The
Importance of Critical Thinking
|
The
purpose of this section is to help students and teachers better understand
the importance of critical thinking. "Why can't Johnny read?" is an
important question in our day—one that needs to be answered and solved. Just
as fundamental a question might be, "Why can't Johnny think?" Why
is it that in our society today so many people are swayed by mere
emotionalism, or trapped by the most recent propaganda disseminated across
our airwaves, television, or in the classroom? While there are several
factors involved in answering this question one cannot overlook the fact that
people do not think critically. In the following, we will briefly describe what an argument is, look at a fundamental law of logic, and survey a variety of informal fallacies. This survey is designed to provide you with an introduction to the art of critical thinking. |
|
What is an
Argument? An
argument is normally understood to occur when people get together, raise
their voices, and call each other names. Properly speaking, this is not an
argument, but an altercation. An argument, understood in a
philosophical or logical context, is where we draw conclusions from various
reasons (premises). There are several words that we use to indicate what is a reason and what is a conclusion. Words we use to
indicate reasons are because, for, for this reason, as, if ..., based on
the fact that. Words we use to indicate conclusions are therefore,
thus, consequently, hence, it follows that. It's good to keep these
indicators in mind so you can detect when an argument is being made. It is
common that arguments will be confused with mere assertions. Assertions are
the expressions of opinions . . . but without supporting reasons. And
assertions are common! For example, it is common to hear someone assert that
there are contradictions in the Bible. But just saying so doesn’t make it
so. When you hear assertions like this, the proper response is to ask
questions. If someone asserts that there are contradictions in the Bible,
just ask, "Contradictions? Where? Can you give me some examples?"
That is usually enough to dispel that questionable assertion.1 The
Law of Non-Contradiction This law is the foundation for all logical thinking. It is
known by a couple different names: the law of contradiction, and the law of
non-contradiction. No matter what you call it this law is absolutely
inviolable. The law may be defined as follows: a statement (a proposition)
cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. For
example: It cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time and in
the same respect. It could have been raining yesterday, but not today. Or, it
could be raining in Many
Christians, when encountering passages of Scripture that they have a
difficult time reconciling, propose that "God is above logic." But
what would this really mean? Let's look at Genesis chapter 3, for example.
Most Christians are familiar with this passage; we commonly call it "The
Fall." In this passage the serpent approaches Eve with a counter claim
to God's word. While God declared that one would die if one partook of the
fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent declared
just the opposite: one would surely not die. Now, if the law of
non-contradiction did not apply to what God says (and thus to God’s
thoughts), then both God and the serpent could be right. But here is the
problem. When one denies the law of non-contradiction, then there can be no
right and wrong. There can be no real opposition when it comes to truth
claims. Truth and falsehood would not exist. Think of it,
that would mean that nobody could ever be wrong; and nobody could ever
be right. Humans
did not invent the laws of logic any more than they invented the laws of
nature—such as the law of gravity. In fact, throughout the Bible, the law of
non-contradiction is implied. If it were not, then nothing could be true and
nothing could be false. But right thinking is thinking that imitates God's
thinking; and because God does not contradict himself (his word cannot be
broken—John Many
non-Christians have claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a
contradiction. Is this claim true? The doctrine basically says that within
the one God there co-exist three persons. While it may be difficult for us to
fully comprehend this, there is no contradiction. If I were to claim that God
is both God and not God . . . well, that would be a contradiction. Or if I
were to claim that there are three persons that co-exist as the one
God and there are not three persons that co-exist as the one God, that too would be a contradiction. Remember, the law
says that a proposition (a statement, an idea, a belief) cannot be both true
and not true at the same time and in the same respect. Or to re-word this to
fit our example: no two propositions which contain contradictory claims can
both be true at the same time. The words
from the Athanasian Creed sum up the doctrine of
the Trinity well: We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity;
neither dividing the substance, nor confusing the persons (paraphrased).
There is no contradiction here. We believe that there is tri-unity among the
persons of the Godhead. These are not three separate gods, though. There is
only one God. But there is not only one person in the Godhead; there are
three persons. See? Three persons, one God. There simply is no contradiction
to be found. In
fact, if someone wants to deny the law of non-contradiction, that person runs
immediately into the law. Let me explain. In order to actually communicate a
denial of the law of non-contradiction one must presuppose (assume) the
validity of the law; otherwise my rejection of their claims would not be
contrary to their claims. Imagine the following "conversation": "Hey,
I don’t think the law of non-contradiction is really that important. In fact,
I believe that we need not follow it at all." "Really?
