List of Fallacies
What are logical fallacies?
Logic is the study of reason, and there are correct and incorrect ways of reasoning.
In today's world, we are constantly confronted with logical fallacies. These exposures come from advertising products, politicians, atheists, college professors, religious people, and other sources. Everyone thinks they know logic, but few people can define, explain, or use it.
All humans make mistakes in reasoning. Sometimes, the mistakes are intentional, but most of the time, the person is not thinking logically. They are often difficult to recognize. Nevertheless, it is important to spot them and avoid logical fallacies. I want to review a page from the book A Manual For Creating Atheists.
On page 35 of the book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists," Peter Boghossion quotes, "Hebrews 11, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (elenchus) of things not seen." Boghossian then states, "What is interesting is using the term elenchus in this passage."
"Elenchus in Homer (8th century) is variously: to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of disproving, with the aim of censure, accusation, to accuse someone and perhaps to convict them –oftentimes in uses we are superior officers dress down rank-and file-soldiers. In courts of law the term is also used: to bring charges, to bring accusations, but also to bring proofs, evidence, to offer convincing proofs. Pre-Socrates, like Parmenides (early 5th century), uses it as Socrates does: an argument, scrutiny, cross-examination for the purpose of reputation or disproof."
"In Koine, the verb elencho is "I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I showed it be guilty, I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement), it's in John 3:20, first Corinthians 14:24, Ephesians 511, 13; James 2:9. Souter's Lexicon of the new testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter 1917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the apostolic age, the word elenchus expands in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. Socrates uses this term to indicate a rigorous process of argumentation by strict application of logic. In the new sense elenchus is used as conviction or persuasion or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation - without argument – without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation.
Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews argues instead that faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction or persuasion (elenchus) of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, "This may be conviction, but it is not an argument, not a cross-examination and test by scrutiny, but cross-examinationa jump without any justification, without proof, and without earning it. Where is the virtue in this?"
Alrighty, then, I'm confused. Are you? What is the meaning of the word faith? Below I point out the fallacies used to hurt Christianity.
Spotting Logical Fallacies
"A Manual for creating atheists" peter
Recognizing fallacies is not easy when someone will do anything to deceive or persuade another person. Of course, this is prevalent inside a political arena and when trying to stamp out Christianity. I believe the Atheist Peter Boghhosian is one of the best at using fallacies, and he is the one who introduced them to me—that was not his intention. I break down his writing and respond to parts of it one at a time.
Boghossian states:'In Koine, the verb elencho is "I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I showed it be guilty, I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement), it's in John 3:20, first Corinthians 14:24, Ephesians 511, 13; Ja es 2:9. Souter's lexicon of the new testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter 917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the apostolic age, the word elenchus expands in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. Socrates uses this term to indicate a rigorous argumentation process by strictly applying logic. In the new sense, elenchus is used as conviction, persuasion, or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation-without argument – without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation.
Response: It is interesting that the writer uses a relatively obscure term such as elenchus and gives the reader a 2,800-year history of the word. I believe this is a gibberish fallacy and a red herring fallacy. The gibberish is simply meant to confuse the reader, and the red herring fallacy is meant to distract the reader. The term came about due to the sport of fox hunting; a scent of fish was dragged diagonally between the fox and the dog to get the dog off the trail.
Response: The equivocation fallacy is the choice of the wrong form of the word. Here is a list of different forms of his equivocation the author uses:
I accuse,
rebuke,
reprove" and also
"I expose,
I showed it be guilty,
I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement
conviction,
persuasion,
a rigorous process of argumentation by strict application of logic.
But that's not all, folks. He mentions the definition from "Souters Lexicon of the New Testament" but leaves out the definition of the word specifically used in Hebrew 11: 1, "that by which invisible things are proved." Ask yourself why he leaves out the correct form of the word.
Now for additional fallacies
Boghossian continues: "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews writes instead that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction or persuasion (elenchus) of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, this may be conviction, but it is not an argument, not a cross examination and test by scrutiny, but is a jump without any justification without proof, and without earning it. Where is the virtue in this?"
An additional three fallacies here: alleged certainty, argument from age, and mind reading. The argument from the age fallacy is based on the belief that people in the past supposedly had superior wisdom and knowledge than modern-day people. Of course, this is absurd. Socrates did not know what a syllogism was,much less the terms premise deductive or inductive.
Boghossian states, "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. There is no such thing as the balcony fallacy, but it is meant to give alleged certainty. It is true that Socrates was one of the first philosophers, but the field of philosophy has advanced dramatically in the last 2,500 years.
Then, Boghossian uses the mind-reading fallacy. Since Socrates believed in an invisible God, he has no reason to make such a statement.
Errors Processing on CBHD
Poisoning the well: This is an excellent fallacy when attacking an opponent and you want to overwhelm an opponent or a believer early in a discussion, debate, or class. The attacker quickly states numerous small attacks, one after another. Although multiple attacks can be swiftly verbalized, responding to each requires significantly more time.
Example:
What about the sermon today?
Your pastor is an ignorant fool who chases women all the time, lies about the Bible, and is it for the money.
There are a couple of fallacies used here. However, when multiple attacks are presented quickly, it is difficult to respond to all of them, and it can be distracting when trying to understand the answer.
