Mastering Logical Fallacies: by Michael Withey;
Book review: by Trenton Gill
This is my book review of Mastering Logical Fallacies, by Dr. Michael Withey. I’ll provide a short summary and then expound upon it. Though the author made quite a few good arguments throughout the book, the book as a whole was disappointing and left me dissatisfied. This book is supposed to be about mastering logic; however, the author possesses a clear and alarming bias that leans left and he presents an anti-God agenda sprinkled throughout the entire book. Consequently, much of his “logic” comes from his own opinionated worldview. Found within the pages of this book is not education but indoctrination. Further, all of Dr. Michael Withey’s students would do well to recognize the fallacy that appeals to authority and practice rejecting the lies that Dr. Michael Withey teaches. I do not recommend this book to anyone.
The book starts off well and without bias, but by page 22 the author promotes a positive view of Barak Obama; in stark contrast, the author pushes a negative view of Donald Trump on page 40. A few times throughout the book, the author uses references to The Simpsons. At first glance, the use of The Simpsons might not seem like a big deal; however, there is a theme that obviously runs throughout this book and that theme is anti-God. The Simpsons are known for mocking Christianity. On page 29, the author uses Homer Simpson as a “real life example” to prove his point. Though Homer Simpson might be on a television show found in our normal real life experiences, Homer Simpson himself is not a real life example. The author should have chosen a better “real life example,” perhaps anything or anyone from history or current events.
By page 43, the author singles out Christianity and attempts to discredit the Bible by claiming that Isaiah 40:22 proclaims the world to be flat. The author intentionally cherry-picked the very end of that Scripture and omitted what was actually written: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth…” Page 43 is discussing the fallacy of appealing to authority. However, a few pages earlier (page 38), the author wrote, “So, if I say, ‘Black holes emit radiation,’ I can justify this by appealing to the authority of Stephen Hawking.” But can a finite and fallible being be an infallible expert? Have scientists ever been wrong? Of course they have been wrong. While the author attempts to discredit the Christian faith, the author fails to notice that he too possesses faith. The author possesses faith that other humans are correct in all their estimates; therefore, the author believes [by faith] that black holes exist and that they emit radiation. Meanwhile, back on page 44 where the author attempted to dismantle and discredit Christianity, the author wrote, “An expert’s opinion may not represent the consensus of other experts…. other experts may treat him as a crank…. the expert may have a vested interest in getting people to accept his opinions…. take such expert pronouncements with a grain of salt. After all, a group of ‘experts’ won’t necessarily achieve an absolute consensus about a topic; experts aren’t necessarily impartial.” So, who then is an expert? What makes someone an expert? Isn’t an ‘expert’ a mere human being who was simply dedicated to obtaining documentation from what could have been a biased educational institute? Would, then, an ‘expert’ be defined as someone who was committed to a cause for a specified amount of time? But should a commitment to a cause determine the ‘expert’ title? Can you think of anyone who had been committed to a cause, earned a title of ‘expert,’ yet did evil deeds? What about Dr. Josef Mengele? And that’s why it’s important not to fall for the fallacy of appealing to authority. Titles are earned when someone puts in enough time and dedication to acquiring such titles; however, possessing a title doesn’t make that person an expert on Truth — the person would merely be more knowledgeable of the desired topic to which that person was dedicated. This is also why Dr. Michael Withey’s teachings should not be accepted without first being examined critically. Michael Withey possesses a title of “Dr.”, but does that mean he speaks Truth?
On page 42, the author wrote, “should your opponent try to whip up hatred against a certain group, respond in kind by stressing the need for tolerance and understanding (good luck with that).” First off, does luck exist? Should the person who desires to teach logic use the word “luck”? And second, the author demands tolerance yet attacks Christianity on the very next page. But even if the message of tolerance is to be taken seriously, what is to be tolerated? We must remember that a tolerance to lies is an intolerance to Truth. See my argument about Truth:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/what-is-truth/
On page 58, the author discusses the appeal to desperation fallacy while putting a negative spin on the republican party. The author chose to use Medicare to illustrate the fallacy. Instead, let’s use the pro-choice argument that appeals to desperation:
P1. Unwanted pregnancy demands a serious response.
P2. Abortion sounds like a serious response.
:. Abort.
Using the author’s own words, let’s examine the evidence: “Alternatively, even if the proposed solution would resolve the problem at hand, it doesn’t mean it should be implemented; there may be other, possibly better ways of resolving the problem. Moreover, the proposed solution may be worse than the original problem.”
