Logic can be a valuable tool for Christians to defend their faith. But mistakes in reasoning can derail even the best argument.
We will close out the logical fallacy series with two of the most common fallacies that occur in arguments about origins.
This occurs when a person misrepresents an opponent’s position and then proceeds to refute that misrepresentation rather than what the opponent actually claims.
Essentially, the faulty appeal to authority is the argument that a claim is true simply because someone else believes it.
The ad hominmen fallacy is so named because it directs an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself.
A person commits this fallacy when he or she claims that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities—when, in fact, there is a third option.
The complex question is the interrogative form of begging the question—when the arguer attempts to persuade by asking a loaded question.
With the question-begging epithet, the arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic.
This fallacy is committed when a person merely assumes what he is attempting to prove, or when the premise of an argument actually depends upon its conclusion.
Most words have more than one meaning, but only one of these meanings will properly fit the given context.
Reification is attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract.
Logic is a very valuable tool, particularly for the Christian who wants to defend his or her faith better.
No results found in Logical Fallacies Series.