The John W. Loftus Closet of Logical
Fallacies
John W. Loftus, carpet cleaner and pool player from
(1. claims his opponents use logical fallacies, and fails to prove it, and
(2. overlooks his own arguments, which are rife with logical fallacies,
... is he not advocating a double standard?
Loftus’ remarks are in dark red:
June 10th 2005, 04:12 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1065942&postcount=69
Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?
I teach logic classes and your
answers are filled with red herrings, straw men, oversimplifications, and you
simply miss my points far too often.
June 29th 2005, 05:38 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1092492&postcount=54
Where is God in Infinite
SPACE?
As a philosophy instructor I can
state and argue convincingly on behalf of what my opponent's may think. I do
that, and then trash their argument.
June 30th 2005, 02:50 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1093244&postcount=60
Where is God in Infinite
SPACE?
be it known that I teach lawyers how to think in my classes,
along with detectives, and teachers.
The following are logical fallacies that Mr. Loftus routinely uses in his arguments:
Ad hominem
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Ad%20Hominem:
You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.
Example:
What she says about Johannes Kepler's astronomy of the 1600's must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she's only fourteen years old?
This attack may undermine the arguer's credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguer's age or anything else about her personally.
If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy.
The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped a fellow student and broke his collar bone.
Copious examples by Loftus are documented at John W. Loftus: “This is Who I Am” and at
The John W. Loftus Hall of High Level Discussion.
Loftus acknowledges:
September 12th 2005 , 01:17 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193571&postcount=1
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
If out of frustration I call
someone “stupid” then I'm accused of some form of Ad Hominem,
attacking the person.
|
Proverbs 10:18 |
|
Matthew 15:19 |
|
21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' “ |
|
Romans 1:28-32 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. |
Ad populum /
Appeal to the People
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal%20to%20the%20People:
If you suggest too strongly that someone's claim or argument
is correct simply because it's what most everyone believes, then you've
committed the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too
strongly that someone's claim or argument is mistaken simply because it's not
what most everyone believes, then you've also committed the fallacy. Agreement
with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation
from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you
assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you're guilty of committing this
fallacy. It is also called mob appeal, appeal to the gallery, argument from popularity, and argumentum ad populum. The 'too strongly' is important in the
description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that
reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy
occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.
Example:
You should turn to channel 6. It's the most watched channel this year.
This is fallacious because of its implicitly accepting the questionable premise that the most watched channel this year is, for that reason alone, the best channel for you.
August 3rd 2005
, 07:21 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1138042&postcount=36
Submit Your Candidates for
August Screwballs of the Month
If people like me are screwballs
for thinking the way we do, then why is Christianity losing the debate in the
marketplace of ideas?
Even if the polls say
Christianity is growing in some parts of the world, Christianity is losing
miserably over-all, and you know it. Moreover, you would be laughed at for
saying most of the things you are saying here by most all of the world!
I guess most of the world is just stupid, and the stupidity of the world is
growing and growing and growing, while the numbers of Christians who have the
superior knowledge of the truth is shrinking and shrinking by every comparison.
Most of the world just cannot seem to grasp the
truths that you offer, can they?
But know that you are losing, and
you will lose, eventually, even if there will forever be pockets of every major
religion to the end human history.
|
August 3rd 2005 , 07:40 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1138073&postcount=37 Response posted by “A Cup of Mystery”: John, Christianity may or may not be “losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas,” but that's not the point: the point is which is true. Frankly, as a non-Christian Theist, I have areas that I agree with you, but I also have areas where I agree with the Christians in this debate--and it seems to me that appealing to the “marketplace of ideas” is a demonstration of the ad populum fallacy. ... That's part of the problem, John--you strike me as one
who is not an atheist for its own sake, but because atheism is opposed to
Christianity. I've frequently noticed that those who attatch
[sic] to a position simply to oppose another position cannot build on their
own position--they spend far too much time tearing down the work of others to
build on their own foundation. |
Loftus acknowledges:
September 12th 2005,
01:17 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193571&postcount=1
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
For instance, if I say most all
people or scholars think otherwise, someone may label that as Ad Populum, appealing to the the
people, or Ad Verecundiam, appealing to authority.
Appeal to authority
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal%20to%20Authority:
You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious. However, it is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the word of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious.
Example:
You can believe the moon is covered with dust because the president of our neighborhood association said so, and he should know.
This is a fallacious appeal to authority because, although the president is an authority on many neighborhood matters, he is no authority on the composition of the moon. It would be better to appeal to some astronomer or geologist. If you place too much trust in expert opinion and overlook any possibility that experts talking in their own field of expertise make mistakes, too, then you also commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Example:
Of course she's guilty of the crime. The police arrested her, didn't they? And they're experts when it comes to crime.
From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
September 12th 2005,
01:17 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193571&postcount=1
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
What needs to be understood is
that most all of the great philosophers have committed these fallacies within
their best arguments!
|
July 20th 2005 , 09:51 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1122774&postcount=27 Four conceptual
problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved. For
those of you who think that these four conceptual problems are “not a problem
at all” and can be easily dismissed with the wave of a hand, please note that
one of your own Christian Philosophers agreed that these were indeed four big
problems, and wrote a book length treatment about such things. After much
debate and discussion over the nature of his claims in his book he left
academia and is now giving lectures to big companies on motivation and
salesmanship.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1122794&postcount=29 Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved. Response posted by “Mountain Man”: And this appeal to authority is supposed to be convincing,
is it? Frankly, I've never heard of the guy or his book so forgive me if I'm
not bowled over by the mere mention of them. July 21st 2005 , 08:33 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1124456&postcount=32 Four conceptual
problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved. You
are funny. In the first place, you haven't a clue what the fallacy of “appeal
to authority” is, now do you? It's appealing to someone who isn't an
authority in the specified field which he is being quoted, or appealing to a
layman. July 22nd 2005, 04:37 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1125447&postcount=38 Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved. Response posted by “Mountain Man”: Actually, it goes quite beyond that. An appeal to
authority is when one attempts to settle a debate by saying nothing more
than, “Because Person X believes Y, Y must be true.”
This of course ignores the fact that Person X could be wrong even if
they are a recognized authority. If you're going to cite an authority then at
least be prepared to defend their opinions. July 23rd 2005 , 04:09 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1126404&postcount=39 Four conceptual
problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.
July 23rd 2005 , 04:23 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1126420&postcount=40 Four conceptual problems
with an incarnate God that have never been solved. Response
posted by “Mountain Man”: Back
on page 2 when you wrote: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1122774&postcount=27
July 23rd 2005 , 06:12 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1126500&postcount=41 Four conceptual
problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved. I
asked myself why you write such stupid things. I really don't think that
you're stupid--really. But I asked myself what would make you write as if you
were stupid. That is, what is there here that makes you say stupid things? |
If you want a hamburger, who is
better qualified: a chef, or a plumber?
If you want your car repaired, who is better qualified to fix it: a
mechanic, or a janitor? Who is better
qualified to animate a cartoon: an animator, or Michael Eisner?
When John W. Loftus evaluates
history, does he heed an historian? No,
he heeds philosophers. In addressing the
topic of “Can a Historical Religion Be Believed?” at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1096093&postcount=1 and “Is there such a thing as an
honest doubter?” at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1063137&postcount=62
he cites Gotthold Lessing, Soren Kierkegaard, C.
Stephen Evans and Dr. James Sennett. They are philosophers. They are not historians.
Loftus does cite German historian Leopold
Von Ranke, who according to Merriam-Webster's
Biographical Dictionary was “a founder of the modern school of history;
champion of objective writing based on source material rather than on legend
and tradition.” But Loftus ignores Ranke’s approach in favor his own opinion that “most all modern historians think this is impossible to do,”
a position he substantiates only with two
historians who disregard the historical evidence itself.
* * *
In the Christian paradigm, Jesus
Christ is the authority:
|
Matthew 28:18 |
|
Mark 2:10 |
|
Luke 5:24 |
|
John 10:18 |
|
John 17:2 |
|
Colossians 2:10 |
|
9And he[a] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. |
|
Ephesians 1:22 |
|
Ephesians 4:15 |
|
Colossians 1:15-20 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. |
|
Hebrews 12:2 |
But notice the authority John W. Loftus to whom he makes his appeal:
July 30th 2005, 02:08 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1133487&postcount=46
Parting Thoughts From
Doubting John
Then I read a book by Hal Lindsey called The Late Great Planet Earth. It
was very popular treatment of end time Bible predictions along with events
around the world that seemed to confirm that the end time and Jesus’ return to
the earth was very imminent. So I once again thought to myself at the time, “It’s
true! Christianity is true! And Jesus may return any day now.”