So, if I had an unwanted pregnancy, one solution would be to abort the baby. However, this doesn’t mean I should abort my baby — I could, for instance, give the baby up for adoption; or I might opt to just accept responsibility for the life now within me.
On page 51, the author’s “comeback” leads to the author stating that people who use marijuana should not go to jail and that “there are better ways of dealing with this problem (e.g. drug education, harm-reduction programs).”
Is the best solution the greatest prevention? So, what’s the best solution to the abortion debate? Read my logical argument against abortion here:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/abortion/
And as for the drug debate, advocating drug education implies the need for drug prevention. The need for drug prevention implies that drugs are bad/wrong. The need for harm-reduction implies that harm is bad/wrong. A claim of “better” appeals to the best. A claim of “bad” or “wrong” appeals to the absolute moral standard of right and what is best. By whose standards do we live? Without an absolute moral standard, all morals would be relative and relativism is absolutely absurd. Read my argument against moral relativism here:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/moral-relativism/
On page 53, the author discusses the fallacy of appealing to emotion. The author attempts to use Proposition 8 to flip the argument in favor of same-sex marriage by asserting that those who are against same-sex marriage appeal to emotion and use the argument, “What sort of monster are you?!” In fact, this is the tactic used against those who oppose same-sex marriage. This is evident in the multiple cases where defenders of marriage are called hateful, intolerant, or even bigots. Using the author’s own words yet again, I’ll make my own case: “The mistake arises when the appeal to emotion is used in lieu of an argument…. they are still the facts, regardless of how one feels.” This is true. We must separate facts from feelings. Biology and anthropology argue in favor of heterosexual relationships and traditional view of marriage. Read my argument, “Defending Marriage” here:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/defending-marriage/
On page 56, while discussing the fallacy of appealing to faith, the author wrote, “many people lack faith altogether.” But is that true? All people possess faith. Have you ever eaten something in faith believing that it wasn’t poisoned? In fact, the author already revealed his faith when he appealed to the authority of Stephen Hawking — he revealed that he possessed faith that black holes not only exist, but that they also emit radiation. The author then goes on to use the book of Leviticus to argue his anti-God worldview that Leviticus also prescribes that one shouldn’t wear mixed fibers and we do that today; therefore, when Leviticus opposes homosexuality, it should be acceptable today. But is that true? No. The author reveals his ignorance of Scripture. Mosaic ceremonial law passed away, but homosexuality is still listed as being wrong in the New Testament. The author attempts to argue the need for tolerance and love by asking, “Shouldn’t that encourage us to accept homosexuality?” Again, it is important to know what we would be tolerating. A tolerance to lies is an intolerance to Truth. And is it really true that “love is love?” As I have addressed in my argument, “Defending Marriage,” the “love is love” mantra is inaccurate and invalid. Logic proves that pluralism is a false doctrine; logic does not prove that no belief should be established, but that Truth is absolute and there exists one worldview that is true.
On page 58, the author attacks GOD yet again while discussing the fallacy of appealing to fear. The author also appeals to emotion by stating that Donald Trump proposes to ban Muslims. In light of the recent news stories covering the “travel ban,” it is important to know the truth in the matter. The purpose of a temporary travel ban is to prevent unnecessary terrorist attacks. It’s not a ban on Muslims. It just so happens that the areas prone to terrorists harbor a vast majority of Muslims. Do we purify our water before drinking it? What about dross from gold? Chaff from grain? Would you want mold in your house? In life, filtering systems are necessary and good. Please read my immigration argument here:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/mold-myth-or-monster/
The author states that people believe in GOD because they are afraid of Hell; in fact, Hell is merely a fallacy that appeals to fear. But is that true? Yet again, I will use the author’s own words against him: “The trick here is to show that there’s nothing to be frightened of, or that your opponent is exaggerating.” It is true that the author is exaggerating the claim that Hell is merely an appeal to fear. The author’s “comeback” is to ask, “So, if I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in hell anyway; so why worry?” Well, Truth exists whether you believe in it or not. But should we worry? Should we fear?
“So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.”