So you think we need to follow the law of non-contradiction. You really
believe that it is that important?" "Didn’t
you hear me? I said just the opposite from what you said I said." "Oooh. Do you have a problem when people contradict
you?" "Touche!" You see,
if there is no law of non-contradiction, then there can be no contradiction.
But if there is no contradiction, for me to affirm that there is such a thing
as contradiction would not be a contradiction. Are you confused yet? When
expressing a denial or affirmation of any claim, proposition, belief or idea,
one must presuppose the law of non-contradiction. It is fundamental to any
kind of distinctions: right and wrong, good and bad, true and false.3 Fallacies "Arguments, like men, are
often pretenders." —Plato A fallacy
is simply a faulty argument—a pretender, so to speak. In the process of
reasoning, there are two types of fallacies that occur: formal and informal.
Formal fallacies deal with the actual form of the argument. When an argument
is structured incorrectly it is fallacious. But even when an argument is
formally correct it may still be informally fallacious. The conclusion may
not actually follow from the premises due to a faulty gathering of
information, circular reasoning, or some other mistake. Informal fallacies
are the more common of the two types of fallacies, and will be covered below.
We will not be covering formal fallacies in this introduction to critical
thinking.4 Informal
Fallacies Informal fallacies are
the most common examples of faulty reasoning. Below we provide a listing of
some common informal fallacies, a brief explanation of each, and an
illustration or two. It is difficult to provide hard and fast classifications
for informal fallacies because many fallacies are so similar, and several
fallacies can be present in the same bad argument. It is also difficult to
provide an exhaustive listing of fallacies because there seem to be an
endless number of ways that people can make mistakes in their thinking. In
fact, one author lists over one hundred fallacies in his book!5 [It would be good to survey these fallacies before watching the videos. If your students get a grasp on these fallacies, then they not only will be able to detect them in other people's arguments but avoid them in their own reasoning. If possible, it would be good to photocopy this list and hand it out to the class as an extra reading. Some wonderful discussion times could be derived from using this list in analyzing some of the arguments presented in the videos (especially those concerning abortion and evolution).] Fallacies
of Ambiguity Communication can be difficult in our day. Difficulties arise from differing cultures, age groups, races, prejudices, and especially from differing worldviews. One of the most important ground rules that must be followed for clear communication is clear definitions. We may be unnecessarily frustrated if others misunderstand what we say because they either don't know what a word means, or we simply have not supplied clear definitions of our words. Several fallacies arise from unclear language. We'll look at three. Equivocation The
fallacy of equivocation occurs when we use different definitions for the
same word, or when a word is taken in a different way than intended (a
different definition). Many words have different meanings depending on their
context. Consider: "I saw." Now, that could mean visual
comprehension, or it could be a claim to profession (i.e. "I work in a
saw mill. Therefore, I saw.") How about the word "pen?" Is it
a writing utensil or an enclosure for animals? Consider the following
examples: "All
men are created equal? If that were so, then there wouldn’t be so many rich
people." "If
all men are created equal, then why am I so short?" The
difficulty that arises in these examples is that the statement "all men
are created equal" means that they are to be equally valued, as human
beings. It was never intended to mean that we are all clones of one another,
or that we would have equal outcomes (a tenant of socialism). There is
a special type of equivocation that can occur with relative terms like
"tall," or "short." These types of words must be
understood in relation to something else. To claim that something or someone
is tall assumes a relation to other people or things. The vagueness of these
types of terms can only be clarified by context. They are relative to their
contexts. It should
be noted that much of our humor rests in equivocations. In a humorous
context, we call it a "play on words." Also, sometimes an
equivocation can be intentional and witty, such as when Ben Franklin
declared, "We must all hang together, or they will hang us
separately." The word "hang" is intended to be understood
quite differently in the two instances. (Group death would be no more
exciting than individual death!) Special
Instance. When
Christians are witnessing to people who are bound up in the various
pseudo-Christian religions (i.e. cults) of today, they need to be very
careful to define their words so as not to be misunderstood. For example,
while Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both use the name of Jesus Christ, they
have completely different meanings. The Jehovah's Witness believes that Jesus
was the first created being and was, in fact, Michael the Amphibole The
fallacy of amphibole (pronounced with a long ‘e’) occurs when the
ambiguity of words or phrases arises from their grammatical structure. One of
the more famous examples of amphibole occurred on a wartime conservation
poster. It read: "Save
Soap and Waste Paper" Well? Are
we to save both soap and paper, or only soap? Here's
another example: "I
live on the top floor; drop by some time." What? Am
I to visit, or climb to the top of the building and jump off? As can be
seen with these examples, words can be understood differently, depending upon
their relationships to other words. (A good way to remember the name of this
fallacy is to think of an amphibian—an animal that can live in two
different surroundings, land and water. Words can sometimes do double duty,
depending on their grammatical context.) Accent The fallacy
of accent occurs when the meaning of a sentence is changed through
differing emphases, accents, or tones of voice. For example, a mere
inflection of the voice can change the meaning of a sentence from a
straightforward statement to a question: "I love you." to "I
love you?" Even with the latter example one must wonder if the question
is about love (I love you?), or a person (I love you? I
love you?). Consider
this following example. It is said, "We should not speak ill of the
dead." This can be understood in quite different ways depending on which
words are accented: We should not speak ill of the dead.
