack of a better term), but I do want to bring up a few questions.

1. What would this system do with one who uses the Socratic Method of reasoning? That is, one who asks a series of questions in order to find a better and concrete conclusion.

2. What of Ecc 12:13 which tells us to hear the conclusion of the whole matter?

I ask these first two questions because it seems to me that one could dismiss an arguement too early. In other words, someone can make a statement which to you may not be relevant when if you'd hold your peace, the relevence will appear.

3. What shall we do with the apostles, servants and even Jesus himself who appear (at least on the surface) to violate such rules?

I have 4 examples in mind, but let me expound on one: In Matthew 12 we find the Pharisees criticizing Jesus and his disciples for picking corn and preparing it on the Sabbath. Jesus starts his reply by talking about David eating the shewbread. Now, he (Jesus) quickly offers a second point and then a third to make his entire response valid. But initially, he was talking about David and the shewbread while the Pharisees were talking about working on the Sabbath. That alone seems tp be a red herring arguement. Like I said, Jesus quickly brought it into relevance, but my point is that Jesus did point to sonething else outside the initial complaint. Which of course, brings us back to tge importance of hearing the conclusion.

4. Is it possible that this system could self destruct? Again, lack of a better term. But I have seen questions posted which are baiting in nature. That is, the question is so carefully asked that theree is only one answer which is logical, yet the question itself is flawed? All objections to the question can be dismissed by waving the red herring flag or any other of these fallacy flags. No, I don't have an example to present, but I'm sure that veterans of this board have seen it before.

Again, I'm not looking to debate or argue. My intentions are simply to point out possible problems that might arise. I have no real problem with such a philosophy other than oneshould be careful with it. It seems to me tgat someone could easily hide behind it and ultimately still be wrong.

Jesus and Paul used the Socratic Method rather frequently. Paul disputed and argued with both Jews and Greeks, as the Bible informs us. Jesus questioned His hearers: often the Pharisees or Sadducees, who disbelieved in Him and in various theological or spiritual truths.

Matthew 6:26-30
This is a series of four socratic-type questions, illustrating the principle of God’s provision by analogy. He feeds birds, flowers (without working at it) that are beautiful, so why worry so much about food and clothing?

Matthew 12:10-11
Here is a socratic question and accompanying “reductio ad absurdum.” He shows that the logical consequences of an extreme adherence to the law lead to the absurdity of a sheep being hurt or dying simply because it is the sabbath day.

Matthew 21:23-27
In this instance, Jesus showed the wrongness of their position through the question that He asked. In truth, John the Baptist was indeed a prophet from God, but they didn’t believe this, hence they couldn’t answer His question, which “trapped” them.

Matthew 22:41-45
The Pharisees reply to the socratic question and then Jesus logically / theologically “traps” them by explaining the difficulty of their position (22:43-45)

John 10:31-36
Jesus asks three brilliant socratic questions: all of which demonstrate the theological bankruptcy and incoherence of the denial of Jesus’ divinity.

In your example of Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus posits 2 Socratic questions. They are not red herrings because both questions is about what the Sabbath is really about.
(edited from this source)

 

[OzSpen]

Remember Saul, Pharisee of Pharisses ,

considered all his learning as dung compared to knowing the risen Lord...after his eyes where opened and when He became Paul.

God is spirit, and the time is when we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

In all His Love

What's the title of the OP? You have given another demonstration of what the OP shows. You have responded with a red herring logical fallacy.

Why is your response here a red herring fallacy? It is because you have presented an irrelevant topic when the topic of the the thread is 'Logical fallacies hijack discussion'. You have tried to divert attention from this topic to try to convince others and me that, like Saul the Pharisee, learning is as dung when compared with knowing the risen Lord. It is deceptive (fallacious) reasoning for these reasons:

1. The topic under discussion is logical fallacies and how they hijack discussion.
2. You have introduced a totally different topic - like Saul, the Pharisee, learning is as dung.
3. Therefore, you have abandoned the topic of this thread. This exposes your diversionary tactic (the red herring fallacy).