(1John 4: 16-19)-ESV
GOD is a message of hope, salvation, restoration, and celebration. The gospel means the “good news.” John 3:16-17 makes the message a mission of love. Hell is merely mentioned as a promise; it’s not a threat. Rebellion against government law produces promised consequences of prison. Do citizens live life in fear of breaking the law or do they live in the joy of freedom to live life in alignment with love? If criminals end up in prison, is that not what we call justice? If criminals find themselves in prison, was it not their choices that led them there? Is it wrong that citizens don’t want criminals in society? Is it wrong to separate sinners from saints in Hell and Heaven? If GOD is perfect love (1John 4:8) and desires for all people to be saved (1Timothy 2:4; 2Peter 3:9), is it not intellectually dishonest to claim that GOD threatens people with Hell? If GOD has commanded us to make right decisions and granted us the gift of free will to make decisions, who is to blame if we make wrong decisions? So, what is at question is not the justice of Hell, but the existence of Hell. The atheist says he/she doesn’t believe in GOD; therefore, Hell does not exist and there is not a reason to worry about facing promised judgment for immoral choices. Many criminals did not believe they would face judgment only to face judgment at a later time. Truth exists whether one believes Truth exists or not. Many people choose not to believe in GOD because they reject GOD’s absolute moral standard. But if humans are to claim anything to be right or wrong, there must be an absolute moral standard by which the wrong may be compared. To know what is crooked we must first know what is straight. See my arguments about evil and Hell:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/evil/
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/hell/
On page 62, the author argues yet again against GOD. Read my arguments as to why GOD is the most reasonable belief:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/does-a-creator-god-exist/
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/intelligent-design-1/
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/intelligent-design-2/
From pages 67-72, the author argues yet again to promote homosexuality, but this time with a faulty premise that nothing can be assumed to be natural or normal. But we know what is natural and normal and that is how we are able to identify abnormalities such as cancer or birth defects. How can something be called a defect unless we know what is normally there that would be lacking?
On page 82, the author again argues on behalf of homosexuality by stating that “society may traditionally have thought homosexuality was sinful, but this was an injury to homosexuals” But is that true? Again, we must separate feelings from facts. We must not mistake the acknowledgment of wrong action for being an attack on a person. Do we injure pedophiles by acknowledging their actions as sinful? Who is to say that pedophilia is wrong if “love is love” like the argument for gay marriage suggests? Or if the argument for gay marriage is to insinuate it as being acceptable due to adult consent, why would incest or polygamy be wrong? This is nothing more than an appeal to pity or emotion. Are hurt feelings true injuries? Would it hurt the feelings of an obese person to point out wrongful eating habits? The bottom line is that marriage matters and sex matters. I highly recommend Jonathan McKee’s book, Sex Matters:
Also, see my book review for his book. In my review, I ask dozens of important thought-provoking questions to prompt further examination:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/sex-matters-book-review/
On page 88, the author essentially argues against GOD yet again, but this time directs his argument against prayer and miracles. But if “a false positive is much more likely than an accurate result,” what does that say about the evidence accepted? The real argument is whether miracles are possible or not. The real argument is whether GOD exists or not. If GOD exists, miracles are possible. Read my argument for the possibility of miracles:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/miracles-or-myths/
On page 93, the author again uses GOD as an example.
On page 96, the author chose to discuss the fallacy of blind authority by using cult members. Although what is discussed is true of mindless members of a cult, there seems to be an underlying effort to discredit GOD yet again.
On page 99, the author discusses the fallacy of cherry picking and uses the National Rifle Association, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the right to bear arms in an attempt to argue in favor of what seems to be an obvious liberally left aligned agenda. Again — and ironically so — I will use the author’s own words against him: “We all subconsciously seek out evidence that corroborates our beliefs, and tend to ignore evidence that contradicts them — this is a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. So we’d be well advised to be on guard against sloppiness in our own thinking as much as our opponents.” In fact, taken as a whole, this entire book is bias to the author’s liberal and anti-God worldview. Either the author is not aware of his own inclination to cherry pick arguments or he had an agenda to attack GOD and conservatism. So, the author is either an educated fool or diabolical and deceitful.
