How to fight an atheist - and win straight. They always make these mistakes
How to fight an atheist - and win straight. They always make these mistakes
The list was prepared by Jan Lewandowski ( Theologos.pl) . We encourage everyone to read it, so as not to be accidentally misled by the rhetorical tricks used by our opponents in the discussion. This makes it easier for us to convince unfortunate people who do not believe in God that Jesus Christ is Lord. The list is long, but it is worth reading it very quietly and returning to it to establish the basis of discussions with wandering in the darkness of godlessness.
***
These memes (model units of cultural information) exist in their minds regardless of a specific person and latitude. They constitute their common worldview heritage and only a few exceptions among them do not use these memes. It is worth knowing the most common logical errors occurring in the most common arguments of atheists and rationalists in order to be able to simply and effectively defend against their massive attacks.
The index below can therefore be a kind of handy help in discussions. Let's get down to business. Below, I arrange the individual logical errors in a fairly loose order. Certain examples may be repeated when discussing different logical errors, because sometimes there are several logical errors in one sentence at the same time.
1. Argumentum ad ignorantiam
This logical fallacy arises when someone asserts something on the basis of no evidence for the existence of something or when he claims something on the basis of no evidence against the existence of something.
Example:
There is no evidence that God exists, so it can be concluded that God does not exist.
This mistake is not made only when applied to a law where there is a presumption of innocence (someone is innocent until proven guilty). It is worth mentioning that believers themselves often make this logical error when they say, for example
, Prove to me that God does not exist.
It is important to know that such claims are argumentum ad ignorantiam and should therefore be consistently avoided because they are clearly logically wrong. To illustrate this, imagine a situation where someone says:
Prove to me that the aliens did not secretly take over the US government. You can not do it? So aliens have taken over the US government.
Related to the argumentum ad ignorantiam is another common mistake made by rationalists and atheists towards Christianity and the Bible - ex silentio argumentation. This error always occurs when someone argues on the basis of missing data. Here are the most common examples of such logically misguided arguments:
Paul knew nothing of Jesus' earthly life, since he wrote nothing about it [1].
The Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian forgery in the work of Flavius, because the Fathers of the Church before Eusebius did not refer to this passage, which they therefore apparently did not find in the work of Flavius. And if they didn't find him there, he wasn't there [2].
Most first-century non-Christian authors do not mention Jesus, so Jesus did not exist.
Rationalists sometimes explicitly admit that they are relying on a logically wrong argument ex silentio, without apparently realizing that this is a logical fallacy. One of them writes, for example, in the summary of his argument on the evidence regarding the existence of Jesus in the first century, that "this argument ex silentio is very strong" [3]. This sounds grotesque in the light of logic, because a logically wrong argument cannot be "strong" at the same time. Another rationalist commits a similar paralogism by writing that an argumentum ex silentio is imposed on him [4]. This error also takes the form of what Anglo-Saxons call the argument from the negative. This error arises when someone claims that a knowledge system overthrows another knowledge system simply because it is more accurate than it.
Examples:
The theory of evolution refutes the concept of divine creation because it is more accurate and better confirmed.
Atheism refutes theism because it is based on more reasonable and logical reasoning.
Science is able to refute religion because the scientific method is more accurate in arriving at the truth.
The spontaneous theory of the origin of life from inanimate matter is true, as opposed to the theory of creation, because it is researched by scientists, and they are very precise and exact by nature.
2. Argumentum ad hominem (also called ad personam).
This logical error is very common in the arguments of rationalists and atheists (unfortunately, Christians also make mistakes of this type very often). It is always committed when, instead of arguing with someone else's argument, an attack is made on a person or their credibility.
Examples:
This was written by a creationist, so you can ignore the polemic with him, because he is definitely preaching some nonsense.
3. Argumentum ad populum
This error occurs when we try to prove the validity of our claim by referring to what a community thinks.
Examples:
The Bible is a collection of myths, nonsense, and lies that most educated people and scientists today believe.
God does not exist, many wise people living today and in the past know that. It is enough to mention that the greatest creators of our civilization were atheists.
Most scientists believe in the theory of evolution, so it is true.
Unfortunately, many believers also make this mistake. For example, the following statements are often found:
Humanity has always believed in God, so it is foolish to say that He does not exist.
Many wise and educated people believed that the Bible was right.
Such reasoning should be strictly avoided.
4. Argumentum ad numerum
Examples:
Most religious scholars believe that the Evangelists did not present the truth about Jesus, but only the faith of the communities of that time. Therefore, this solution should be considered as correct.
There is no God, it is enough to note that most scientists in the world are atheists.
The theory of evolution is true because most scientists agree with it.
Creationists are wrong because most evolutionists think so.
Most biblical scholars do not translate this line like the Bible you are quoting.
This logical error was made by the guru of rationalists and atheists of the Polish People's Republic, Zenon Kosidowski [5]. Especially often we can find this eristic trick in Deschner, who in one of his books writes, for example: "It is commonly believed that the oldest Palestinian Christians did not write a single word of Jesus" [6]. "As almost all researchers suppose, Paul did not know the historical Jesus" [7].
In other words, this error almost always occurs when in a given sentence we find phrases such as "after all, the majority thinks that".