In effect, Loftus ignores the authority of the Scriptures and of Jesus Christ, who regard end times prophecy as follows:
|
Ecclesiastes 8:7 |
|
35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36”No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. |
|
Matthew 24:44 |
|
31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 32”No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come. |
|
Luke 12:40 |
So, when Loftus states,
Furthermore, Jesus has not yet
returned to earth, contrary to Hal Lindsey’s strong indications. I’ve since
concluded that I believed in the Christian faith for initial reasons that were
just inadequate—reasons that I have subsequently come to reject.
Who does he blame? Certainly not himself, for ignoring what Jesus and what He said about His return.
Now as we read the following, upon whom does Loftus place his faith: Francis Schaeffer, or Jesus Christ?
July 30th 2005, 02:08 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1133487&postcount=46
Parting Thoughts From Doubting John
When I first entered a
|
Acts 3:16 |
|
Acts 20:21 |
|
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, |
|
Galatians 2:16 |
|
Galatians 3:22 |
|
1 Timothy 3:13 |
|
2 Timothy 3:15 |
|
Hebrews 12:2 |
|
1 John 5:1 |
Appeal to Consequence
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal%20to%20Consequence:
Arguing that a belief is false because it
implies something you'd rather not believe. Also
called Argumentum Ad Consequentiam.
Example:
That can't be Senator Smith there in the videotape going into her apartment. If it were, he'd be a liar about not knowing her. He's not the kind of man who would lie. He's a member of my congregation.
Smith may or may not be the person in that videotape, but this kind of arguing should not convince us that it's someone else in the videotape.
July 30th 2005
, 02:08 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1133487&postcount=46
Parting Thoughts From Doubting John
Of course, since I now reject
Christianity, it appears to me that the skeptical people who investigated
Christianity and then accepted it, made personal decisions based on judgments
about historical questions that I disagree with. Some of these people probably
read the “wrong” books.
Appeal to Emotions / Appeal to Pity
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal%20to%20Emotions:
You commit the fallacy of appeal to emotions when someone's appeal to you to accept their claim is accepted merely because the appeal arouses your feelings of anger, fear, grief, love, outrage, pity, pride, sexuality, sympathy, relief, and so forth. Example of appeal to relief from grief:
There is nothing wrong with using emotions when you argue, but it's a mistake to use emotions as the key premises or as tools to downplay relevant information. Regarding the fallacy of appeal to pity, it is proper to pity people who have had misfortunes, but if as the person's history instructor you accept Max's claim that he earned an A on the history quiz because he broke his wrist while playing in your college's last basketball game, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to pity. However, if you realize he didn't earn the A, but nevertheless you still give him an A, then you have not committed the fallacy, but you may have acted improperly.
June 30th 2005
, 02:50 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1093244&postcount=60
Where is God in Infinite
SPACE?
My wife was just diagnosed with
cancer today. It was a shock to us both. We do not have health
insurance--couldn't afford it (we're among that class of people). Now we face
$40,000-$50,000 in medical bills without the hope of prolonging her life very
far. We don't know how to get that money, but we're going through the
procedures anyway. Frankly I don't give a damn about any of your arguments
right now. But here's what I'll tell you. If she dies from this in a few short
years I'll be an atheist for the rest of my life. Let God
show me here and now, and I'll forever believe in him. This is not a
threat. It's how I fell deep inside. It's not an argument. It's just who I am.
Will any of you pray for her complete healing? She's 45 years old, and we are
as happy together as any other couple I've ever known in all of my years. Will
any of you say that God will answer your prayers? Of course you won't. Jesus
makes it sound simple, “just say to this mountain move over there and it will
be done.” Well, where's your faith then? Believe it with regard to her cancer.
