Brief PPT on Logic Fallacies in relation to writing and defending the Christian faith intelligently.

1. Avoiding Logic Fallacies
in Apologetics
Crown College – St. Bonifacius, MN
Professor: Rick Harrell, M.Div., M.A.

2. Logic Fallacies
• Fallacies in logic can undermine an otherwise well-researched and written
essay.
• College-level writing is reasonable and logical. Fallacies tend to point out
weaknesses in our reasons behind our topic or thesis statement.
• Persuasive writing seeks to convince the reader to one’s position; one logic
fallacy becomes a weak thread in this persuasion.
• Arguing for or against an issue requires a presentation of rational and well-
organized support; use of logic fallacies points to the author’s bias.

3. The “Hasty Generalization”
• Drawing a conclusion that is bigger than the evidence is you’ve presented.
• Creating a biased generalization that jumps beyond what you’ve made the
case for.
• The opposite is the “Sweeping Generalization” – giving a general principle
that fits specific situations without evidence to support it.
• Some of the “buzz-phrases” use often do not communicate logically.
• That professor is hard on students because my friend got a “C.”
• All Italians must like pasta.

4. The “Non-Sequitur”
• Drawing a conclusion that doesn’t fit the facts.
• Your main point “doesn’t follow” you presentation.
• Your facts may be correct, but your results don’t fit the logic.
• The “Post Hoc” is similar – since this is true, it causes that (but not logically.)
• Guilt is universal, God forgives, therefore everyone feels the need for God.
• I feel God when I sing, everyone loves music, every should feel God when they sing.

5. The “Begging the Question”
• Presenting a solution to a problem that has not yet been acknowledged – it is an
assumed fact because you present it’s “fact-ness.”
• The seeker who doesn’t feel a need for forgiveness doesn’t need a solution.
• This is also called “circular reasoning” – it ignores that the seeker is not “in the logic
loop.”
• God always speaks through dreams because He spoke to me in a dream. (So, can I ”rely” on
this as logical?)
• Whatever question you have, Jesus is the answer. (What if I didn’t ask a question? Is he still
the answer?)

6. The “Red Herring”
• Presenting an unrelated fact or issue to deflect a hard question or topic.
• This is the introduction of a non-related or barely related topic that moves
the conversation away from the original topic.
• The “Red Herring” is a favorite for “avoiding the issue.”
• The design of the world seems to point to a Creator. So, how do you even know there
is a God if you can’t see God? (Wait, did you answer the first question?)
• There is plenty of evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. Wasn’t Jesus just a
“reincarnation” the Sun God Mithras? (No, but can we get back to the original topic?)

7. The “Ad Hominem”
• Attacking the speaker instead of the argument – this is a “sleight of hand”
tool to change the subject. It is often mean-spirited.
• ”Ad hominem” means “to the man” – and it means to attack the character
of the man instead of address the argument. This is a popular scheme when
one has no real argument in response.
• Did you know that Bible tells us that, while we were still running from God, He loved
us? “But you and those other Christians are hateful toward those who disagree with
you!” (Yes, sometimes, we can all be hateful. That’s why we need a God who loves us.)

8. The “Appeal to Authority”
• Citing as the argument’s authority a source that isn’t valid.
• The other name for this fallacy is “Ad Verecundiam” logic fallacy.
• The basis of this fallacy is that the authority isn’t final or absolute – but the
arguer defers to this authority anyway in hopes that the audience will buy it.
• Of course evolution is true and the Bible is false, Richard Dawkins says so. (One man’s
position doesn’t validate a truth – needs more support.)
• Of course the Bible is true and evolution is false, my pastor said so in a sermon. (See
note above.)

9. The “Ad Populum”
• Presenting an “appeal to the masses (or the mob)” or “consensus” to add
weight to a weak argument.
• ”Ad populum” or “to the people” appeals to the segment of the world, or
cites a group, most likely to support the original argument.
• Don’t most theologians agree that all religions are basically the same – just pick one and
love everyone. (Wait: most theologians don’t say this!)
• I would go into missions, except the people in my church that said it might be
dangerous to do so. (Yes, life is dangerous when we live by faith.)