5. Argumentum ad verecundiam
This error occurs when we claim that something is true only because someone else (e.g. an authority) claims it. We distinguish two types of this error: the first occurs when someone relies only on the opinion of an authority rather than on an argument; the second occurs when someone claims an incompetent authority in a given field. In the latter case, we are talking about the logical error of appeal to unqualified authority.
Examples:
Richard Dawkins, the famous biologist, is an atheist. He has argued many times that God cannot exist.
Unfortunately, believers also make this mistake. Sometimes you hear sentences like this:
Even Newton believed in God.
Such formulations should be avoided in one's own argumentation, and the opinions of authorities should be cited at best as merely a curiosity or an illustration of their arguments. Dawkins is not a theologian, so his statements about God do not have the rank of authority and quoting them in theological disputes is logically wrong. It is worth mentioning that the error of logical appeal to unqualified authority was often committed in the Polish EU campaign, when the opinion of many famous people of Polish culture (actors, writers, sportsmen, including M. Kondrat) was cited as an alleged argument for Poland's accession to the EU. After all, these people are not specialists in the field of integration, so their opinion on this matter was not worth any more than the opinion of those who were the recipients of their appeals.
6. Argumentum ad traditio (antiquatitam)
This error occurs when we argue that something must be true because such and such views were previously held.
Examples:
The Jews did not believe in the Trinity, so the Christians falsified the religion revealed to Moses.
7. Argumentum ad novitam
This is the opposite of the error just mentioned. The error is that one argues that his reasoning is newer, more modern, progressive, etc.
Examples:
Religion represents old-fashioned and out-of-date reasoning. Modern reasoning, scientific, no longer refers to God in translating the world around us. Modern people dismiss God and religion as old-fashioned and out-of-date reasoning.
It is worth mentioning that this logical error is probably most common today in advertising, where the recipient is unambiguously suggested that a product is better only because it is newer than the previous ones. Also among IT specialists and technology enthusiasts there is a conviction that a newer model of a device or program is better than its predecessor. Meanwhile, it is often the case that, for example, a newer program eliminates only some of the errors of the older version, multiplying new errors and sometimes even deprives its new users of the convenience they could use by using some of the valued functions of the old program.
8. Argumentum ad misericordiam
This logical error can be found very often in the arguments of rationalists and atheists. This error always arises when we argue referring to the feelings and emotions of the listener.
Examples:
God allows innocent beings to suffer. It is unwise to believe in such a cruel God.
This reasoning is logically wrong, because it is philosophically possible for there to be a God of theists or deists (therefore not necessarily Christians) that allows suffering.
Another example:
The Church turned out to be a false religion because it has inquisition and crusades on its conscience.
9. Dicto simpliciter (also known as hasty generalization )
This error occurs when we generalize and generalize something based on a small number of cases.
Examples:
I have shown some errors in the Bible. Needless to say, as a document, the Bible is completely unreliable (which is to mean that since I have shown that there are a few sentences in the Bible that are not true, then all sentences in the Bible, or at least most of them, are not true).
My friend is a Christian and he sins as often as there is no God.
Christians are very hypocritical people.
This error sometimes takes a slightly different form, known as:
10. Fallacy of composition
It arises when someone claims that the whole possesses the features of only a part of the whole. Rationalists very often make this mistake when, because of some difficulty or defect in theism (often only imagined by them), they immediately dismiss the entire system as wrong.
Examples:
This one reason alone is enough to dismiss theism as a meaningless worldview system.
This error is often found among rationalists and atheists who, after denying one or more arguments of theists (but not all), claim that they have thus "refuted all theism."
A very common logical error occurring in opponents of the Bible and Christianity. It is committed when the same word is used first in one sense and then in another. It arises when someone uses in his argumentation premises based on the same words, but having different meanings.
Examples:
Children believe in leprechauns and Christians believe in God. If you believe in God, it's like you believe in dwarfs.
The word "faith" is used here twice, but it is an equation, because faith in God is not the same faith as a child's faith and completely not based on anything concrete in dwarfs, because faith in God is always based on some premises and various arguments ( even if they do not convince someone), and the belief in gnomes is not based on anything like that. The word "faith" therefore has two different meanings, but in this sentence it is used in only one, identified sense, so someone who formulates such a sentence commits a logical error of the equation.
12. Fallacy of division
This error is the inverse of the fallacy of composition error. It is always committed when the parts are argued on the basis of the whole. This error is very common among rationalists and atheists.
Examples:
Throughout history, Christians have done much evil in the name of intolerance. All Christians today bear these faults of the Church on their conscience.
13. False dilemma (sometimes also referred to as bifurcation, disjunctive syllogism )
A logical error that occurs very often in rationalist arguments. It always arises when someone claims that there are only two options for adopting a solution in a given matter, although in fact there are more of them.
Examples:
Science or religion. If you reject science, you will have to believe in biblical fairy tales, Santa Claus and good spirits.
Either you take the theory of evolution to be true, or you are a creationist who naively believes that God made the world in six days.