Put a post telling everyone who reads this that you really believe God will
heal her. Go ahead. He'll do it for you, won't he? I dare you. But if he
doesn't, then will you also agree to fork over all of your life's savings to me
so that her medical bills will be paid? Now that's faith. Put it in writing
too. Mail me a certified copy. Such faith may inspire me to believe and escape
the dread of hell. Surely you'd do that for me, if you cared, wouldn't you? But
alas, there are no believers in this world today, no matter what you argue. Now
you could mail me a check to help with the expenses--boy I can see the money
flowing in now! Whoopee! Naw, your specialty is in
arguments, not in caring.
As insensitive as you've been so far, I'll suppose you'll have an argument for what I've just written. Save it. It'll fall of deaf ears. Silence is all you'll get from me. You, your arguments, and your God are not worth my time anymore.
More examples can be found in the The
John W. Loftus Whining Room, John W. Loftus: “This is Who I Am”, and John W.
Loftus: Trapped in TheologyWeb!
Appeal to Ignorance
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal%20to%20Ignorance:
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1)
Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is
false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it
is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough
evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the
burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”
Example:
Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God.
This kind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would be proper reasoning only if the proof attempts were quite thorough, and it were the case that if God did exist, then there would be a discoverable proof of this.
June 29th 2005, 08:29 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1092708&postcount=56
Where is God in Infinite
SPACE?
What I don't know is the correct
view of the reality which we experience, and alas, I fear that it's beyond my
knowing. I actually think that if there is a God, then he should want to
communicate to us in ways that human history can readily understand--but about
this I'm not even sure. I just suppose that if it were me, I would, so I
project that unto a hypothetical God. But since God does not communicate to us
then he doesn't exist. But about this I'm not sure either.
|
Ephesians 4:18 |
|
5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; |
Double Standard
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Double%20Standard:
There are many situations in which you should judge two things or people by the same standard. If in one of those situations you use different standards for the two, you commit the fallacy of using a double standard.
Example:
I know we will hire any man who gets over a 70 percent on the screening test for hiring Post Office employees, but women should have to get an 80 to be hired because they often have to take care of their children.
This example is a fallacy if it can be presumed that men and
women should have to meet the same standard for becoming a Post Office
employee.
June 10th 2005, 04:12 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1065942&postcount=69
Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?
I teach logic classes and your
answers are filled with red herrings, straw men, oversimplifications, and you
simply miss my points far too often.
John W. Loftus ignores the logical fallacies he argues. Therefore, he commits a double standard.
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Genetic:
A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.
Example:
Whatever your reasons are for buying that DVD they've got to be ridiculous. You said yourself that you got the idea for buying it from last night's fortune cookie. Cookies can't think!
Fortune cookies are not reliable sources of information about what DVD to buy, but the reasons the person is willing to give are likely to be quite relevant and should be listened to. The speaker is committing the genetic fallacy by paying too much attention to the genesis of the idea rather than to the reasons offered for it. An ad hominem fallacy is one kind of genetic fallacy, but the genetic fallacy in our passage isn't an ad hominem.
If I learn that your plan for building the shopping center next to the Johnson estate originated with Johnson himself, who is likely to profit from the deal, then my pointing out to the planning commission the origin of the deal would be relevant in their assessing your plan. Because not all appeals to origins are irrelevant, it sometimes can be difficult to decide if the fallacy has been committed. For example, if Sigmund Freud shows that the genesis of a person's belief in God is their desire for a strong father figure, then does it follow that their belief in God is misplaced, or does this reasoning commit the genetic fallacy?
In the following example, Loftus begins with Appeal to Popularity, followed by the Genetic Fallacy:
September 4th 2005 , 12:16 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183678&postcount=406
Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious!
And the whole modern world and
community of astronomers and scientists are laughing at you and any “scientist”
who claims likewise. There is probably no smaller minority of scholars who
believe in YEC than among those who support any of the other positions you
espouse.
September 5th 2005, 07:50 AM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1184496&postcount=408
Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious!
John, your ignorance of scientific belief is amazing. Educate yourself at this link: http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
September 5th 2005,
08:32 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1184557&postcount=409
Ancient People Aren't
Stupid, Just Superstitious!
And the link you offered was to Holding, so that I may get educated? I didn't
even bother learning about this issue from someone who's so far out in right
field on this issue that he's selling popcorn at extremely high prices in the
stands to people like you.