Your kind of reasoning sounds spiritual but it really promotes falsehood because your changing the topic of discussion to what you want to talk about does not engage with the arguments presented in the OP, 'Logical fallacies hijack discussion'. It's an example of a dishonest approach to the topic. Your dishonesty is in hijacking the discussion. You have given a perfect example of the topic of the OP.

I urge you to get back to the promotion of truth by dealing with the topic of the OP and not intruding with your own self-generated topic of diversion.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus and Paul used the Socratic Method rather frequently. Paul disputed and argued with both Jews and Greeks, as the Bible informs us. Jesus questioned His hearers: often the Pharisees or Sadducees, who disbelieved in Him and in various theological or spiritual truths.

Matthew 6:26-30
This is a series of four socratic-type questions, illustrating the principle of God’s provision by analogy. He feeds birds, flowers (without working at it) that are beautiful, so why worry so much about food and clothing?

Matthew 12:10-11
Here is a socratic question and accompanying “reductio ad absurdum.” He shows that the logical consequences of an extreme adherence to the law lead to the absurdity of a sheep being hurt or dying simply because it is the sabbath day.

Matthew 21:23-27
In this instance, Jesus showed the wrongness of their position through the question that He asked. In truth, John the Baptist was indeed a prophet from God, but they didn’t believe this, hence they couldn’t answer His question, which “trapped” them.

Matthew 22:41-45
The Pharisees reply to the socratic question and then Jesus logically / theologically “traps” them by explaining the difficulty of their position (22:43-45)

John 10:31-36
Jesus asks three brilliant socratic questions: all of which demonstrate the theological bankruptcy and incoherence of the denial of Jesus’ divinity.

In your example of Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus posits 2 Socratic questions. They are not red herrings because both questions is about what the Sabbath is really about.
(edited from this source)

Yours is another example of a red herring logical fallacy. If you want to engage with another topic, start a new thread. Instead, you have hijacked discussion with the self-generation of your own topic. You have given a perfect example of how your response hijacks discussion - and is a red herring fallacy. It is fallacious (deceptive) reasoning because of what it does to discussions.

What is the topic of the OP? 'Logical fallacies hijack discussion'. That's exactly what you have attempted to do.

 

[OzSpen]

Fallacies are annoying and do not allow for discussion. I approach them each differently depending especially on the setting and the user of the fallacy. What must be done without question is to get the guilty party to understand they are unfairly or illogically arguing, and have them stop using that method for continuation of proper discussion or argumentation. Sometimes that is explaining to them what they are doing in simple terms and giving a relative example. Sometimes that is naming the fallacy they are using pointing them to that definition, yet here you may be deemed as a "know it all". Sometimes all you can do is discontinue the discussion.

Here is a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

justaname,

Thank you for your perceptive observations. I endorse them.

If I am regarded as a 'know it all' for starting this topic, such an assessment creates a straw man fallacy.

My one and only reason for starting this topic has been that I've seen Christians on CyB using logical fallacies and they don't seem to know what this does to jeopardise reasonable conversation. Logical fallacies are used to divert attention away from the topic being discussed. That's what we have seen with some posts on this thread.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I agree.
We must take care how we conduct ourselves, even here, in a "safe Christian environment"....after all, this is the internet, and we can't be sure that everyone we meet, even in a forum like this one, is what he or she claims to be.
One thing that immediately makes me suspicious is when someone hides details such as his/her gender, or marital status, or even their age.
Of course I don't expect folks to reveal their address, or such data...but when they won't even tell you if they are male or female, my antennae go up.

Does anyone else feel that way?

The Barrd,

As to hiding personal details, that doesn't relate to the OP. That's a matter of transparency with regard to personal matters. It can create an artificial environment where certain details are not revealed. However, there may be legitimate reasons for this that we do not know.

However, it could be creating a straw man fallacy by which a person creates a view of himself/herself that is false.