This is a false dilemma because (regarding the second example): a) one can believe in the theory of evolution and be a Christian who accepts the biblical account of creation (then interprets the account literally); b) it is possible to disbelieve neither in creation nor in the theory of evolution, as, for example, some agnostics do. We therefore have more than two options in these cases. Regarding the first example: a) you can recognize science and be religious at the same time; b) it is possible to believe neither in the credibility of science nor in the credibility of religion (like postmodernists). So again we have at this point the false dilemma of limiting the solution to only two possibilities, although we have more solutions. Let's also look at another common example of the same logical fallacy in rationalist argument:
If God is omniscient, we have no free will because God knows what we will do anyway. If God doesn't know what we're going to do, we have free will, but then God is not omniscient.
This dilemma is apparent and it is not just these two possibilities. For the knowledge of God is not known to us and therefore we are in no way limited in the decision of our will by the knowledge of God. So there is a third possibility: God knows what we will do, but we still have free will. Let's look at another false dilemma, often put forward in the form of allegations by atheists and rationalists about theism:
If you believe in God, why don't you also believe in Dwarfs?
This question assumes that if someone believes in God, he should also believe in dwarfs, and there is no third option. However, this is a false dilemma, because faith in God is based on certain premises and arguments (even if they do not convince someone, they are presented in this case), and faith in dwarfs is based only on pure child's imagination, which does not it demands any premises and arguments. So one has nothing to do with the other.
14. Ignoratio elenchi
This is one of the most common logical errors not only among rationalists, but in general in many polemics it can be found all the time. It has different forms, but the common feature of all of them is something that can be described as deviating from the topic, diverting the discussion or reasoning into the wrong track, etc. Then we also talk about a special variant of this error - the so-called red herring.
Examples of red herring error:
Apologist: The Gospels were written 40 years after Jesus' death. Back then, there were many eyewitnesses to Jesus' activity who were able to provide material for the Evangelists. Similarly to the Warsaw Uprising: 60 years have passed since this event, and yet there are still many witnesses who remember the details of those events very carefully.
Skeptic No. 1: But today there are also many false combatants who pretend to be only the heroes of the Warsaw Uprising.
Skeptic No. 2: The whole world heard about the Warsaw Uprising, and then the whole world did not hear about Jesus (only the province collapsed).
Skeptic No. 1 and No. 2 make the red herring mistake, because neither the fact that there are false combatants, nor that the whole world immediately heard about the Warsaw Uprising, does not negate the merits, namely that there are, however, such combatants who remember very well events from 60 years ago. Both of the above answers are therefore a deviation from the topic, and therefore an obvious logical error of red herring.
Other examples of ignoratio elenchi:
Rationalism and materialism are seriously lame in their assumptions because of the petitio principii. However, other worldviews are probably not better in this respect.
Rationalism is a science-based worldview. Every reasonable and educated person should therefore adhere to this worldview.
15. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc
Error closely related to the previous one. It arises when someone mistakenly identifies something as the cause of a phenomenon just on the basis that it coincided with the phenomenon.
Examples:
It is probably no coincidence that sexual deviance and pedophilia are most developed in Catholic monasteries. Catholicism, then, causes these deviations.
16. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
This error always arises when someone wrongly claims that something was the cause of a phenomenon solely on the basis that it preceded the phenomenon.
Examples:
The best evidence that the Bible is inconsistent is when we break Christianity.
17. Tu quoque
This error arises when, instead of responding to the opponent's argument at a given moment, we try to find the same errors in him.
Example:
Claim: Prove that the rationalist worldview is not based on pure faith on these points.
Answer: Or maybe you first prove that you have some evidence for the existence of God or miracles.
18. Ipse dixit
This error arises when someone tries to justify his view on a given matter by referring only to his own opinion.
Example:
Rationalism and atheism is a scientific worldview. It's obvious.
Science has long shown that there is no God. It is obvious.
The same applies to the error known as ad lapidem.
19. Non causa pro causa
This error is made when a thesis is rejected solely on the basis of its alleged consequences, but which do not actually result from it.
Example:
Christianity as an idea has been discredited because its teachings cause much suffering in the world, especially the Crusades and the Inquisition (However, it is not the teachings of Christianity that are responsible for these errors, but their misinterpretation over a period of time).
20. Petitio principii (also known as circulus vitiosus, circulus in definiendo, idem per idem, tautologia )
This is perhaps the most common error among rationalists and atheists (and not only among them). We always do it when we try to justify something only with what is yet to be justified.
Examples:
Only through science can we discover the truth about the world, because only science is suitable for this.
The only credible cognitive method is the empirical one, because only with it can one come to know reality reliably.
Rationalism and atheism are scientific worldviews because the scientific method implies rationalism.
Only reason enables us to distinguish falsity from reality, since reason has such a capacity by itself (in order to justify the claim about the cognitive ability of reason, one must refer to reason itself, which is obviously a vicious circle).
Impressions tell us about real things because we experience these things.
In the latter case, we have an intermediate vicious circle. An indirect vicious circle occurs when a premise is proved not by a direct inference yet to be proven, but by some synonym for that premise or by some consequence of it.
This logical fallacy arises when we try to overthrow a knowledge system with assumptions that claim to be true within that knowledge system. Rationalists and atheists make this mistake when, for example, they try to debunk the credibility of the Bible, while at the same time accepting parts of it as true. In the latter situation, we are also talking about a logical error known as corrupt source.