Hasty Induction / Hasty Generalization / Jumping to
Conclusions
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Jumping%20to%20Conclusions:
When we draw a conclusion without taking the trouble to acquire all the relevant evidence, we commit the fallacy of jumping to conclusions, provided there was sufficient time to assess that extra evidence, and that the effort to get the evidence isn't prohibitive.
Example:
This car is really cheap. I'll buy it.
Hold on. Before concluding that you should buy it, you ought to have someone check its operating condition, or else you should make sure you get a guarantee about the car's being in working order. And, if you stop to think about it, there may be other factors you should consider before making the purchase. Are size or appearance or gas mileage relevant?
June 28th 2005
, 05:12 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1091153&postcount=50
Where is God in Infinite
SPACE?
I sincerely believe your answers
are non-answers. Your answers are based upon ancient ideas and thoughts that
simply do not hold up under any kind of scrutiny, in my opinion.
July 30th 2005, 02:08 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1133487&postcount=46
Parting Thoughts From Doubting John
Then I began investigating my faith. I saw a book at the bookstore by Josh McDowell, called Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and I read it completely through. He offered what some critics said about the Bible, and then he countered those critics with quotes from Christian apologists who argued against them. After reading that book I thought that Christianity also passes intellectual muster. It could handle the attacks of all of the critics. After reading that book I once again thought to myself at the time, “It’s true! Christianity is true!”
... Thomas V. Morris, for
instance, effectively dealt with Francis Schaeffer’s writings, in his book: Francis
Schaeffer’s Apologetics: A Critique (Moody Press,
1976). And I learned that the critics of the Bible are right, not Josh
McDowell. Furthermore, Jesus has not yet returned to earth, contrary to Hal
Lindsey’s strong indications. I’ve since concluded that I believed in the
Christian faith for initial reasons that were just inadequate—reasons that I
have subsequently come to reject. I just did not have the ability to think
through the intellectual foundations for my faith at such a time in my life.
|
1 Corinthians 8:2 |
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Lying:
A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that
is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument's premise, then it is
an example of the fallacy of questionable
premise.
Example:
Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and John Kennedy were
assassinated.
They were
Therefore, at least three
September 12th 2005, 01:41 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193598&postcount=3
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
No one has ever pointed out a
logical inconsistency with what I've argued and made it stick.
|
|
Deuteronomy 5:20 |
|
Proverbs 14:8 |
|
Subjectivist
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Subjectivist:
The subjectivist fallacy occurs when it is mistakenly supposed that a good reason to reject a claim is that truth on the matter is relative to the person or group.
Example:
Justine has just given Jake her reasons for believing that the Devil is an imaginary evil person. Jake, not wanting to accept her conclusion, responds with, “That's perhaps true for you, but it's not true for me.”
July 5th 2005, 03:46 AM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1099167&postcount=23
Can a Historical Religion
Be Believed?
To experience a true and
undeniable miracle might take away the force of my arguments. One of the major
reasons I doubt all claims to miracles is because I personally have never
experienced one, even as a former Christian minister. I'll admit this. I don't
deny that they cannot occur. I just have an overwhelming sense that they do not
occur.
September 12th 2005,
01:17 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193571&postcount=1
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
The fact is, many times what is
seen as a fallacy to one person is merely an anomally
[sic] to the other. And we all have anomalies to all of our control beliefs.
Straw man
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Straw%20Man:
You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Example (a debate before the city council):
Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of
Indians that followed
Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the
city council. It's not true that everybody who ever came to
The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent
never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to
“The Passion of Christ”: Why Did Jesus Suffer?
From Minister To Honest Doubter:
Why I Changed My Mind
But it is said that Jesus endured
more than just physical pain. He also endured the pain of being separated from
God. How can we make sense of this
claim? If it’s merely a metaphor for the mental pain of not sensing God’s help
when we need it, then we have all felt that pain throughout our lives.
Otherwise, it somehow means Jesus ceased to be God while on the cross. But what
can it mean for Jesus to cease to be God? If Jesus in fact ceased to be God,
then since Christians believe a Triune God exists, that means God also ceased
to exist when Jesus ceased to be God.
The straw man is that Jesus never
ceased to be God.
|
3If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions |
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Willed%20ignorance:
I've got my mind made up, so don't confuse me with the facts. This is
usually a case of the Traditional
Wisdom Fallacy.