But someone else can? We should
not speak ill of the dead. But we will anyway? We should
not speak ill of the dead. But we can think ill of them? We should
not speak ill of the dead. But we can speak ill of the living? This sort
of misunderstanding arises more often when we are reading than when we are
listening to a speaker. The reason for this is that a good speaker will be
able to use inflection to make his or her meaning clear. When we read,
though, we tend to put emphasis where it seems right to us. We need to be
careful in doing this. Fallacies
of Relevance "A hard heart is no infallible protection against a
soft head. . . . This
section will deal with those fallacies that occur when something irrelevant
to the question of truth is added to an argument in the attempt to persuade.
These fallacies simply appeal to what is irrelevant to the question at hand. Appeal
to Pity Emotions
are wonderful gifts from God. We can be happy and sad, joyful and
brokenhearted, angry and forgiving. But human emotions were never intended to
be guardians of the truth. The heart is to follow the head, not vice versa.
The difficulty with this particular fallacy is that everyone is swayed by
emotions from time to time. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. We
should be emotionally driven to follow the Lord, for example. We should also
be emotionally driven to follow the truth, as well. But we should not let our
emotions run our minds. In fact, we are told by the Apostle Paul to be
transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:1-2). The fallacy of
appeal to pity occurs when we determine right
and wrong, true and false, by means of our emotions. While we may not come to
wrong conclusions, more often than not, we do. The issue
of abortion is very emotional. Every side of the debate flourishes with
emotionalism. One side tries to persuade the other in the name of "choice",
another in the name of "life." But it is one thing to use slogans
and clichés, it is quite another to provide clear solid reasons why your
position is true.
The myth
of overpopulation7
is heralded as justification for abortion on demand. Even if overpopulation
were true it would not justify killing people! The solution to famine and
population difficulties is to feed people, not to kill them. We must
never allow our emotions to get in the way of clear, truthful thinking. Genetic
Fallacy The genetic
fallacy is committed when a person argues that something (or someone) is
false (or bad) because of where it (he or she) came from. A very common
example of this fallacy can be seen in the evolutionist objection to
creation: "You're getting science from the Bible." The fallacy can
be clearly seen in that evidence for creation should be examined, no matter
where it comes from, before simply writing it off because a person believes
in the Bible. What is the evidence? Nathanael's initial response to Philip's proclamation, "Jesus of
Nazareth" is a good example of this fallacy. Nathanael
responded, " Ad
Hominem (argument to the person) Another
fallacy is called Ad Hominem—meaning
argument to the person. This fallacy is committed when instead of dealing
with what a person is arguing, one argues, for
example, that the person is lacking in character. The reason this is
fallacious is that a person's character has no bearing on the truth or
falsehood of his or her claims. (A legitimate use of this type of argument
can be found in a court of law. For example, witnesses must retain upstanding
character for their testimony to be believed. If a witness is known to be an habitual liar, then there is good cause to doubt the
integrity of his or her testimony. But reason to doubt his testimony does
not prove that what he is saying is false! That must be checked out with
the facts. Apart from valid instances such as this, there are many that are
invalid.) In
Matthew chapter 11 Jesus rebuts an ad hominem
argument that was leveled against him. The Pharisees and Sadducees had long
been trying to discredit Jesus and his message. One of the tactics they tried
was to discolor his character. In verses 18 and 19 we read Jesus' rebuttal: For John
came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, `He has a demon.' The Son of
Man came eating and drinking, and they say, `Here is a glutton and a drunkard,
a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But wisdom is proved
right by her actions. Jesus not
only points to the stubborn nature of that generation (they would not be
pleased with either John or Jesus), but he makes the point that while they
may attempt to demean his character they will be proved wrong and Jesus will
be proved right. Not only are their objections falsely portraying Jesus and
John, but Jesus makes the point that his life will be vindicated (proved right) by his actions. Another
type of ad hominem argument is the appeal