22. Contradictory premises
This error always arises when someone in his reasoning makes contradictory assumptions. Such an often cited and best illustration of this error is one of the most beloved and popular incorrect arguments against theism among atheists, known as the stone dilemma that God cannot lift.
Example:
If God is almighty, then he should be able to create a stone that he cannot pick up. But if God can create a stone that He cannot lift, then God is not all-powerful.
Such argumentation is logically incorrect and contains contradictory premises, because the first premise in this reasoning assumes that God's omnipotence does not allow for the existence of a stone that He could not lift, while the second presupposes the existence of such a stone. If there is a God who can do anything, including any stone, then the existence of such a God presupposes the impossibility of a stone that cannot be lifted, and vice versa. Maintaining both of the aforementioned premises at the same time, however, is logically incorrect, as both are contradictory. It is worth adding that in the light of catalogs of logical errors, only the very attempt to pose the aforementioned God and stone dilemma is treated as another logical error, called meaningless questions.
23. Statement of conversion
This logical error arises when someone claims to have changed a view because he knows it better and is therefore an authority on the matter. Rationalists and atheists often claim to be authorities in the field of the Christian faith because, for example, they were once Catholics. Therefore, they can allegedly criticize it competently. However, this reasoning is clearly wrong, because someone who abandoned a view did not have to do so because he knew it well. On the contrary, he might have done so precisely because he had insufficiently or wrongly understood this view.
24. False analogs (also called boolean ).
This error arises when we argue with an analogy that is inadequate. Consider one of the examples above:
If you believe in God, why don't you believe in Dwarfs too?
This erroneous reasoning can also be presented in the following points:
a) you believe in God,
b) you believe in dwarfs,
c) therefore, believing in God is the same faith as believing in dwarfs.
This is called weak analogs. This reasoning, however, is exactly the same logical fallacy as this reasoning:
a) John is a mammal,
b) Azor is a mammal,
c) so John is Azor.
The reasoning presented above assumes that if someone believes in God, he should also believe in dwarfs. However, this is a false analogy, because belief in God is based on some premises and arguments (which may be debatable, but does not change the fact that they exist), and belief in dwarfs is based only on pure child's imagination, which does not require any premises or arguments.
25. "A is based on B" fallacies ("A is a type of B" fallacies)
As above.
26. Reductio ad absurdum (slippery slope)
This error arises when, by means of simplification, we reduce the whole to some part, creating a caricature of it, having little to do with reality. This error also arises when we recognize that something is wrong just because it sometimes incidentally appears to be associated with something that, in turn, we certainly consider to be wrong (but it does not result from it).
Examples:
If we believe the Bible today, are we to believe that the earth is flat tomorrow?
If we believe the Bible today, are we also to believe that God created the world in 6 days?
If we introduce creationism in schools today, tomorrow we will have to start teaching them about flat earth.
This argument is incorrect because the Bible only seems to teach about the flatness of the earth and that God created the world in 6 days. A competent reading of the texts contained therein, including the literary genres contained in it, shows that it does not teach anything like that, or that the recognition of the Bible must lead to such conclusions (the word "day" in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew yom) may mean also some very long period, not necessarily a 24 hour day, etc.). The Bible is not a science textbook, but it communicates theological truths in pictorial scenes. As for the last example, this is a common "argument" found among rationalists and atheists, but it is nonsensical, as you can see with the naked eye. After all, how is the concept of flatness supposed to result from creation science?
27. Argument by selective reading
This error always arises when someone polemics only with the weakest arguments of the opponent and omits the strongest ones. Rationalists and atheists very often engage in polemics only with selected arguments of their opponents.
28. The argument by laziness
Such a logical fallacy arises when one argues about something without having taken the trouble to get acquainted with it deeply. Atheists and rationalists often speak up about the complex issues of religion and theology, although they often don't really want to delve into these areas at all.
29. Paradigm of cultural fallacy
This error arises when someone believes that a knowledge system has exclusive right to judge the validity of other worldviews. Atheists and rationalists very often make this logical error when they claim (wrongly) that the only worldview through which one can judge the validity of other worldviews (including the validity of theism) is the "scientific worldview."
Example:
Only science is the only system of knowledge that can lead us to the truth about religion and verify the validity of other worldviews.
30. Overprecision
This error arises when we reject a concept just because it is imprecise. Atheists often reject the concept of God because of this.
Example:
The concept of God is not entirely clear and precise in individual religions, so it can be rejected.