On page 119, the author discusses the fallacy of false analogy and somehow ends up promoting e-cigarettes by stating “e-cigarettes lack the harmful properties that normal cigarettes have…. they are not harmful (or, at least, there is no evidence yet for their being so).” While I agree that e-cigarettes can be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, I believe it is irresponsible for the author to have promoted e-cigarettes as not being harmful. Does the smoker inhale? Is that which is inhaled healthy to inhale? Does the substance being inhaled belong in the lungs? Do e-cigarettes deliver nicotine? Is nicotine addictive? Should anything addictive be advocated or promoted? Is it good to provide the addictive substance without restrictions? Isn’t it possible for the e-cigarette to be a gateway drug and lead to something else more harmful? And though I concede that my last point may be considered the fallacy of a slippery slope, I believe it is more important that the author considers the ramifications of his actions. Because the author possesses the ability to influence others’ decisions and guide their beliefs, he should have invested more time into finding a different example for his argument or explained the negative and harmful aspects of e-cigarettes.
Between pages 128-130, the author reveals his true identity by not only attempting to discredit GOD [again], but also essentially rejecting the Declaration of Independence by stating that the text itself “refuses to provide” an “argument by which [the authors could] establish [the] substantive conclusion” we are endowed by our Creator (GOD). Disregarding or discarding the Declaration would be to create an unacceptable new world order established by moral relativism, which is untenable. In regards to the Declaration of Independence, the authors’ argument was established by the existence of GOD. So, the real argument regarding the Declaration of Independence is whether GOD exists or not. Again, I will use Dr. Michael Withey’s own words against himself: “Don’t let your opponent bully you into silence.”
There are three basic positions one can hold:
- GOD/gods exists.
- I don’t know.
- GOD/gods does not exist.
First, we must recognize that Truth is absolute and never relative. Then, we must realize that it is possible we do not know everything. Test yourself. Can you answer my questions?
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/questions/
Next, we need to admit that we do not know everything. Claiming to lack knowledge is an honest position to hold. Understand agnosticism:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/agnosticism/
And finally, a logical argument can be made that atheism is intellectually dishonest. Where’s there’s atheism, there’s moral relativism; moral relativism is self-refuting and untenable.
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/atheism/
On page 130, the author wrote, “God commands the good; but does He command it because it is good, or is it good because He commands it?” Withey goes on to state, “morality rests on a ‘just because:’ what is good is ultimately arbitrary, the result of God’s contingent will.” However, this is a false dilemma. GOD commands the good for both reasons — it is good and it is good because GOD is good. We do not have to decide one or the other. It is both. Without GOD’s absolute moral standard, all morals would be relative. However, relativism is self-refuting. Remind yourself of the Truth of this if you need to do so:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/moral-relativism/
On page 133, the author discusses the ludic fallacy and goes on to state that “real life isn’t a game — there aren’t any rules that prohibit certain outcomes from coming to pass.” This is easy enough to refute by simply examining the law of gravity; however, I decided to expound on this argument. Please dig deeper:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/mirage/
On pages 139 & 167, the author makes his naturalistic bias known by defending Darwinism. Again, I’ll use the author’s own words against him: “The reduction to the absurd only gives rise to a fallacy when the absurdity it exposes is predicated on misrepresentations of your opponent’s position.” Withey has misrepresented the Creator and thus misrepresented himself (the creation). Attempting to reduce mind, morality, and meaning to mere materialism and naturalism is absurd. What about immaterial consciousness? What is a thought? If it is mere matter in motion, what does it matter? All morals would be relative. Evolution demands that only the strongest survive. If that is accepted, then rape cannot be determined to be wrong since it is the strongest male ensuring the continuation of his line. Also, how could it be determined to be wrong for a homeless person to murder a rich citizen? If only the strongest survive, the homeless person is doing right to ensure the necessity of his surviving and thriving. Also, life’s meaning and purpose would ultimately be relative and even nihilistic. If your child determined that the meaning of his life was to be the best burglar or most famous serial killer, you would have no right to force your own relative morals on him. The position is clearly untenable. The author wrote, “go back far enough and you will find a common ancestor that both we and they descend from.” The problem is that there is a big difference between micro and macro evolution. The evidence for human evolution is insufficient:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/evolution/
On pages 142-143, the author discusses the fallacy of moving the goalposts. The author’s entire argument seems to be based on the work of Lawrence Krauss in order to reject the existence of GOD [yet again]. The problem with Lawrence Krauss’s work is that he actually used something and called it nothing in order to prove that something can come from nothing. But that is merely stealing from GOD and is a failure at hitting the mark. True nothing is absolutely nothing and something never comes from nothing unless a transcendent Someone provides that something. In response to Krauss being told he essentially cheated by calling something nothing, Krauss had said, “I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that.” Krauss’s argument is revealing. We simply cannot call something nothing because we desire it to be nothing. I highly recommend you read Frank Turek’s book, Stealing From GOD:
On page 143, the author, promoting an “effective comeback” wrote, “Feel free to call your opponent a jerk, an SOB, or a villain, depending on your mood.” Does this sound like someone who has mastered logic? Mr. Withey, your failure to meet the absolute standard does not warrant name calling. Is it ever acceptable to call your opponent names? Should everyone resort to some sort of ad hominem fallacious argument? Should any logical decision be dependent upon your mood? Or should we always separate feelings from facts? Shame on you. Because you are in a position to influence others’ beliefs and direction in life, you should desire to make a conscious effort to critically examine everything you write before you publish it. And by the way, in the last sentence of the first paragraph of ‘the comeback’ section on page 18, the word should be “by” and not “be.” In addition, the first word of the second sentence of ‘the mistake’ section on page 79 should be “your” and not “you.” Isn’t it ironic that you made a mistake in the section that apparently calls out the mistake?