to force. When someone says that you better agree with them, or else they
will beat you up—that is an appeal to force! Forcing someone to agree with
you does not make you right. Might does not make right! Poisoning
the Well This fallacy (a sub-fallacy of ad hominem) occurs when a person discredits an opposing perspective without even considering any evidence. Name-calling is a good example of this fallacy. If you can discredit a person with a degrading name, even before they present their case, then you have "poisoned the well." No one need consider what they have to say. Of course, the question is not how you label them, but whether or not what they claim is true. Appeal
to Ignorance This fallacy can occur in two ways. 1) To argue that something is true because it hasn't been proven to be false; or 2) to argue that something is false because it hasn't been proven to be true. Just because there is no proof against your position does not prove your position true. Likewise, just because a position has not been proven does not mean that it is false. Sometimes we just need to suspend final judgment until more evidence is in. Fallacy
of the Beard This fallacy
of the beard is committed when a person argues that you cannot come to a
conclusion because one thing differs from another only in degree. The name of
the fallacy derives from the difficulty of determining when exactly someone
has a beard. Is it when one has a ` The
question of modesty is hotly debated in our day. Standards for modest dress
have radically changed over time. And standards for modest dress differ from
culture to culture. Does this mean that we cannot determine immodesty from
modesty? While one may not be able to determine when a dress is
immodest—ankle-length, knee-high, one inch above the knee two inches—there is
certainly a difference between a mini-skirt and one that is ankle-length! It
is fallacious to say because we cannot determine the exact point at which a
dress changes from being modest to being immodest that there is no such thing
as immodesty. Fallacies
of Presumption Fallacies of presumption are those fallacies where someone holds to an unjustified conclusion. This is usually caused by overlooking, denying, evading, or distorting the facts. Hasty
Generalization When you
wish to make an argument for a certain position, you need to gather information
and evidence as your support. In doing this, you must be very careful to
gather enough evidence to actually support your conclusion. The fallacy of
hasty generalization is committed when a person gathers too little
information to support the conclusion being argued. Just
because one or two taxi drivers are rude and obnoxious does not mean that you
can generalize that all taxi drivers are just the same, or even that
most are. All that can really be drawn from such a sampling is that those
particular taxi drivers that you have encountered were rude and obnoxious. In
the same way, just because a person may encounter a couple of Christian TV
evangelists who have questionable character does not mean that one can
conclude that all (or even most) Christians have questionable character. These
examples drive at the heart of the most common way this fallacy is manifest:
prejudices. Our prejudices are typically built on a very small sampling, and
then are generalized to apply to an entire group (or sub-group) of people or
things. Just because your first purchase of a Ford motor vehicle proved to be
a "lemon" does not mean that all Fords are unreliable. In fact,
most motor vehicle manufacturers will attest to the fact that they have produced
a "lemon" at one time or another. At bottom, each of these examples is an
instance of too small a sampling to provide proper support for the conclusion
that is being proffered. Sweeping
Generalization The fallacy
of sweeping generalization is committed when one takes a general rule and
applies it absolutely to all instances, not recognizing that there are
exceptions. The generalization might be a very fair one, but the application
in particular, uncommon, or unique instances may not be. For
example: exercise is generally a good thing. But what if you have a heart
condition? One could say, "Aerobics is the way to go when you exercise,
and Jenny really needs exercise for her heart condition." The problem is
that while aerobics might be "the way to go," they would obviously
not be the right way for Jenny! Instead of it actually helping her, it might
kill her. Even the
Golden Rule can be distorted by sweeping generalization. Someone may say,
"I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Therefore,
since my fellow student is really struggling with his exam, I should give him
some help. After all, I would want him to help me." A drug user could
use the same. "Do unto others, man. I would give you some if I had any.