31. Occam's razor fallacy
Occam's razor - this is one of the most common logical errors in the arguments of atheists and rationalists. This principle states that "the simplest explanation is the best" and "we should not introduce unnecessary concepts or entities into our explanations" (for atheists, such an unnecessary being is, of course, God). The problem is that by "unnecessary entities" everyone can understand something else. For some, God may be an unnecessary being in explaining the world, but for others, on the contrary, matter may be such a being (e.g. for a solipsist), which for materialists and atheists is in turn something necessary in explaining the world. Nor is it known what is meant by "the simplest explanation". The same explanation can be both the simplest and extremely complex from different points of view. So this principle is useless in itself, for it doesn't really define anything. It is completely imprecise (this razor cuts freely, according to the subjective tastes of the user, which differ from person to person), and thus it does not serve as a specific criterion. Furthermore, when using Occam's razor, we are committing a logical fallacy known as reductive fallacy. This error arises when we reduce our explanation to a mere aspect. Atheists make a logical fallacy of reductive fallacy in using Ocham's razor for God because they claim that God should be removed from their reflections on the world, which they believe is only matter. and thus does not fit as a concrete criterion. Furthermore, when using Occam's razor, we are committing a logical fallacy known as reductive fallacy. This error arises when we reduce our explanation to a mere aspect. Atheists make a logical fallacy of reductive fallacy in using Ocham's razor for God because they claim that God should be removed from their reflections on the world, which they believe is only matter. and thus does not fit as a concrete criterion. Furthermore, when using Occam's razor, we are committing a logical fallacy known as reductive fallacy. This error arises when we reduce our explanation to a mere aspect. Atheists make a logical fallacy of reductive fallacy in using Ocham's razor for God because they claim that God should be removed from their reflections on the world, which they believe is only matter.
32. Historical parallelism
This error arises when someone indicates, solely on the basis of similarities, that the ideas were borrowed. However, as the well-known Latin maxim proclaims, the analogy non est genealogy. Atheists and rationalists very often make this mistake when, on the basis of the similarities of Christian ideas with ideas of other religions, they infer about borrowing.
Examples:
There are many similarities between the cult of Mithra and Christianity, so Christianity is a parody of Mithraism. [8]
There are many similarities between the teachings of Buddhism and Christianity, and Christianity therefore borrowed its teachings from Buddhism. [9]
Canaanite beliefs are similar to Hebrew beliefs, so the Hebrews stole their religious concepts from the Canaanites (this logical error, unfortunately, also appears frequently in the scientific literature [10], dealing with the comparative analysis of religion).
Some ideas of the Essen community of Qumran are similar to those of the early Christian community. The Christians therefore borrowed these ideas from the Essenes.
33. Humor or ridicule (also called galileo gambit ).
This error arises when someone, instead of engaging in polemics with the opponent's arguments, only jokes or mocks him in order to overcome his arguments and give the impression that the opponent's arguments are ridiculous or stupid, and therefore irrelevant. This is very common among skeptics, rationalists and atheists who, instead of engaging in polemics with arguments, only try to ridicule and defame it, without engaging in any polemics with it.
Example:
This argument is idiotic and pointless, it is a waste of time to engage in any polemics with it.
If your opponent ever mocks or mocks your argument without engaging in any polemics with it, you can (and even should, to successfully defend yourself) retort that he is committing a logical error of the Galileo gambit.
34. Ex concessis
This error arises when someone claims that the idea represented by someone is wrong, because it was followed by someone morally compromised. Atheists very often accuse Christians of compromising their faith precisely because someone with low morals was a supporter of it.
Example:
How can you be a Christian! After all, Hitler was one too!
35. Double standards (also known as special pleading )
This error always arises when we legitimately fail to apply to our reasoning the principles we require of the reasoning of others. Atheists and rationalists often make this mistake.
Examples:
We have no proof that life on earth was created by some transcendent creator (God), so life on earth came into existence by chance (however, we also have no evidence for the latter, so a person making such a statement - very common among atheists - he refutes his own position and commits the double standard logical error).
The New Testament does not tell us the historical truth about Jesus (However, it often happens that the author of this type of statement himself simultaneously refers to the teachings of the NT about Jesus, when it suits him on another occasion, thus committing the double standard logical error).
36. Argument to the future (also known as appeal to the hope or untestability fallacy )
This error is made when one claims that something can be proved in the future, although it is now impossible to do so. Atheists and rationalists often use such illogical arguments.
Examples:
Science in the future will explain the world around us to the end, so we no longer need a religion that does not explain anything to us.
In the future, science will prove that life arose completely by accident. We will no longer have to explain that God created them.
It is worth noting that such a logical error also often appeared in media journalism about Poland's accession to the EU. One of the most frequently quoted apparent justifications for our accession to the EU was that one day we will see (or our children or grandchildren will see) that it has paid off. Of course, the authors of such statements (including many members of our society who repeated this slogan) made a logical error in the argument to the future.
37. Hypothesis contrary to fact
This type of error arises when someone argues on the basis that something might have happened, but at the same time there is no indication that it has happened or even contradicts it. Atheists and rationalists very often argue against Christianity and the Bible like "something could have happened."
Examples:
The Gospels were written several decades after Jesus' death. They were to convey the truth about the life of Jesus. However, human memory can be unreliable. During this time, the witnesses did not remember well the events that the Evangelists had described. So the Gospels do not tell the truth about the life of Jesus.
We have mostly only late copies of the originals of individual books of the Bible. Copyists tried to faithfully copy what they copied. However, during the copying, these texts could have been falsified. So we must recognize that we do not have reliable copies of the Bible.
38. Secundum quid
This is basically a variation of the hasty generalization argument mentioned above. This error always arises when someone generalizes something on the basis of individual cases. Rationalists very often make this mistake in relation to the Bible, for example:
Copies of the Bible were forged, after all, in ancient times, copyists sometimes forged what they were copying.
