Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

Logical fallacies are commonly used by the world by those who are in darkness and are slaves to sin. But the saints have pure heart and naturally don't even consider using these. However I think it is important to be aware these tricks of Satan to protect ourselves from deception.

This website shows some of the logical fallacies:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Job 27:4King James Version (KJV)

4 My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.

I am very saddened that these type of logical fallacies abound in the SI forum. (The most easily detectable ones are straw man, and black or white) The result for me is that after reading some of the posts I get feelings of confusion, frustration, being tricked, empty, defiled, depleted, exhausted, angry, oppressed, bullied, beaten up. Logical fallacies are tools of deceit and used here to defend someone's position. We know that the truth does not need unfair ways to be protected...
I am sure that many of us did use these occasionally unintentionally, but that is not the same as using them always.
PLEASE STOP USING LOGICAL FALLACIES IN ARGUMENT PURIFY YOUR HEART AND BLESSING WILL FOLLOW.
I also ask the readers not to accept logical fallacies as real argument.

Matthew 5:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Ephesians 4:29King James Version (KJV)

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Titus 2:7-8King James Version (KJV)

7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

God bless everyone,

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

Thank you, Zsuzsanna!

Very enlightening website and I believe it will be very useful.

I agree that we all should understand what logical fallacies are in all of its forms and be on the alert to recognize them, don't initiate them and expose them when we see them. It is a terrible way to dialogue.

Kind regards,

S

StirItUp Jul 14, 2016

Thanks for the admonition Zsuzsanna!

Hope none of us do this...and if we do unintentionally, hopefully we will be lovingly corrected :)

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

I don't think you have to worry about Zsuzsanna correcting others unlovingly as her initial post and many others portray someone (at least to me) who is respectful and courteous towards others. Her questions and posts are straightforward and not tainted with hidden motives which seek to trap anyone.

Too often, I see posts that seek to interrogate others using various techniques (whether intentional or not, I don't know) in order too determine if that person is worthy of being received. People don't often realize that the purpose of their spiritual interviews is to put you into either their "Received" or "Rejected" box.

S

StirItUp Jul 14, 2016

Hi Julius,

My comment is meant tongue in cheek, don't worry :)

I know things can get a bit heated sometimes.

We all should learn to comment respectfully, even when challenging someone else's view.

God bless,

J

JFW Jul 14, 2016

Saints,
Not so sure bout this..... Red flags abound

While logic itself is not good or bad it is also not our goal. The gospel itself is spiritual and not so logical and if these "pretenses" were common in the first century it's doubtful the gospel would have spread as it did.
For example these could've easily been used to dismantle Pauls Mars hill call to repentance by catagorizing him in one of these lil dismissive boxes.

I mean is the bible itself a logical book/story?
Or is love itself for that matter logical?
How about the most beautiful and spiritual words ever spoken on earth,... The sermon on the mount, are they a call to logic?

Just being honest-not trying to argue, but these very tactics will be used to keep people in bondage and excuse sin-

D

docs Jul 14, 2016

It's common for arguments and discussions to quickly leave the intent and main subject theme of an OP. Rabbit trails many times pop up and a entirely different conversation begins to take place within another discussion and the OP becomes sort of lost. Many methods and ways are used to get across one's point or counter point but yet in so doing sometimes discipline of thought in responding is not employed. It takes time to learn how to stay within proper accepted bounds of point and counter point and is a discipline within itself. I don't think it so much has to do with whether the gospel is spiritual and is in danger of that being lost when the word logic is used. It just means that if we are discussing spiritual things then a better and more sound way of responding may be a good way to go about things.

I think what should be avoided at all costs is dropping into a thrtead for the sole purpose of insulting someone and then dropping right back out or else making up deliberately false charges that a certain person is a heretic etc. just because they disagree with someone. Only a few have done this yet how "illogical" and dishonest it was!

I like the practice of making sure one represents someone else accurately even though you may disagree with them. At least acknowledge what they have said and really believe.

Civility is a sweet odor.

Thank everyone for the many things I have learned from you.

S

StirItUp Jul 14, 2016

Good point also Fletcher,

I haven't read through them all but am sure we can learn something from them, however am most certainly not planning on depending on them but rather the truth of God's Word as passed on to us and as understood by the church to be true throughout the ages.

An atheist will always use the one "begging the question" and say we are making circular arguments as we accept the existence of God and , according to their logic, cannot prove it :)

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

Fletch,

My take is that she was saying DO NOT USE logical fallacies and by the way, here are samples of what they look like.

If you have read any of her posts you will see she is a spiritual person who loves the Word and depends on the Spirit for revelation. That is my take on her posts.

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

God of course is not subject to these requirements of civil arguments he is the truth and the reference.
For example God could make this statement but we can't:
Black or white:
Who is not with me is against me.
It is true: either we are for the truth or against it, there is no third option.
But when humans do the same it is unrighteous judgement:
"Either you support lgbt or you are a hater"
"Either you are with Bush or you are with the terrorists"
"Either you agree with me or you have a religious spirit"
These statements are logically false because there are more than two choices for us to take.

