Common Apologist Fallacies

[DeistPaladin]

This thread is to spark discussion on identifying the logical fallacies commonly used by apologists (for the benefit of those new to refuting apologetics)

Abuse of the Ad Hoc Hypothesis
Improvising an endless stream of groundless explanations to spuriously dismiss all contrary evidence in order to insulate a cherished idea from ever being disproved. Those who employ this line of reasoning "win" the argument when the opponent runs out of contrary evidence or gets sick of the tactic.

Also see "shifting the burden of proof", "moving the goal posts" and "argument from ignorance".

Example:
1. "Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke says Jesus was born during the administration of Quirinius, which started in 6 CE. We have a contradiction.
2. "Well, maybe Quirinus had an earlier governorship of Syria"
3. "There's no evidence for that. Besides, it was against Roman custom to allow a repeat governorship."
4. "Well, maybe Quirinius was an exception to this rule."
5. "There's no evidence for that. Besides, we know where Quirinius was at the time. He was governor of a province in the middle of modern day Turkey."
6. "Well, maybe he was called in to manage the census in Syria."
7. "There's no evidence for that. Besides, that wouldn't have made him governor.
8. "Well, maybe Luke meant 'administrator' rather than 'governor'."
etc.

Special Pleading
Demanding a different standard of proof for one's cherished beliefs than would normally be accepted by any other belief.

Example #1
1. "Jesus must be lord because the apostles wouldn't have died for a lie."
2. "Even if that folklore about the apostles is true, don't crazy cultists die for lies all the time? Jim Jones? David Koresh? The Hale-Bopp cult?"
3. "Oh, those people are crazy but the early followers of Jesus knew the truth."

Example #2
1. "The Bible proves that Jesus is lord."
2. "Does the Koran prove that Muhammad was God's prophet?"
3. "Oh no, that's just a silly book written by humans. But the Bible is the Word of God."

Strawman
Deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's views in setting up an argument.

Examples:
1. "Evolution says that apes one day gave birth to humans."
2. "Evolution says we came from goo"
3. "Evolution says some races are superior to others."

Please add to this list.

[searchingforanswers]

good thread. while i have nothing to contribute i like how you explained it easily with apologetic examples. looking forward to reading more

[The Grand Nudger]

Appeals to solipsism when confronted with irrefutable counters to their argument.

"Well, we can't really "know" anything." (except what they know about god..apparently)

[Anomalocaris]

Say anything to avoid admitting that the fundations of the bible would not have supported anything much less an overarching cosmology.

[Faith No More]

Don't forget circular reasoning.

"The bible is the word of god, because in the bible god says it is his word."

[DeistPaladin]

Don't forget circular reasoning.

"The bible is the word of god, because in the bible god says it is his word."

"...and we know the Bible can't be lying because the Word of God would never be false. So when it says it's the Word of God, that must be true."

A fine example of circular reasoning or reasoning where the conclusion of an argument is used to support itself.

[Minimalist]

The Argument from Authority.....and then they invent the "authority!"

A Creationist Misrepresents His Area of Expertise
By Bob Garwood

A talk.origins creationists recently wrote:

DeYoung Donald B..........................Professor of Astrophysics
B.S., Michigan Technical University, 1966
M.S., Michigan Technical University, 1968
Ph.D. (Physics), Iowa State University, 1972

Since astrophysics is my field, I thought I'd try and check up on this guy.

In American Men and Women of Science, 18th edition, 1989-90, DeYoung is also shown to have the following degree:

MDiv., Grace Theol. Sem. 1981

In addition, as of that edition, it lists him as being an Associate Professor of physics at Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana. For research, it gives "Mossbauer effect studies of transition metal borides." There is no indication in this book of any background or expertise in astrophysics. It classifies him as "solid state science."

Furthermore, a check of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Abstracts shows no publication by a Donald DeYoung in any of the many journals that they track.

He clearly is not an astrophysicist (although he may play one at the ICR).

[Rayaan]

A fine example of circular reasoning or reasoning where the conclusion of an argument is used to support itself.

Logic is over-rated sometimes.

Even in mathematical systems, there are certain statements which are true which cannot proved to be true (see Godel's Theorem) because there are axioms within a system that have to be assumed to be true inherently, without any proof, meaning that logic itself is circular at the deepest level. The other point is that, if a system can prove some facts, it can never prove it's own consistency.

In Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, (by Douglas Hofstadter), there is a section titled "Introspection and Insanity: A Godelian Problem," and he writes:

"I think it can have a suggestive value to translate Godel's Theorem into other domains, provided, provided one specifies in advance that the translations are metaphorical and are not intended to be taken literally. That having been said, I see two major ways of using analogies to connect Godel's Theorem and human thoughts. One involves the problem of wondering about one's own sanity. How can you figure out if you are sane? This is a Strange Loop indeed. Once you begin to question your own sanity, you can always get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is 'peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Godel's second Theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconistent" (696, Hofstadter).

[DeistPaladin]

More

Shifting the Burden of Proof
The burden of proof belongs with one who states to know that X is true. The one who doubts or is skeptical of a claim is not charged with proving the negative. Also see "argument from ignorance".

Examples:
"You can't prove that there is no God"
"Atheists can't account for why the Big Bang happened."
"Atheists can't explain why morality or logic exists."

Argument from Ignorance
Stating that something must be true because it can't be disproved.

Example from Bill O'Riley: (paraphrased)
"Well, until science has all the answers, I'm going with Christianity."

Begging the Question
Similar to circular reasoning, an assumption or a definition is created without any proof and then, in turn, is used to prove another assumption.

Example:
"Without God, morality can't exist (assumption). Morality exists and therefore so does God."
"God is love (assumption). Atheists don't believe in any god. Therefore, they can't love."

Ad Hominem
This is probably the most misunderstood of the logical fallacies. Theists are quick to cry "ad hominem" after being called an idiot, fucktard or liar. An ad hominem is using the insult in place of an argument, where you exclusively attack the person and not the argument.

For example, in one of our exchanges on what the Bible says, YouTube poster Theologica37 lied about what the Bible said. When I called him a liar, he said it was an ad hominem. It wasn't because the fact that he lied directly related to the chapter and verse he was lying about. Because he lied about what it said, he was also wrong about what it said.

Dismissing all his opinions on the basis that he's a liar, without looking at any of the evidence submitted, would be an ad hominem.

---

Poisoning the Well
X is asserted to be false because of some alleged character flaw by an advocate. This is similar to an ad hominem.

Examples:
"Darwin was a racist. Therefore, evolution is false (or evolution promotes racism)."
(this is actually not true, that Darwin was a racist but even if it were so, it would not disprove evolution).

Note: This is why science doesn't care if someone's an asshole. They might still be right.

Non Sequitur
This fallacy translates to "it doesn't follow". It's where the conclusion isn't supported by the evidence offered because the evidence offered is irrelevant.

Example: Ontological Argument
"Something that exists is greater than something that doesn't. God is the greatest thing that can be imagined. Therefore, God exists."

Slippery Slope
An unsupported assumption that A will inevitably lead to B.

Examples:
"If we allow gay marriage, next we'll be allowing pedophilia."
"If evolution is taught in schools, next we'll be teaching nihilism and amorality"

Appeal to Consequence
We don't like X. Therefore, X isn't true.

Examples:
"I don't like the idea of a universe with a god watching over us. Therefore, my god exists."
(Actual quote from a Christian) "There's no comfort in deism. That's why I remain a Christian."

Appeal to Fear
Believe in X or bad things will happen to you.

Example: Pascal's Wager
"If you don't believe in God, then when you die you'll go to Hell. Isn't it better to believe and not take that chance?"

Appeal to Popularity
X is assumed to be true because more people believe X than not.

Example:
"Everyone else in your town is a Christian. They can't all be wrong."

[Rayaan]

To add to my previous post:

Logic and intellect have certain fundamental inherent limitations and one must remember that the intellect is a mode of apprehending reality and is not to be confused with reality itself. We don't simply know by 'logic'. In fact, Western philosophers such as Whitehead moved in this direction.

Rumi gives a famous example of this ability to know, by describing a person lost in the desert, on the verge of dying of thirst. When he is given a glass of water to drink, the man without any haste starts drinking the water to appease his thirst. He does not 'intellectually' work out how the water will affect his body, but he already knows the water will quench his thirst, irrespective of his intellectual level.