39. Argument from personal incredulity (also called relativist fallacy )
This logical error is always made when someone claims that something is impossible just because it seems impossible to him. Atheists and rationalists very often make this mistake in their polemics with theism.
Example:
The existence of God is a ridiculous concept to me, hence I believe that people have no reasonable basis for believing in God.
Jesus couldn't do these miracles, I can't imagine it at all, it's ridiculous.
This logical error occurs when someone omits some important information that undermines his inference.
Example:
In Jeremiah 7: 22-23, God stated that during the exodus nothing was commanded by the Jews regarding blood sacrifices and burnt offerings. However, the text from Ex 20:24, where during the exodus, God orders the Jews to offer a burnt offering, contradicts this.
There is a fallacy of exclusion error in this reasoning, because skeptics making such an argument often rely on Polish translations of the Holy Scriptures (Millennium Bible, Warsaw Bible), which do not include the word "day" in Jer. 7: 22-23. The original text, however, contains the word "day" in this place (Beyom - literally "on"), hence it is known that God did not command blood sacrifices and burnt offerings on the day of leaving Egypt, because the command mentioned in Ex 20.24 regarding such victims was released only much later.
Another example:
Hitler was a baptized Catholic, so Catholicism is co-responsible for his crimes (while it is completely overlooked here that Hitler ceased to be a Catholic by choice in his early youth).
41. The natural law fallacy
We always commit this logical error when we build our arguments on the so-called the laws of nature. Rationalists very often argue in this way, stripping human dignity from its humane lining and pointing out that we are really indistinguishable from animals.
Examples:
We are only animals, so the Bible is wrong when it puts man above animals.
In the animal world, there is a law of brutal struggle for survival. The Christian law prescribing the pursuit of altruism is therefore utopian because it is against that law.
42. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy
This logical error is very common among rationalists and atheists. It arises whenever someone claims that his argument, or the principle on which it is based, is true because someone who believes it is the true representative of that principle.
Examples:
Professor Maciej Giertych is a biologist, but he does not accept the theory of evolution. However, a real scientist always accepts the theory of evolution, so Giertych is not a real scientist.
A true scientist should not believe in God. However, if he does, he is not a real scientist.
43. Reification (hypostatization) - this error is also called anti-conceptual mentality
. This error always arises when someone treats an abstract as concrete.
Example:
Sin is a real reality and should have tangible effects. However, I do sin regularly and feel no such effects. So the concept of sin is wrong.
44. Non-support
This error always arises when someone draws a conclusion on the basis of too few premises or on the basis of premises that are selected biased.
Example:
In Christianity from the very beginning there was a split into two parties: Peter and Paul. This is evidenced by the conflict between Peter and James, as described in Gal 2: 11-14.
This argument is flawed because in Gal 2: 11-14 only one small incident occurred between the two Apostles mentioned. One incident, however, does not in any way indicate a permanent conflict, because the problem could be solved quickly and the dispute could be resolved.
45. Barking cat
This logical error always arises when we say that we accept a principle of operation of an institution, provided that it changes its fundamental principles so that they suit us. However, such a change is impossible because these rules are fundamental and to abandon these rules would mean the end of the action and sense of this institution (hence the name of this logical error, which refers to the "barking cat", since the cat cannot begin to bark, it would be against its nature). Atheists and rationalists very often postulate that the Church should change some of its principles (often fundamental to the existence of the Church) in order to become more acceptable to others. However, the Church often cannot abandon these principles, because they constitute "to be or not to be" for the purpose of the existence of this institution.
Examples:
The Church should accept homosexuality, then I would have no objection to it.
The church should divorce, then I would like its teachings more.
46. Fantasy projection
This error is made when arguing solely on the basis of one's own imagination, although there are no other arguments for that.
Example:
If the scribes were copying the Bible, they must have falsified it. So we should reject the Bible because it is counterfeit.
The Gospels are full of mythological stories, their authors faked the biography of Jesus that was completely different (the author of such a statement, however, is not able to provide any historical proof of it, because we have no sources from the 1st century confirming his conception, he argues only based on his own imagination).
47. Spurious causation
This error arises when we see a cause-and-effect relationship where it is only apparent. Atheists and rationalists (and not only that, it also applies to various sectarians) very often make this mistake when they blame Christianity for almost all the evil of the modern world.
Examples:
The Church is responsible for dozens of wars today, including the last two world wars.
The church today is responsible for many prejudices, mostly racial.
48. Gravity game
This logical fallacy arises when someone claims that a theory should be proven until it is widely accepted.
Example:
The Intelligent Design Theory is not widely recognized among scientists as being empirically proven, as is the case with the theory of evolution, so we should not take it for granted.
49. Appeal to gravity This
name is similar to the previous error, but is actually a different error. It always arises when someone claims that his argument is mature and serious, and therefore should be taken for granted.
Example:
No serious biblical scholar considers the Bible to be a source of truthful information.
The serious scientist accepts the theory of evolution.
This logical fallacy is made when a significant cause of a phenomenon is overlooked and instead focuses on less immediate and compelling causes.
Example:
The Church is responsible for the Inquisition.
Such a claim is partially true, but when it is judged in terms of a whole, then it is false. For the error of the inquisition was responsible only for the units of the medieval Church who misinterpreted the teaching of Jesus.