Share and share alike." These examples are clearly distortions of the
Golden Rule. General rules are qualified by their context and other relevant
rules. Faulty
Dilemma This
fallacy is committed when a person argues that there are only a certain number
of options, and you must choose between them, when in fact there are more
options available. This fallacy is also called the "either/or
fallacy," because it looks like you have to choose either this, or
that. In John
9:2-3 the disciples posed a faulty dilemma when they asked concerning a man
who had been blind from birth, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his
parents, that he was born blind?" This is
an either/or type of question. Instead of answering the question along one of
the lines offered, Jesus denies both . . . and supplies a third. Jesus said,
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the
work of God might be displayed in his life." Loaded
or Complex Question One very
common attempt by unbelievers to stump believers is to ask the age old
question: "Can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Yes or
No?" How would you answer? If you answer yes, then God's omnipotence
(all-powerfulness) is denied due to the fact that he can't lift the
rock. But if you answer no, then God's omnipotence is denied because he can’t
create such a rock. But neither of these answers is satisfying to a
Bible-believing Christian. So where does the problem lie? How is one to get
out of this dilemma? This example
can be classified as the fallacy of a loaded question, or a complex
question. What if I asked you, "Have you stopped beating your wife
yet?" Well, yes or no? If you answer yes, that implies that you
have been beating her. And if you answer no, then you are still
beating her! The problem lies in the question. Not all questions are good,
fair questions. And this question is one of those that is
simply not fair to ask (hopefully). You would have to respond that you have never
beat your wife, and that the question presupposes
that you have. You can’t simply answer with a yes or a no. The
question is wrong. Now back
to God and the big rock. You cannot answer this question with a simple yes or
no. Either answer would make you deny what the Bible teaches about the nature
of God. What you have to do is to show that the question is wrong; it is not
a fair question at all. (It might be good to provide the question about
beating one's wife as an illustration of this.) You see, by definition, since
God is omnipotent (and that is what the Bible teaches), he could create the
largest rock possible. Also, because God is omnipotent, he could lift the
largest possible rock. The problem with the dilemma is the dilemma—it is
faulty; the question was loaded. You cannot set the creative expression of an
omnipotent being against the abilities of an omnipotent being. That would be
just as illogical as asking whether or not God could create a square-circle.
Of course, no such thing could be created. Therefore, it is not within the
realm of reality to speak of such illusions. But such illusions do not in any
way illustrate any limitation in God’s power and abilities. False
Cause In Latin,
this fallacy is called post hoc, ergo propter
hoc, which literally means "after this, therefore because of
this." This fallacy is committed when a person believes that just
because one thing followed another there must be a causal connection. In many past cultures people believed that all sickness was caused by "the gods." These cultures would therefore attempt to placate the wrath of their "gods" by means of various sacrifices. At times the sickness would go away after the sacrifices. Because of this, these people’s beliefs were reinforced. They believed that the "gods" had indeed been placated, and the sickness was removed because of the sacrifice. This is the fallacy of false cause. Actually, many times these sicknesses were caused by simple uncleanliness. In the Old Testament, God taught the Israelites to clean up after themselves (see Leviticus 13-15). Pagans who believed that sickness was caused by their "gods" were therefore committing the fallacy of false cause. They were simply not clean. Mere chronological sequence does not prove causation. Straw
Man The straw
man fallacy occurs when a person misrepresents another's view so as to easily
discredit it. This can happen intentionally or unintentionally. The image
that this fallacy conjures up is that of a person building a straw man just
to knock it over. Well, straw men seem to be easier to knock over than real
men. One might
say, "You say that the New Testament teaches that we are not under law,
and that we are saved by grace through faith alone. Therefore, what you teach
is that we can sin all we want after we are saved." This is clearly a
straw man according to Paul in Romans 6:15ff. Bandwagon
Fallacy This
fallacy is committed when we appeal to a group of people to prove that
something true or false, or right or wrong. Many times Americans fall into
this trap. For example, some people think that certain sexual practices are
justified because over 50% of the American public believes that it is all
right. But we cannot determine right and wrong by majority vote. In In the
past, people believed that the earth was flat. In fact, it is claimed that
most people believed this. But even if that were so, would that make it true?