10. The ”Bandwagon”
• Appealing to a ”fact” said to be generally accepted - since everyone believes
in this, then we should, too.
• You may recognize this from the “Ad Populum” fallacy, which appeals to
specific groups or people (Scientists say, my group says, etc.) The
“Bandwagon” is it’s “vague” cousin and appeals to general cultural beliefs.
• This is an appeal to a generic group that might back up a weak position.
• It just makes sense to deny the validity of the Bible, most everyone does. (Name one.)
• Can’t living together be a fair option for Christians sincerely in love, everyone does it.
(Perhaps, sincerity isn’t the best foundation for what is true and right.)

11. The “Either/Or”
• Offering a simplistic two sides to the solution, both of which favor his or her
point of view.
• The “Either/Or” Argument sets two options that, if one is correct, the other
is false. Keep in mind that “or” isn’t always exclusive; sometimes, but not
always.
• This fallacy build absolutes where there may be grey areas.
• I can’t become a Christian, since they all either “always right” or “hypocrites.”

12. The “Abstraction”
• Presenting what is also called the “Misplaced Certainty” fallacy - it takes a
vague idea or abstract concept and makes it seem concrete and solidly real.
• We accept abstract ideas as important factors in our lives, and build our goals
and hopes on them. Most of them have to do with past assertions that aren’t
provable, or future hopes that may or may not be valid.
• Wars in the past helped cull out the overpopulation, so wars are a good thing.
• I can make my future whatever I want it to be. (True to a point; but the future is
unknown.)

13. The “Strawman”
• Presenting a cleverly “revised” example or alternate vaguely related idea and
subsequently “demolishing” a point it in an argument in order to look victorious
over the whole argument.
• The “Strawman” often focuses on the weakest aspect, the one that can garner the
most adversarial support (or laughter), and can best “put one in one’s place.” The
”strawman” stands on the weak foundation of ridicule.
• Since you believe in the God of the Bible, that means you reject Science and ignore the
feelings and beliefs of 4 billion people.
• I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Oh, so you hate gays.

14. The “Weak Analogy”
• Comparing a point to something else that has little or nothing to do with it.
• A “weak analogy” deflects the possibilities of an argument’s truth by
appealing to the absurd.
• Anyone who believes in miracles might just as well write a letter to Santa.
• People who believe in the resurrection of Jesus are just as valid as people who believe
in zombies.

15. The “Cherry Picking”
• Presenting only the facts from one side – also known as the “Card Stacking”
argument. The presenter knows that there are arguments against his or her
point, but only states those for it.
• The “Cherry Picking” happens in order to strengthen a belief that could be
refuted – but in light of so many points in favor, he or she hopes to win the
day.
• Marijuana should be legal since it helps with pain management, leaves no hangover, and
will help the economy.

16. The “Oversimplification”
• Presenting a simplified solution – this happen when we want to win the
argument quickly and without much opposition.
• Some questions and issues in our world are complicated and the solutions
and answers are more sophisticated that we want to address.
• To avoid having to think deeply and argue well, we might oversimplify.
• Life would be good if we can just all get along and trust each other.
• Much war happens due to religious disputes; war will stop if we get rid of religions.

17. The “Slippery Slope”
• Building a ”future” calamity based on weak possibilities. This is also known as the
“Domino” fallacy. We might take one small fact, then build a full case of negative
outcomes against an argument.
• There is a place when we should argue from what potentially will follow, but we
can’t build absolutes when there are so many choices one could make
• Just as soon as I teach my kid to drive, he will back out over our mailbox, run a red light, get
chases by the cops and have to flee to Mexico as a fugitive.
• If we let that (name your group or person) serve or lead, church as we know it will end.
• If Jennifer sees her future self, it “could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very
fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!” (BTTF 2)

18. Responding to Fallacies
• Be aware that a weak, lightly considered, or unprepared argument may tempt
any of us to rely on a logic fallacy. Think logically before you write or speak.
• Be aware also that others speak or write with fallacies to avoid facing the
argument or to choose to deflect an argument – don’t back down; address it.
• Any fallacy can be the one that shuts the door to hearing your point of view,
exploring truth, or considering a valid argument.
• Catch the logic fallacy at the beginning, address it, and discover if the person
means something else. Ask questions to get clarification? “Do you mean?”