Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 1.3
What you will learn
- Define a logical fallacy and explain why a fallacy can persuade even though it fails.
- Recognize at least fifteen common fallacies and give an example of each.
- Tell a fallacy apart from an argument that is merely weak or disliked.
- Check your own arguments for fallacies before you check anyone else’s.
The big idea
A fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that looks as if it supports a conclusion but does not. Fallacies are common because many of them feel natural, and some have real emotional force. Learning their names is useful, but the name is not the point. The point is to ask, each time, whether the reasons given truly support the conclusion. Apologists in particular should look for fallacies in their own arguments first, because a bad argument for a true claim still harms the claim.
Key terms
- Fallacy
- A mistake in reasoning that makes an argument fail to support its conclusion, even though it may seem persuasive.
- Formal fallacy
- A mistake in the logical form of an argument, which makes it invalid whatever the subject.
- Informal fallacy
- A mistake in the content or use of an argument, such as irrelevance or ambiguity, not in its form alone.
- Ad hominem
- A Latin phrase meaning to the person. It attacks the speaker instead of the argument.
- Straw man
- Misrepresenting an opponent’s view in a weaker form and then refuting that weaker form.
- Equivocation
- Using one word in two different senses within one argument, as if its meaning had stayed the same.
- Genetic fallacy
- Judging a claim true or false only by where it came from.
- False dilemma
- Presenting only two options when more exist.
Background
Ancient writers already listed fallacies. Aristotle wrote a work on sophistical refutations, which studies arguments that appear sound but are not. Medieval teachers in both East and West taught the same lists, and many modern textbooks still use Latin names such as post hoc and ad hominem. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and similar references provide careful modern lists.
Fallacies are not always a sign of bad character. Most people commit them without noticing, including teachers, preachers and scholars. A fallacy also does not prove that a conclusion is false. A person may argue badly for a true claim. The correct response to a fallacy is therefore modest: this reason does not establish the conclusion, so what other reason is there?
A warning belongs here. Fallacy names are easy to throw around. Calling something an ad hominem when the speaker has legitimately raised a point about a witness’s reliability is itself a mistake. Naming a fallacy should be done only after you have shown, in plain words, why the reasoning fails.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Fallacies that attack the person or the source
The ad hominem rejects a claim because of who says it: “He is a hypocrite, so his argument about forgiveness is wrong.” A person’s character may matter when judging trust in a witness, but it does not decide whether an argument is valid. The genetic fallacy is related: “That doctrine came from a council that was politically driven, so it is false.” Origins can raise questions, but they cannot settle truth by themselves.
A related one is the appeal to authority used badly. Citing an expert in the proper field is reasonable. Citing a famous person outside their field, or treating a claim as true only because a large group holds it, is not.
Step 2: Fallacies that misrepresent or dodge
The straw man restates a view in a weak form: “Catholics worship Mary.” Catholic teaching draws a distinction between worship, given to God alone, and veneration, and an honest critic should deal with that distinction. The red herring changes the subject. The tu quoque, Latin for you too, answers a criticism by pointing to a fault in the critic. Appeal to motive guesses at hidden reasons: “You only believe because you fear death.”
Equivocation uses a word in two senses. An example: “Faith is belief without evidence; the Bible commends faith; therefore the Bible commends belief without evidence.” Christian traditions typically use faith to mean trust, and the argument shifts the meaning.
Step 3: Fallacies of weak cause or weak evidence
Post hoc, from the Latin for after this, therefore because of this, assumes that what follows an event was caused by it. Hasty generalization draws a broad rule from a few cases. Appeal to ignorance claims something is true because it has not been disproved, or false because it has not been proved. Anecdotal evidence uses one story as if it settled a question.
Slippery slope argues that one step will certainly lead to a disaster with no support for the chain. Some slippery slope arguments are good, if each step is shown to be likely. The fallacy lies in assuming it without showing it.
Step 4: Fallacies of framing
A false dilemma presents two choices: “Either the Bible is without error in every detail or it is worthless.” Christians, in fact, hold many positions between these, and honest discussion needs to name them. Loaded questions, such as “When did you stop doubting?”, bake in an assumption. Begging the question, treated in the previous lesson, assumes what it wants to prove.
No true Scotsman rescues a claim by redefining its terms after a counterexample: “No real Christian would do that.” The statement may express an ideal, but as an argument it shields the claim from evidence.
Step 5: Appeals to emotion and to numbers
Appeals to pity, fear, flattery or pride are fallacies when they stand in for reasons. Emotions can be fitting responses to real facts, so the rule is not to avoid feeling but to avoid substituting feeling for support. The bandwagon (everyone believes it) and appeal to tradition (it has always been done) can offer some evidence, but they are not proof by themselves.
Christian preaching often appeals to hope and to conscience, which is legitimate. The fallacy appears when an argument claims to prove something and relies on emotion alone.
Step 6: How to use this list
Practice by reading an op-ed or comment thread and underlining each claim. Ask what the reasons are, and then ask which pattern, if any, they fit. Write one sentence in plain language explaining the flaw. Most important, read your own writing the same way.
When responding to someone else, avoid triumphant labels. “That sounds like a false dilemma, because there are at least three options” works better than “You are committing a fallacy.”