Of course not. So with our day. Does majority vote make things true or right
today? Just because a great number of Americans think that abortion is
acceptable, does that make it so? Of course not. In the end, we always have
to ask, "What is the evidence?" Two
Wrongs Make a Right "Well, Johnny did it too!" You've no doubt heard similar words before: someone trying to justify his actions based on the fact that it was done to him. But merely showing another's guilt does not prove your innocence. Just because someone else is wrong also doesn't make you right; it just makes both of you wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, they just make two wrongs. Appeal
to Authority There are
times when all of us need to appeal to authorities. Maybe you are not a pro
when it comes to automobiles, so you appeal to a trained mechanic—an
authority. There are times when we visit a doctor's office in order to get an
authoritative opinion concerning our health. There are many valid appeals to
authority. But there are also many invalid appeals to authorities. An appeal
to authority can be fallacious when we appeal to someone who may indeed be an
authority, but not in the field in question. For
example: Isaac Asimov was certainly considered an authority in the area of
science, but he also wrote Asimov's Guide to the Bible. This was not
his field of expertise, so any appeal to his guide as authoritative would be
questionable. This gives us one rule for assessing an appeal to authority:
Ask, "Is the person actually an expert in this field?" A second
rule in appealing to authority is to realize that most authorities are not
infallible. In fact, only God and his word are. It is
also good to keep in mind that sometimes authorities disagree. When this
happens it is really up to you to assess the available evidence to see which
authority uses it best. It is never an option to simply respond, "Well,
authorities disagree, therefore no one can know." This type of response
is unjustified, and probably evidence of laziness. Disagreement never means
that people cannot know, it merely means that we have to try harder to find
out. Chronological
Snobbery This
fallacy occurs when one appeals either to what is old, or to what is new, in
the attempt to establish the truth (as if age were an indicator of truth!). Someone
may appeal to what is traditional. "We have always done it this way, it
must be right." In the end, though, there may be a better way. More
often today, we hear an appeal to the "modern." "We moderns
don't believe in the existence of God. That was for ages past when people
believed in mythology." Merely because something is old or new does not
make it right or true. Argument
to the Future This
fallacy is committed when one appeals to the future to prove one's case.
While there may indeed be evidence forthcoming, this is no ground for arguing
that the case is true because there might be something in the future to
vindicate that belief. You may be wrong. "There is a way that seems
right to a man, but the end thereof is death." The
Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
sometimes argue that the Book of Mormon is just as historical as the
Bible. The problem with this claim is that there is no direct evidence to
support its unique elements (such as Christ visiting the Evolutionists
are always caught in a bind when it comes to the fossil record. The reason
for this is that transitional forms do not exist in the record. Most
often the evolutionist will argue that, while the fossil record is incomplete
(which assumes the case to be proved, and thus begs the question), someday
the needed transitional forms will be found. But such assertions are
fallacious because the transitional forms are needed to
prove evolution, and merely appealing to the future is no proof that
such proof will ever be found. Conclusion We have
only provided a brief survey and explanation of some of the more common
informal fallacies. We recommend that the teacher purchase a couple of the
books listed on the Critical Thinking Fact Sheet in order to master more
fully the art of critical thinking. Students will be aided immensely in
assessing various counter-claims to their faith once they understand the
difference between arguments which are good, and those which are pretenders. Endnotes: 2. A lie is a contradiction of the truth. It is a denial of reality. A rejection of reality, you could say. 3. Of course, there are some people who still insist that such dichotomous thinking is incorrect. But here’s the rub: if it is not correct, that means there is such a state as being correct. Right? That then poses a dichotomy. They just can’t escape the nature of reality. 4. For more information on formal logic and formal fallacies, as well as informal fallacies, see the recommended books on the Critical Thinking Fact Sheet. 5. David Hackett Fischer, Historian's Fallacies (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970). 6.The Apostle Paul warned the early Church about those who would teach a different Jesus and a different gospel (see 2 Corinthians 11:2-4; 13-15; Galatians 1:6-9; see also 1 John 4:1-6). For a good survey and theological refutation of various pseudo-Christian religions, see Defending the Faith, by Richard Abanes (Bethany House Publishers, 1997). 7. See E. Calvin Beisner, Prospects for Growth, and video # 20 for more information. 8. See the excellent video series, "Responding to Relativism," with Dr. Francis Beckwith and Mr. Gregory Koukl. |