Ad hominem: Very similar to the poisoning the well but an attack on a person rather than the argument itself.
Example:
My political opponent doesn't even know how to cook spaghetti. While it maybe sad the person can't cook spaghetti, it really does not have have any thing to do with political ability.
Alleged certainty: A conclusion is made without any evidence or false evidence. Usually, the person making the fallacy seems quite confident about their statement and might be a person who should know better. Often, words like obviously, clearly, indeed, or everyone knows are used to convince the person receiving the information.
Example
Everyone knows that Christians are absolute hypocrites. It is easy to miss this fallacy, but the author gives the impression by starting with "everyone knows." The fact that he is wrong is not my point; my point is the author seems so confident that you might believe him even though is wrong.
Appeal to ignorance: The conclusion is based on something you can't disprove; therefore, it must be true.
Most people want proof, but unfortunately, it is hard to get. To do so, you must live in the field of mathematics or simple philosophy topics. Science does not prove anything. However, it does collect a lot of evidence. (inductive logic). We believe in gravity, but we don't have proof that the force is the same 20 billion light years away, nor do we know it will not change a few billion years in the future. Another example is time; there are two theories of time: A theory and B theory. A theory involves past, present, and future, while B theory is tenseless. If science can't prove one of the two, it does show the limits of science.
The multiverse is a popular theory that is well-loved in the atheist world. There is no evidence for or against it, and there will never be. Since you can't disprove it, some people cling to it and use it as evidence for no God.
The base rate fallacy looks at specific or individual information without taking into consideration the overall information.
Example:
It is not unusual for me to hear a statement such as most of the violence and wars in the world are due to religion. This statement is followed by a list of religious wars and events like the Crusades and witches killed in Massachusetts.
Some wars are caused by religion, but the overall percentage is relatively low when looking at all wars. For example, the Encyclopedia of Wars by Axelrod and Phillips categorizes 123 of 1763 wars as religious, or 6.8%. The rate of religious wars, 123/1763, is far too many. It is much less than 1640 wars not related to religion.
I often hear people commenting on the witches killed in Massachusetts when talking about Christianity. It is horrible that 19 people were cruelly killed between 1692-1693. Although it does not take away the pain of their loss, it is a small number compared to over 300 murders in Baltimore City each year.
Blindspot Bias: Although everyone has biases, people are able to note biases of others, but are unable to recognize their own, which prevents individuals from accepting some type of information. Although there are lots of information about the ressurection of Jesus, due to their bias, they don't want to hear any of it
Empiricists, for example, believe in only things they can touch, taste, weigh, or measure in some way. It may sound nice, but it leaves out love, hate, and God.
Example: There are over 516 people who saw the resurrected jesus shortly after his death cling to the idea that there is no evidence of the resurrection.
Contextomy is altering the meaning of a text or speech by removing some surrounding information. It is widespread, and spotting it when it occurs is important—knowing who, when, and where is best when trying to understand something can be essential.
Example:
John Loftus states, "Victor Reppert now says he doesn't have faith."
When you look at surrounding words, it says
"John: I am quite frankly prepared to admit that, given your definition of faith, I have no faith. Damaging admission? Not."
Definition fallacy: Makes up new definitions for words to suit your purpose.
Example:
In "A Manual For Creating Atheists" by Peter Boghossian, the author defines the word faith. One of his definitions of faith is "pretending to know things you don't know." OK, now, where did he get the definition? It's not illegal to run around and make definitions for words, but it can make dialogue difficult.
Dunning-Kruger effect: People who know very little about a topic may believe they are pretty knowledgeable, and are surprised at how poorly they perform when tested. On the other hand, people who are very knowledgeable about a topic may underestimate how well they have done when tested. People don't know what they don't know. This is true with everyone but is quite common when related to religion.
Although some atheists do have some knowledge of the Bible, most do not.
Equivocation: Many words have more than one meaning. The word "bark" could refer to a dog sound or part of a tree. Words must be used consistently.
Example: Take the word like faith in Hebrews and replace it with a different form. Jesus said to the disciples: " Oh you of little faith is ridiculous when faith is changed to "Oh you od little pretending.
Gibberish: it is a mixture of statements that are intentionally confusing and not necessarily related to the argument
Guilt by association is meant to discredit a person or argument by connecting it with something negative or disliked. For example, a member of a hate group standing outside a church and concluding the member of the hate group is a Christian.
Example:
Timothy McVey, the Oklahoma city bomber, who was identified as a Christian for the following reasons:
- He went to church when he was young.
- A picture of a man who might have been his father carrying a Bible.
- There were churches near the bomb site.
- He owned a book written by a man who was part of a hate group.
- He went to gun shows.
Red Herring: Using extra information to distract the mind from following the actual argument.
Singular or Underlying Cause: Human behavior is somewhat complex and often associated with a variety of reasons. Sometimes, people disregard several different reasons for an event to occur.
Example:
An excellent example from the article "Hate in God's Name" is that the bank robbers robbed the bank due to their religious beliefs. However, the author doesn't consider the robbers doing so for money. The robbery group used religious words in a note to trick detectives.
The definist is confusing and a bit absurd. Almost no one uses his made-up definition, which is used to embarrass the Christian.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith
www.dictionary.com/browse/faith
www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith
/www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/faith
/www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/faith
Copyright © 2025 Reasonable Faith Baltimore - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder
