Laws of Logic

• Logic is a powerful tool for proving truth and refuting objections to Christianity.
• The word 'logic' is derived from the Greek word 'logos', which means 'word', 'thought' or 'mind'.
• Logic is discovered, not created, and reflects God’s perfect thinking and absolute nature.
• Logical truths are independent of human thought, like mathematical truths.
• Knowledge is derived from experience and learning and is nourished by logic and vice versa.
• Knowledge can be intuitive, such as knowing that two plus two equals four, or experiential, such as knowing the taste of apples from tasting.

Laws of logic include:

• The law of congruence, where a statement is true if it is true, such as 'God alone forgives sins; Jesus forgives sins; therefore, Jesus is God.
• The law of non-contradiction states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time, such as Jesus’ resurrection cannot be both true and false.
• The law of the excluded middle states that a statement is either true or false, no middle ground.

Logical Arguments

• Premises are statements that can be true or false, such as one plus one equals two is true, and B is a vowel is false.
• An argument consists of premises leading to a conclusion.
• A deductive argument moves from the general to the specific, such as All men are mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.
• An inductive argument goes from specific examples to a generalisation, e.g., koalas are seen in June every year, so expect to see them next June.

Logical Fallacies

• Fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to incorrect conclusions.

Ad Hominem

• Attacking the person rather than the argument.
• Instead of arguing the idea, the attack is directed at the speaker’s personality or reputation.
• For example, saying he cannot be trusted because he is a hypocrite ignores the argument itself.
• In the context of apologetics, someone might say don’t believe this apologist because he was once an atheist.
• The appropriate response is to focus on the argument, such as examining the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ rather than the person.
• This fallacy is common in emotional arguments, where someone is trying to distract from the weakness of their argument.
• To avoid it, discuss only evidence and logic, and avoid judgement.

Begging the Question

• Circular reasoning or begging the question.
• This mistake assumes the validity of the conclusion within the premises without providing external evidence.
• For example, saying God exists because the Bible says so, and then proving the reliability of the Bible because it is from God, is a logical circle.
• In apologetics, someone might say Christianity is true because Jesus said so, and Jesus is true because Christianity is true.
• The response is to provide external evidence, such as historical manuscripts or archaeological testimonies that confirm the reliability of the Bible.
• This fallacy weakens the argument because it does not provide a new rationale.
• To avoid it, make sure your premises are independent of the conclusion and supported by evidence.

Red Herring

• Changing the topic to escape the argument.
• For example, when discussing the resurrection of Christ, someone might say why are we discussing Christianity, what about human suffering?
• This distracts from the original discussion.
• In defences, someone may try to shift the conversation to social issues instead of discussing the existence of God.
• The response is to gently bring the discussion back to the original topic, such as saying let’s first focus on the evidence of the resurrection, then we can discuss other issues.
• This fallacy is used to avoid facing a strong argument.
• To avoid it, keep the discussion focused and ask for clarification if the other side tries to change the topic.

Straw Man

• Twisting the other party’s idea to make it easier to attack.
• For example, saying the Trinity means that Christians believe in three gods is a misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity, which states one God in three Persons.
• In defence, someone might say that Christians reject science because they believe in creation, when in fact many Christians believe in science and see creation as compatible with it.
• The response is to gently correct the misrepresentation, such as explaining that the Trinity means one God with three distinct attributes.
• This fallacy makes the argument look weaker than it is.
• To avoid it, make sure you understand the other side’s position thoroughly before responding.

Equivocation

• Using a term with two different meanings in the same argument.
• For example, saying cars have evolved, so organisms have evolved, uses the word evolution in two senses: technological change and biological evolution.
• In apologetics, someone might say freedom means doing what you want, so free will goes against God’s laws, while in Christianity freedom means freedom from sin.
• The response is to clarify the meanings, such as saying that freedom in Christianity means living according to God’s will.
• This fallacy causes confusion due to linguistic ambiguity.
• To avoid it, define terms clearly from the start.

Hasty Generalisation

• Wrong generalisation.
• Judging a group based on a single case or a small sample.
• For example, saying I met a rude Christian, therefore all Christians are rude, is based on an individual experience.
• In defence, someone might say I saw a pastor misbehaving, so Christianity is corrupt.
• The response is to point out that the behaviour of an individual does not reflect the faith, and the teachings of Christianity itself must be examined.
• This fallacy ignores diversity within groups.
• To avoid it, use sufficient samples and avoid generalising from rare cases.

False Dichotomy

• Presenting two opposing options as if they were the only options.
• For example, saying you either believe in science or God assumes a conflict that doesn’t exist.
• In apologetics, someone might say that either the Bible is literally true or all wrong, when there are intermediate interpretations.
• The response is to show that science and faith can complement each other, as scholars do.
• This fallacy artificially limits options.
• To avoid it, look for additional options and avoid black and white thinking.

Genetic Fallacy

• Rejecting an idea based on its source rather than its content.
• For example, rejecting an idea because the speaker is an ex-prisoner or from a different culture.
• In apologetics, someone might say that Christianity cannot be believed because it originated in an ancient context.
• The response is to examine the evidence, such as the reliability of historical manuscripts, regardless of their origin.
• This fallacy ignores the value of the idea itself.
• To avoid it, focus on the argument and its evidence, not its source.

Guilt by Association

• Rejecting an argument because of the speaker’s relationship to a disreputable person or group.
• For example, saying that this apologist cannot be believed because he belongs to a church whose members have made mistakes.
• In apologetics, a person might reject Christianity because of the historical mistakes of some Christians.
• The response is to separate the argument from the individuals, such as focusing on the teachings of Jesus rather than the actions of his followers.
• This fallacy judges an idea based on irrelevant associations.
• To avoid it, evaluate the argument separately from the people.

Poisoning the Well

• Discrediting the other side before presenting their argument to weaken it.
• For example, saying this person is an intolerant apologist, so don’t listen to them before they speak.
• In defence, someone might say Christians are biased , so their arguments are worthless.
• The response is to ask to hear the argument first, such as saying let’s examine the evidence for the resurrection objectively.
• This fallacy aims to prejudice the audience.
• To avoid it, encourage hearing the arguments impartially.

Double Standard

• Using different standards to evaluate the same position based on who is presenting it.
• For example, saying you don’t understand menopause because you are a man, while the person accepts the views of other men.
• In apologetics, someone might say Christianity is irrational because it relies on faith but accepts other beliefs that rely on faith.
• The response is to ask for consistent standards to be applied, such as evaluating all beliefs based on evidence.
• This fallacy shows a bias in judgement.
• To avoid it, use standardised criteria for all parties.

Appeal to Popularity

• Justifying an idea because many people believe in it.
• For example, saying everyone believes in evolution, so it’s true.
• In defence, someone might say atheism is popular, so Christianity is wrong.
• The response is that truth does not depend on the number of proponents, but rather on evidence, such as examining historical manuscripts of the Bible.
• This fallacy ignores that the majority may be wrong.
• To avoid it, focus on evidence rather than consensus.

Conclusion

• Truth exists, is absolute, and cannot be denied without falling into a contradiction.
• The Christian faith is based on rational and historical evidence, as seen in the works of Jesus and Paul and in the stories of people like Lee Strobel and Francis Collins.
• Logic, as a reflection of God’s thinking, supports the defence of the faith and refutes objections.
• Avoiding logical fallacies helps present strong and clear arguments.
• As the Bible says in Romans, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, NIV).
• Use reason and logic to stand firm in your faith and share the light of Christ with the world with kindness and love.