On page 150, the author discusses the naturalistic fallacy and makes a claim that goodness is a non-natural property, but he provides no evidence for the claim. He then goes on to state, “a homophobe’s declaration that homosexuality is wrong, because it is unnatural…”. I’ve already refuted this fallacy in my argument, “Defending Marriage,” but the author’s incessant demand that homosexuality is natural, normal, or right goes against the very fallacies he ascribes himself as being able to teach to others. The author is inconsistent and simply wrong. Is it truly a phobia? Is someone a homophobe because he/she simply states a biological fact that is also evident in anthropology throughout history? What exactly is Mr. Withey appealing to in his argument? In ‘the mistake’ section on page 152, the author wrote, “how can any of [the homosexual’s] activities be unnatural?” Again, it is ironic that I will have to point out his mistake in the section he attempted to point out another’s mistake. Unnatural cannot be known unless the natural is known. If a human is naturally able to invent or create, this implies creation; creation implies a creator. If human is creation, who or what created the human? Are we truly to believe that the universe and all life simply came from nothing as Lawrence Krauss would have us believe? Did life originate from non-life? If humans are so evidently superior in their natural abilities, can the origin of humanism honestly appeal to naturalism or materialism? The claim that no human activity is unnatural is to say that all human activities are natural. Is a human living and breathing under water natural? Is it natural for a human to eat his/her own feces? Likewise, wrong cannot be known unless right is known. Not all human activities are right. The author bases his arguments from relativism yet appeals to the absolute standard.
In ‘the comeback’ section of page 152, the author wrote, “So, it’s hard to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, if animals also engage in it…. What’s natural isn’t ipso facto good.” First, the author makes a claim that animals engage in homosexual activity without providing any evidence for the claim. Second, even if some homosexual activity has been observed in the wild animal kingdom, was it consensual? Also, is it common? Even if it is common, that doesn’t mean it is normal. Cancer is common, but it is not normal; it’s not the Design. Birth defects are common, but not normal; it’s not the Design. In addition, should humans be compared to wild animals? Should animals be held to the absolute moral standard to which humans are held? Should humans be held to a higher standard than wild animals? Why or why not? Moreover, the argument of “what’s natural” presupposes the existence of something being natural. The author would either need to prove homosexual activity to be normal or prove why the unnatural act is to be considered right.
On page 154, the author discusses the nirvana fallacy and argues the need for contraceptives. While it is true that contraceptives have a high success rate at preventing unwanted pregnancy, abstinence is still the best answer. (re-read discussion for page 82). Sex matters. Contraceptives is to sex as Moses and divorce is to marriage (Matthew 19: 3-9). Divorce was only permitted due to hardness of hearts and rebellion to the Design. Contraceptives are only permitted due to people refusing the Design. Can contraceptives prevent emotional investments or protect purity? Is a condom a barrier that blocks broken hearts? The author wrote, “If you aim at perfection, you will frequently fail to do anything good at all.” That is false. You might fail to be perfect, but you’ll most likely accomplish something good. Examine the author’s claim for his book: “The definitive guide to flawless rhetoric and bulletproof logic.” The author aimed at perfection and failed. But did he accomplish some good? Though I reject his agenda, I would say that the author has at least accomplished some good. In his “comeback” section on page 155, the author wrote, “You need only point out that your aim was never to make things perfect, only to improve things a bit (unless you did promise perfection, in which case you asked for it!).” That statement is the reason for this lengthy review — the author claimed perfection; consequently, he asked for this.