51. Appeal to rugged individualism
This logical fallacy always arises when someone refers to the fact that his argument is shared by an elite minority.
Examples:
It was always so that the majority did not think and the thinkers were in the minority, as Bertrand Russell once remarked. That is why it is perfectly understandable why the majority of people in Poland are non-thinking Catholics and the thinking minority are atheists.
52. Appeal to utility
This logical error arises when someone tries to refute someone's thesis merely by claiming that the proponent of that thesis defends it only for personal or emotional reasons. Atheists and rationalists very often make this logical error when they say, for example:
Humanity began to believe in God because it could not explain the phenomena surrounding it, such as lightning, natural disasters and other phenomena.
People believe in God because they are weak.
Faith in God gives you hope for life after death. That's the only reason people believe it.
Faith in God and prayer are psychological support in life's problems. That's why people are so eager to believe.
You defend this thesis only because the Church teaches so.
53. Canceling hypotheses
This logical error always arises when someone only creates another hypothesis to justify a hypothesis, instead of giving some premises for the first hypothesis.
Example:
Atheist: Life on earth came about by chance.
Teista: How do you know?
Atheist: I cannot prove it experimentally yet, but it can be assumed that in the future the scientific laboratories will be developed enough to prove it in the end.
This logical error is very similar to the error known as speculative evidence.
54. Appeal to guilt
This logical fallacy always arises when someone tries to refute someone's claim simply by making the one who defends it feel guilty.
Example:
You defend the Church, aren't you ashamed? After all, the Church is guilty of many human suffering in the world.
55. Unidentified experts
This logical error is very common among rationalists. It always arises when someone refers to authorities without specifying who they are, which makes it impossible for us to check whether they are really authorities in this field.
Example:
Reliable scientists believe that the Bible was tampered with (and it was not told which scientists).
56. Argumentum ab annis
This error arises when we argue that something is worthless because it is old. Often atheists and rationalists argue that against the Bible and Christianity.
Examples:
The Church is still stuck with her teachings in the Middle Ages, her teachings have become obsolete in the light of modern progress.
The Bible contains old and out of date information about the world.
57. Categorical fallacy
This mistake is made when someone invokes another concept (or set of concepts) in support of their concept (or set of concepts) that does not fit with it at all. Atheists and rationalists make this mistake when they say that atheism is based on science. Meanwhile, atheism cannot be based on science, because the area of interest of science is neither God nor transcendence, as is the case with atheism. Science cannot negate what it does not do and what is beyond its field of interest.
58. Nihilistic fallacy
This error always arises when someone claims to avoid taking anything on faith in order to avoid confusion in their cognitive process. Atheists and rationalists very often say so (especially when they have the opportunity to ridicule theists for their faith in God). However, such a position is self-refuting because it cannot be assumed on the basis of any evidence that nothing should be taken on faith in order to avoid error. Such a position is in itself initially accepted by faith. It is worth adding that it is also impossible to build any system of knowledge without prior assumptions and principles that can only be adopted on faith. The data that reaches us must be interpreted according to some rules. These rules cannot be based on reality itself, facts, because facts are facts only after some interpretation of them. So without interpretation, don't move, without it the facts are disordered, devoid of any useful meaning, and vague. The interpretation itself must, however, be made in the human mind. This in turn must create it on the basis of some assumptions initially made on faith. Still backing up in our reasoning and still asking ourselves how we know it, we must always finally get to the point where we initially take something on faith. There are no facts, then, expressed without theoretical commitment, which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and theoretical commitment cannot exist without some assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way: devoid of any useful meaning and vague. The interpretation itself must, however, be made in the human mind. This in turn must create it on the basis of some assumptions initially made on faith. Still backing up in our reasoning and still asking ourselves how we know it, we must always finally get to the point where we initially take something on faith. There are no facts, then, expressed without theoretical commitment, which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and theoretical commitment cannot exist without some assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way: devoid of any useful meaning and vague. The interpretation itself must, however, be made in the human mind. This in turn must create it on the basis of some assumptions initially made on faith. Still backing up in our reasoning and still asking ourselves how we know it, we must always finally get to the point where we initially take something on faith. There are no facts, then, expressed without theoretical commitment, which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and theoretical commitment cannot exist without some assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way: This in turn must create it on the basis of some assumptions initially made on faith. Still backing up in our reasoning and still asking ourselves how we know it, we must always finally get to the point where we initially take something on faith. There are no facts, then, expressed without theoretical commitment, which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and theoretical commitment cannot exist without some assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way: This in turn must create it on the basis of some assumptions initially made on faith. Still backing up in our reasoning and still asking ourselves how we know it, we must always finally get to the point where we initially take something on faith. There are no facts, then, expressed without theoretical commitment, which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and theoretical commitment cannot exist without some assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way: which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and a theoretical commitment cannot exist without assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way: which today is undisputed even among philosophers of science [11], and a theoretical commitment cannot exist without assumptions made on faith. Nihlistic fallacy can therefore be classified as a logical error, illustrating it this way:
I believe that, to avoid confusion, nothing can be taken on faith.
