11,143
edits
Logic and the Message: Difference between revisions
→False dilemma or false dichotomy
No edit summary |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
=Ad hominem= | =Ad hominem= | ||
"Ad hominem" in Latin literally means ''‘to the person’''. It is an attack not against the position that the person holds but against the person themselves | |||
Here is an example of an ad hominem argument that was presented by a message minister: | |||
::“''You watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''” | |||
An ad hominem attack attempts to counter an opponent’s claims by attacking the character, motives, or other attributes of those on the other side of an argument or position, rather than addressing the argument itself. | |||
The example above not only fails to address any of the issues that have been raised, but it also lumps all ex-message believers into a narrow, negative stereotype that is, by its very generality, reckless, irresponsible, and false. | |||
=Equivocation= | =Equivocation= | ||
| Line 30: | Line 34: | ||
Artificially reducing a set of possibilities to two, usually while casting one of the two in such a negative light that the “obvious” choice is the other one. | Artificially reducing a set of possibilities to two, usually while casting one of the two in such a negative light that the “obvious” choice is the other one. | ||
::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.” | ::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are you going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.” | ||
This is a manipulative favorite when speaking to bible believing Christians. The pastor knows they believe the Bible and aren’t going to throw it away, therefore many will make a decision that they are also, not going to leave the message, for no reason at all! The apparent contradictions in the Bible can and have been logically explained, while many questions about the message | This is a manipulative favorite when speaking to bible-believing Christians. The pastor knows they believe the Bible and aren’t going to throw it away, therefore many will make a decision that they are also, not going to leave the message, for no reason at all! The apparent contradictions in the Bible can and have been logically explained, while many questions about the message appear to be a result of William Branham's [[Credibility|credibility]] or [[The Municipal Bridge Vision|failed prophecies]]. | ||
=Moving the Goalposts= | =Moving the Goalposts= | ||
| Line 40: | Line 44: | ||
::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.” | ::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.” | ||
Since we can’t go back in time and “be there” there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction. | Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction. | ||
::The law of non-contradiction | ::''The law of non-contradiction says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false.''<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 16.</ref> All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction: | ||
:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.'' | :::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.'' | ||
| Line 52: | Line 56: | ||
::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction. | ::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction. | ||
While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth. | While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth. | ||
=The Red Herring= | =The Red Herring= | ||
<youtube width='440' height='320'>http://youtu.be/WjjTMBNDU2M</youtube> | |||
A red herring is an issue or fact that is introduced to deliberately mislead or distract a person from the actual concern that is being questioned. A red herring is a logical fallacy that leads people towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used as part of a rhetorical strategy (i.e. there are no real arguments against the position being put forward), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic. | A red herring is an issue or fact that is introduced to deliberately mislead or distract a person from the actual concern that is being questioned. A red herring is a logical fallacy that leads people towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used as part of a rhetorical strategy (i.e. there are no real arguments against the position being put forward), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic. | ||
| Line 87: | Line 90: | ||
=Straw Man= | =Straw Man= | ||
[[Image:Facepalm statue.jpeg|right|thumb|250px]] | |||
The basic form of a strawman argument is: | |||
*Person 1 holds a specific belief. | |||
*Person 2 restates person 1’s position in a distorted way. | |||
*Person 2 attacks the distorted version of Person 1's belief. | |||
*Therefore, Person 1's belief is false. | |||
Person 2 attempts to argue against a belief by attacking a different position than the one his opponent actually holds - one that is easier to refute. | |||
An example of a person defending the message against criticisms raised on this website: | |||
::“''These people attacking the message would have you believe that you should go back to the harlot… back to the denominational slop you came out of''.” | |||
This is not the position of any message critic that I am aware of. The truth is simply that people in the message are following a false prophet and therefore are in error. Where they go when and if they leave the message is a matter of prayerful consideration, and is inherently individual. By the way, equating all churches with harlots and slop for the simple fact that they belong to a denomination is also fallacious - in case common sense didn’t kick in automatically, as it should. | |||
Some examples of specific straw man arguments that we have encountered: | |||
*[[The_Trinity#William Branham's Critique of the Trinity|William Branham's Critique of the Trinity]] | |||
*[[Is God fair?|Argument against Christianity]] | |||
{{Bottom of Page}} | {{Bottom of Page}} | ||