Example:
Of course she's made a mistake. We've always had meat and potatoes for dinner, and our ancestors have always had meat and potatoes for dinner, and so nobody knows what they're talking about when they start saying meat and potatoes are bad for us.
September 12th 2005,
01:17 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193571&postcount=1
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
So I can merely say most people
believe this, so there, I don't want to
bother looking at it myself. This isn't a fallacy. It's saying I'm
comfortable believing what most people believe, since I do not have the time to
check every belief of mine out for myself--no one does.
|
20”Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” |
|
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools [The Hebrew words rendered fool in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient.] despise wisdom and discipline. |
Wishful Thinking
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Wishful%20Thinking:
A reasoner who suggests that a claim is true, or false, merely because he or she strongly hopes it is, is committing the fallacy of wishful thinking. Wishing something is true is not a relevant reason for claiming that it is actually true.
Example:
There's got to be an error here in the history book. It says Thomas Jefferson had slaves. He was our best president, and a good president would never do such a thing. That would be awful.
June 29th 2005, 08:29 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1092708&postcount=56
Where is God in Infinite
SPACE?
That's me when it comes to
Christianity. I cannot bring myself to even entertain the idea anymore. It's
simply an incorrect theological system, no matter who's doing the interpreting.
In his following remarks, Loftus applies wishful thinking while ignoring the definition of logical fallacies here:
September 12th 2005,
01:17 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1193571&postcount=1
Informal Fallacies Ain't Always So....
So I can merely say most people
believe this, so there, I don't want to bother looking at it myself. This isn't
a fallacy. It's saying I'm comfortable believing what most people believe,
since I do not have the time to check every belief of mine out for myself--no
one does.
... But I am permitted to vent,
without it being an argument at all, much less being an informal fallacy. I
could formulate that into an argument though, and argue that the person cannot
think through a mildly complex argument, and argue that such a claim is true,
without an Ad Hominem informal fallacy.
...So just calling a sentence or
group of sentences an informal fallacy doesn't make it so. You have to do the additional work of arguing why
it is so .
And by whose qualified authority does Loftus make this claim? He doesn’t say. Upon what basis does he believe his opinion supersedes the definitions of logical fallacies? He doesn’t say. Thus, he demonstrates wishful thinking.
|
1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. |
Appendix 1
John W. Loftus cites Hume, who commits several logical fallacies:
July 1st 2005 ,
11:52 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1096086&postcount=1
Can We Today Believe In
Miracles?
Hume
Offers Four “but in fact” Arguments. 1) Miraculous claims are mainly made by
uneducated superstitious people who lack common sense, integrity, or a good
reputation. 2) There are many instances of forged miracles, which prove the
strong propensity of mankind to believe a wondrous and extraordinary story, and
then exaggerate it when they retell it. 3) Miracle claims originate among
tribes who are uncivilized, ignorant and barbarous. Hume asks,
why is it that “such prodigious events never happen in our days?” 4) Competing
religions support their beliefs by claims of miracles; thus these claims and
their religious systems cancel each other out. That is, any miracles that count
for one religion cancel out the miracles of the other, and vise versa.
July 3rd 2005 ,
03:59 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1097729&postcount=21
Can We Today Believe In
Miracles?
Response
posted by “FirstSunday33ad”:
1)
Miraculous claims are mainly made by uneducated superstitious people who lack
common sense, integrity, or a good reputation.
Fallacy of Ad Hominem
Fallacy of The Appeal to Ridicule
An uneducated man’s direct personal experience will overrule the belief of a
scholar who has had no such experience.
2) There are many instances of forged miracles,
which prove the strong propensity of mankind to believe a wondrous and
extraordinary story, and then exaggerate it when they retell it.
Fallacy of Appeal to Common Practice
A truth does not become false simply because it is commonly copied or
exaggerated.
3) Miracle claims originate among tribes who are
uncivilized, ignorant and barbarous. Hume asks, why is
it that “such prodigious events never happen in our days?”
Fallacy of Ad Hominem
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Fallacy of Fallacy of Insufficient
Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Leaping to A Conclusion, Hasty
Induction
An uneducated man’s direct personal experience will