59. Raising the bar
This error is always made when one demands stronger and stronger evidence for something from his opponent, constantly raising the bar and argumentative requirements, even though the opponent still provides him with the evidence that he previously demanded. This trick is pure social engineering and is intended to discourage the opponent from justifying his position, because no one is able to provide evidence for something indefinitely. Atheists and rationalists very often make this logical error in discussions when they keep making up some pretexts for their opponent's arguments, even though he has already provided the evidence requested of him. If you ever come across a situation in which the skeptic receives the argument he expected from you, and yet does not consider it sufficient, and comes up with increasingly stringent conditions for the "to be or not to be" of that argument, pause and tell him that he is making a logical mistake in raising the bar. You can then withdraw from the discussion without being accused of unfounding your position because your opponent has made a logical error in his argument.
60. Least plausible hypothesis
This logical error arises when we ignore some other and more obvious explanation of a given situation, stubbornly reducing everything to our one interpretation. Rationalists and atheists very often make this mistake in polemics.
Example:
St. Paul wrote almost nothing about the life of Jesus, because he did not know anything about it (meanwhile, St.Paul could write almost nothing about the life of Jesus for various reasons, e.g. because the faithful did not have to repeat the information they already knew from Gospel tradition, or because the subject of Paul's letters did not allow for the possibility of a wider reference to these issues).
61. Pretensious
This logical error always arises when we speak from the position of an omniscient observer who speaks as if from the point of view of everyone. Rationalists and atheists often express themselves in this way.
Examples:
Miracles do not happen anywhere today, so they did not happen in Jesus' day either.
It is worth mentioning that Uta Ranke-Heinemann, so popular among Polish rationalists and atheists, also made this logical error when she wrote:
"In real life, no angels come to any virgins, not today and then neither" [12]. “In fact, no angel has appeared in our daily life to announce great joy to us” [13].
62. Reductive fallacy
This logical error (which I mentioned above when discussing Occam's razor) always arises when someone reduces an explanation to a specific aspect of reality, thus reducing the field of explanations to a predetermined area. Atheists and rationalists very often make this logical error when they argue that religious phenomena should be translated naturalistically, that is, excluding their original supernatural character. Here is one such situation:
"Since, as rationalists, we do not believe that the author is clairvoyant and can predict the future, we need to date the gospel after 70 AD." [14]
The aforementioned logical error also appears in the sentence of Ranke-Heinemann quoted above:
"In real life, no angels come to any virgins, not today, and neither then" [15].
Both of these fragments reduce the described phenomenon to a specific scope of explanations, so there is a logical error of reductive fallacy in them. It is also worth noting that explaining something by making assumptions that limit it to a specific area is part of a vicious cycle. Our "explanation" does not really explain anything to us in this case, because we present the "explanation" that we have previously dictated and agreed in advance ourselves, arbitrarily eliminating the scope of inconvenient or "unnecessary" explanations. Such a vicious circle suffers from rationalist and atheistic explanations which, using Occam's razor, prescribe in advance that all explanations of religious phenomena are to be naturalistic (ie, to exclude the supernatural). Thus, in such an explanation, the output is such and such a result that was adopted in advance before the explanation. So this is some form of a vicious circle, and therefore it is again a logical fallacy.
[2] Such a logical error in many rationalists; see e.g. Z. Poniatowski, Sources for early Christianity, in: Ancient Catholicism as a form of development of early Christianity, ed. J. Keller, Warsaw 1969, p. 71.
[3] Ibid., p. 73.
[4] K. Deschner, I zapiał hen, vol. I, op. Cit., P. 230.
[5] See, for example, Z. Kosidowski, Opowieści Ewangelści, Warszawa 1979, p. 216: "most biblical exegetes [...]". See also: K. Deschner, I re-crowed hens, vol. I, op. Quotation, p. 48: "It is commonly believed that the oldest Palestinian Christians did not write down a single word of Jesus" (italics from JL). See also: ibid., P. 278.
[6] Ibid., P. 48. See also: ibid., P. 278.
[7] Ibid., P. 230 (italics from JL).
[8] A frequent error of logic among rationalists; cf. eg K. Deschner, I crowed a hen again, vol. I, op. cit., p. 102f.
[9] Cf. ibid., P. 88ff.
[10] Cf. e.g. J. Bright, Historia Izrael, Warszawa 1994, p. 173.
[11] Cf. I. Lakatos, Pisma z kosmii empirycznych, Warsaw 1995, p. 14f. This is also noticed by other methodologists of science: "The history of science proves that the program of specific scientific activity is always based on specific philosophical ideas about the world and the process of cognition"; W. Kupcow, A. Panin, Philosophy and science, Warsaw 1976, p. 84. See also ibid., Pp. 85, 95, 106, 108-109.
[12] U. Ranke-Heinemann, Nie and Amen, Gdynia 1994, p. 50.
[13] Ibid., P. 19.
[14] Z. Kosidowski, Opowieści Ewangelści, op. Cit., P. 68.
[15 ] U. Ranke-Heinemann, Nie and Amen, op. Cit., P. 50.
[16] This study made use of such catalogs. Many of the above-described logical errors, for which I used Latin nomenclature, are also cataloged in: W. Kopaliński, Dictionary of foreign words and phrases, Warsaw 1988.