Still on page 155, I’ll use the author’s own words against him [yet again]: “If the opponent’s proposal not only solves the problems that yours does, but also solves some problems that yours doesn’t, then his solution should be preferred.” The author should then admit that my proposal should be preferred. Abstinence has 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy and protecting purity. Abstinence also prevents abortions and protects people from emotional entanglements. In regards to abstinence, the author seems to think that “the bar is set too high: unless the proposal can bring about heaven on earth, it should be rejected.” The bar is not to be considered “too high” simply because someone desires to set sin as the standard. The proposal of living in alignment with the absolute moral standard can literally bring about Heaven-like quality of life here on Earth.
On page 159, the author discusses the fallacy of proving non-existence and makes it his goal [yet again] to discredit the existence of GOD. Refer to the discussion from pages 128-130.
There are three basic positions one can hold:
- GOD/gods exists.
- I don’t know.
- GOD/gods does not exist.
The agnostic claims to be without knowledge; the agnostic has nothing to prove. The theist claims that GOD exists; the theist must present the available evidence to prove that GOD is the most reasonable belief. The atheist claims that GOD/gods does not exist; the atheist must prove non-existence and would seemingly have to do so with lack of evidence.
On page 161, the author wrote, “If your opponent offers no evidence supporting the belief that his favored entity exists, and instead challenges you to show that it doesn’t exist, then you can challenge him back.” This is a false dilemma. Both beliefs are required to provide evidence for their claim. To believe (possess a belief) that something does not exist simply because you lack knowledge of its existence is a premature conclusion of a closed-minded individual. To say that GOD does not exist due to lack of knowledge is to admit to a premature belief. It’s intellectually dishonest. The author also wrote, “It’s generally the job of the believer to give reasons to believe that something exists. Of course, if he can do so, he has legitimately shifted the burden of proof: we should believe that P exists as he asserts, unless we can prove otherwise.” Mr. Withey is correct is what he wrote. And the fact is that evidence for GOD has been provided in multiple areas with the following arguments:
- Cosmological
- Teleological
- Moral
- Axiological
- Ontological
- Anthropological
- Miracles
There is more than enough reason to believe that an intelligent Creator GOD exists. The best someone can do is to admit to being without knowledge and remain an agnostic in the first sense that the existence of GOD or gods is unknown. But to ever hold the position of an atheist who claims GOD does not exist is intellectually dishonest and refuses to heed the overwhelming evidence that lends credibility to the possibility of GOD.
On page 173, the author discusses the fallacy of shoehorning and uses Jesus as an example:
“Let me tell you about my views on Jesus. Jesus is my personal savior…”
“But we were discussing farming!”
On page 174, the author wrote, “He may dearly love to discuss Jesus with you, but since your topic is farming, his contribution is quite beside the point.” The author is claiming that Jesus is irrelevant to the discussion of farming; however, this presupposes either that Jesus didn’t exist or wasn’t who He said He was. So, without being intellectually dishonest and closed-minded, one should should ask why Jesus is relevant and allow an explanation. Furthermore, Jesus is actually relevant when discussing farming due to the entire 13th chapter of the book of Matthew. The parables of the sower, wheat and the weeds, and the mustard seed and the yeast are all relevant to farming and thus relevant in the discussion about farming. If you believe yourself to be a farmer, you should know what you’re truly harvesting. You will reap what you sow. It is important to know what you are sowing and where you are sowing. Do you know what you are sowing or where you are sowing? Also, are you aware of what has been sown that you yourself did not sow but are able to reap? Where are the seeds? Along the path to get snatched? On rocky ground and without roots? In the thorns to get choked out? What will you harvest? Are you a weed or a seed? Will you grow roots and grow tall or wither to nothing at all? A lack of understanding as to why Jesus would be relevant doesn’t mean Jesus is not relevant. It simply means you don’t understand why Jesus is relevant. I assure you — Jesus is always relevant.
On page 174, the author concludes his discussion of the shoehorning fallacy by stating the following about those who talk about Jesus: “Such people are best avoided, as they tend to be bores.” Understanding the author’s agenda that runs throughout his entire book, it seems likely that the author is truly saying something like this: “Avoid Christians; they talk about an irrelevant Jesus; they are boring. Avoiding Christians is justifiable because they are shoehorners and I am logical. I am better than the illogical fantasy-filled fools who believe fallacies. I do not need to associate with such people.” But to the author, I would like to give a word of warning: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)-ESV
On page 177, the author discusses the slippery slope fallacy by advocating for homosexuality and gay marriage by calling such decisions “innocuous.” Where is the proof that such decisions are harmless? In fact, the opposite can be proven.