- Does this reason support the conclusion, or does it only seem to?
- Is the argument aimed at the person or at the claim?
- Has the other side’s view been described the way its holders would describe it?
- Is any key word being used in two senses?
- Are only two options offered when others exist?
- Would I accept this kind of reasoning if the other side used it?
Examples
Ad hominem and the genetic fallacy
“You cannot trust the Nicene Creed, because Constantine called the council.” The sentence ignores the creed’s content. Whether the council’s decisions were true depends on the arguments and the Scriptures it considered, not only on who summoned the bishops. (Constructed example.)
Straw man
A critic says, “Protestants think that good works do not matter.” Most Protestant teaching holds that works do not earn salvation but are the fruit of faith (compare James 2:17). Replying to the weaker version misses the actual view. (Constructed example.)
False dilemma
“Either science explains everything, or you must reject science.” Many people, including Christian scientists, hold neither. The two choices have been framed to leave out a large middle ground. (Constructed example.)
Post hoc
“I prayed on Monday and the test results improved on Wednesday, so prayer cured me.” Many Christians would call this a fitting thanksgiving. As a proof that prayer caused the result, it does not rule out other causes. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Aristotelian and scholastic tradition
Aristotle’s work on sophistical refutations, which medieval Catholic scholastics taught widely, treats fallacies as ways in which arguments deceive. Aquinas and others used logic to test theological claims. This lineage is shared by many Catholic and Orthodox thinkers and by Protestant scholastics.
Orthodox and patristic voices
Early Christian writers often condemned sophistry, meaning clever speech used to win. Many Orthodox teachers remain cautious about cleverness in theology, stressing humility and prayerful reflection over verbal victory.
Protestant apologetics
Protestant apologists commonly include a section on fallacies in training courses. They also warn that arguments are used by people with sincere questions, and that accusing every objection of a fallacy can be a way to avoid answering it.
Scholarly and secular view
Philosophers in the field of informal logic say that whether a pattern is fallacious often depends on context. An appeal to authority, for example, can be reasonable or not. They advise judging each case on its merits and not treating lists as mechanical rules.
Why it matters
A defense of the faith can be harmed by sloppy reasoning more than by hostile critics. Knowing fallacies lets you avoid them, spot them when others use them and answer without anger, since you can name the problem calmly. It also reveals that many popular arguments on all sides of religious questions are weaker than their supporters think. That knowledge should lead to humility.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: If an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion is false.
Correction: A fallacy shows that the reasons given do not establish the conclusion. The conclusion could still be true, supported by other reasons.
Misunderstanding: Naming a fallacy wins the argument.
Correction: A label is not an explanation. You must say, in plain words, why the reasoning fails. A misapplied label is itself an error.
Misunderstanding: Pointing out a person’s character is always an ad hominem.
Correction: It is a fallacy when used to reject an argument. It may be relevant when assessing a witness’s credibility, though even then it must be treated carefully.
Misunderstanding: Appealing to emotion is always wrong.
Correction: Emotions can be fitting responses to real facts. The fallacy is using emotion as a replacement for reasons when a claim of proof is made.
Knowledge check
Define a straw man and give one example.
A straw man misstates an opposing view in a weaker form and then attacks that form. Example: claiming that Orthodox Christians worship icons, when their teaching distinguishes veneration from the worship given to God. The remedy is to state the view the way its holders would.
Why is ‘You only believe because you were raised that way’ a fallacy?
It is a genetic fallacy and an appeal to motive. How a person came to hold a belief does not decide whether the belief is true. Upbringing may explain a belief without showing it false. The claim must be judged by the reasons for and against it.
What is equivocation?
Equivocation is using a word in two different senses within one argument, as if the meaning had not changed. It makes a conclusion seem to follow when it does not. The cure is to define key terms at the start and check they keep one meaning.
Can a slippery slope argument ever be sound?
Yes, if each step in the supposed chain is shown to be likely. It becomes a fallacy when the chain is simply asserted. The test is whether evidence supports each link, not whether the end result sounds frightening.
Why should you check your own arguments first?
Because people spot fallacies more easily in opponents than in themselves. A flaw in your own case damages the claim you defend, and it costs you credibility. Checking your own argument first is honest and also practical.
Think it through
- Which fallacy do you think you commit most often? Where do you see it?
- Is there a common religious argument you find persuasive that you now suspect contains a fallacy?
- How should you respond when a friend uses a fallacy to defend a true belief?
- Why might a person with a sincere question be hurt by being told that the question is a fallacy?
Independent assignment
A fallacy field list
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Make a list of fifteen fallacies. For each, write a one-sentence definition in your own words and a short example drawn from religion, politics or daily life, labeled as constructed or taken from reading. Then pick two examples from real writing you have seen, explain in plain language why the reasoning fails, and write what a good argument for the same conclusion would need. Keep this private.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies The main reference for this lesson. Read selectively and copy several definitions into your notebook.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Read the opening chapters and note how Lewis answers common objections without name-calling.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics Notice how objections are stated before they are answered.
- Exodus 20:16 The prohibition of false witness, which includes misrepresenting an opponent.
- Titus 3:9 Avoid foolish controversies.
- Colossians 2:8 A warning against being deceived by empty deceit.