I believe we can take two things as reference: 1. God (Bible) read in context and taken the whole councel of it and 2. objective observations of the physical world (such as the sky is blue) understood by God given logic and reasoning.
When talking to ateists we only can use the observations of the physical world as Paul did;
Romans 1:20King James Version (KJV)

20Â For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

By the way if Paul had used some dirty tricks in his reasoning with the Athenians or with the Jews he would have been quickly exposed and kicked out.

J

JFW Jul 14, 2016

Thanks brother Julius,
I kinda gathered that and in no way was suggesting or inferring our sister wasn't spiritual or didn't love our Fathers word.

It's a bit ironic tho don't you think, that both you and our sister used "logical fallacies" to respond to me? Lol!
Not being contentious and perhaps the two of you misread my initial response. In any case it gave me a good laugh;)

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

"It's a bit ironic tho don't you think, that both you and our sister used "logical fallacies" to respond to me? Lol!
Not being contentious and perhaps the two of you misread my initial response. In any case it gave me a good laugh;)"

Could you please explain, which ones are those and how they are logical fallacies?

T

TMK Jul 14, 2016

Quote: By the way if Paul had used some dirty tricks in his reasoning with the Athenians or with the Jews he would have been quickly exposed and kicked out.

He got kicked out anyway.

I think the point is well taken that we shouldn't intentionally use logical fallacies in our arguments.

The most common ones I see are straw men, non sequiturs, argument from ignorance, argument from personal incredulity, ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, moral high ground, moving the goalposts, proof by assertion, appeal to emotion.

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

"He got kicked out anyway."

You are right. I should have said kicked out as disgraced liar. He was kicked out as a persecuted upright man which was a great testimony of God, and I am sure the fact that he was kicked out but righteous, helped many to find their way to God.

J

JFW Jul 14, 2016

You wrote- "By the way if Paul had used some dirty tricks in his reasoning with the Athenians or with the Jews he would have been quickly exposed and kicked out." In response to my writing this; "For example these could've easily been used to dismantle Pauls Mars hill call to repentance by catagorizing him in one of these lil dismissive boxes."

Is that not a straw man? As I had made no reference to Paul committing an impropriety, rather was saying that these types of "logic" could and imo most likely would have been used to dismantle his call to repentance. There are several that would've been applicable tho the main one as brother William pointed out, would be circular reasoning....

Again I have no issue with logic and am most certainly a proponent of civil discourse, however logic nor civility is our goal.

T

TMK Jul 14, 2016

"however logic nor civility is our goal"

Spock would not be pleased.

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

Live long and prosper.:)

J

JFW Jul 14, 2016

Hahahaha!! That was a good one bro;)

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

Indeed....As Spock would say with a raised eyebrow.:)

sermonindex Jul 14, 2016

Brother,
quote:
"You wrote- "By the way if Paul had used some dirty tricks in his reasoning with the Athenians or with the Jews he would have been quickly exposed and kicked out." In response to my writing this; "For example these could've easily been used to dismantle Pauls Mars hill call to repentance by catagorizing him in one of these lil dismissive boxes.

Is that not a straw man? As I had made no reference to Paul committing an impropriety, rather was saying that these types of "logic" could and imo most likely would have been used to dismantle his call to repentance."
end quote

No. You say that Paul's Mars Hill speech can be dismantled by using these logical fallacies rules. I simply disagree. I believe that lies can be exposed by showing logical fallacies in the speech of someone. And I stated before the truth does not need unfair ways (logical fallacies) to be defended.
I BELIEVE THAT PAUL WAS SPEAKING TRUTH (AT MARS HILL) AND HIS ARGUMENTS WERE LOGICALLY CORRECT THEREFORE HIS TRUTH CAN NOT BE DISMANTLED BY EXPOSING HIS SUPPOSED "LOGICAL FALLACIES".
In the following I will present how Paul was logical.

No humans can assume that they know all truths. Therefore when they have a disagreement they conduct a debate not to defeat the other but to come closer to the (absolute) truth by examining each others'arguments as potential truths.
Before they start the discussion, they lay down some axioms (truths) that they both agree not to question. These axioms can vary depending on the circumstances. For example between christians the revealed word of God as truth is (or should be) an axiom while between christians and ateists the observed visible material world can be an axiom, and between christians and theists the existence of a higher spiritual being could be an axiom.
Paul starts his speech by the axiom that the greeks do not question: there is a god that they don't know.
Acts 17:22-23King James Version (KJV)

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Then he presented his knowledge about this god that the greeks received as a potential truth since they were humble enough to recognize that just because they don't know about something it doesn't mean that it's not true.

34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Please note here that those who believed did not believe on the basis of logic but because the Holy Spirit testified in their heart that what Paul was saying was the truth.
However they would not even listened to him if he would coerce them to repent by referring to an authority (God of Israel) that they did not agree not to question (this was not their axiom). That would have been a forceful and sneaky way to trick them (a logical fallacy). The OT prophets on the other hand could tell straight to the Israelites to repent because their axiom was the law of God.
In summary the key is not to "commit logical fallacy" (especially "appeal to authority")is that when we state a truth we have to be able to prove it with an agreed upon truth that was included in the initial axioms of that conversation if not we can still state that truth but only as an opinion and trust the Holy Spirit to reveal it to the listener as truth.

edited for clarity