The author wrote, “For example, if he argues that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing incestuous or inter-species marriage, you might respond that it doesn’t have to: even if gay marriage is legalized, these further expansions of marriage would be ruled out, because of the prohibitions on incest and beastiality.” However, to that my response is to say that gay marriage didn’t “have to” be, but it did in fact become. Gay marriage was prohibited; now it’s legal. If “love is love,” prohibiting two consenting adults from marriage would be an act of discrimination — even if the consenting adults are related. It can be comparable to Fair Housing laws. If we do for one, we must do for all. The issue is deep and deserves to be dealt with in depth. Again, see my argument for “Defending Marriage” for an in-depth explanation:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/defending-marriage/
Also, see my argument, “Subtle” for an in-depth explanation as to why the slippery slope argument is valid and not fallacious:
https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/subtle/
The author wrote, “In reality, we can usually stop the chain of consequences at any juncture…. why, when we take the first step, can we not simply stop there?” While it is true that the chain of consequences can be stopped (that’s called repentance), it is untrue that humans have done so. In reality, have we stopped? An examination of history reveals that humans have not stopped; in fact, humans have continued to push the line between right and wrong, altering Truth to accommodate sin. In reality, a junkie says he/she can stop at any time. But has he/she? The fact that it can be stopped does not warrant that it should continue, let alone begin. Do you need to take the first step at all? Show me evidence in human history where we have stopped after the first step. So-called “progressives” need to advance in order for “progress” to be claimed. So yet again, I shall use the author’s own words against him: “Once you’re at the top of a slippery slope, it’s very hard not to slide down, all the way to the bottom; the best thing, then, is not to get on the slope at all.” The author also recommend that his opponent should “spell out exactly how the first step will lead to all the others.” And I have done so in both my arguments “Defending Marriage” and “Subtle.”
On page 180, the author actually makes good points while discussing the fallacy of special pleading. As I am accustomed of doing, I shall again use the author’s own words against him. The author wrote, “What you cannot do, however, is accept the law in general and yet refuse to apply it to a particular case. To do so is essentially self-contradictory. Worse, once you go down that route, there’s no reason why other people shouldn’t also be allowed to make ad hoc exceptions.”
Male and female exist and are not one and the same. Chromosomes reveal Truth. XY = male; XX = female. Abnormalities are simply that — abnormal; they are the exception and not the rule. People who claim that gender identity can be chosen are either ignorant to the rule or are special pleading an exception. Biology is reality, not bigotry. A male cannot be a female simply because he feels like a female. To proclaim gender identity as a choice is to reject biology and absolute Truth. And in regards to gay marriage, once gay marriage is allowed because “love is love” between consenting adults, “love” and consent would qualify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny and even incest.
The author wrote, “You need to impress on your opponent the virtue of consistency. If your opponent is committed to a rule, he must be committed to it without exceptions. If he believes there are exceptions, he’s not committed to the rule…. This is an instance where invoking the Slippery Slope (see p. 175) becomes a legitimate countermove.”
From pages 186-188, the author discusses the fallacy of sunk cost and again makes good points: “Past losses are therefore irrelevant to the decision at hand: the only relevant consideration is whether it would be worth investing any additional capital in the venture…. This fallacy isn’t so much a problem of logic, as of psychology and economics…. This sometimes comes about because we are scared of losing face: to cut your losses and run would be to admit that you’ve made a mistake. But such misguided pride has grave consequences…. in order to not give up fighting an unwinnable war.”
Misguided pride does have grave consequences; in fact, it is pride that fuels the fire of desire to wage the “unwinnable war” against GOD. Questioning the evidence against a belief is one thing, but when this reluctance to admit to making a bad investment into a belief rises to the level of denying or refusing to heed the evidence, then what we have is not critical thinking but wishful thinking. Many people are reluctant to release lies and false beliefs because of the amount of time and energy they invested into those lies and false beliefs. For if GOD is true, pride must be broken. For if GOD is real, you are not a god and all your actions will be held accountable according to the absolute standard as defined by GOD. The bad and unprofitable investment is pride itself.
Quest For Truth 