Informal Fallacies (Part 2)
A Brief Exploration of the Most Common Thinking Errors
This week we continue to explore more commonly committed fallacies by Christians. Keep in mind our disclaimer from the previous article:
Before we get into the list, I wanted to take some time to make clear, and hear me on this, that I am not coming at anyone. We all make fallacious statements or form beliefs based on fallacious thinking. That does not mean you are a bad thinker or bad person. Ideas are not the same as the person who has them and in the logical sphere, we are dealing with ideas, not the character of the person who holds the idea.
More Commonly Committed Informal Fallacies
Strawman. A strawman is an easily attacked argument. Much like the character in the Wizard of Oz that goes by the same name, a strawman is easily attacked because it is mindless. Mindless things are easy to deface and get around because they cannot rebut or defend themselves. The strawman fallacy then is a misrepresentation of a position albeit intentional or unintentional. Both the intentional and unintentional should cause alarm for us because if we are to actually get into the meat of the discussion, the actual position would be best to discuss.
Strawmen happen so often in the church, even among the professionals, and it helps to be able to address them. If we do not catch the strawman in the act he quickly transforms into a red herring which is just a distraction from the actual discussion. A typical strawman can look like, “You are Reformed? You must be a cessationist.” If the accuser of cessationism did their homework, he or she would understand that there are a few different positions within Reformed theology regarding the gifts of the Spirit. The strawman here is the attack on cessationism without regard to the broad understanding of the gifts or even what that person actually believes about the gifts. It is a misrepresentation of that person’s view.
This is to be contrasted with a steelman. A steelman is not a fallacy. Rather, it is the representation of a view in the strongest way possible. You are trying to throw up the best version of the argument that you can based upon what you know of that person’s beliefs and the various other connections it has as well as any objections that it may face. When you steelman, you do the person a service because you spent the time to understand them and actually deal with the position itself. A note must be made that when you make steelman an argument, you “make an attempt at a steelman.” This phrasing of “attempt” is used to allow for the person to have some unpublished beliefs that they are still working through or may have not gotten to putting into writing. It also allows for the ability for correction. Something we all should be okay with when we get something wrong.
Ad hoc. “Man… you came out of left field with that one!” That is what it seems like with an ad hoc fallacy. The conclusion is one that just pops out of nowhere. It equates to the stereotypical Sunday School answer of, “Jesus!” for any question you could possibly ask on a Sunday morning. Yes, it accounts for the premises but it does not logically follow that Jesus is necessarily the answer to every question. As a Christian, Jesus does answer every question! That does not mean that we can just name drop Jesus and get out of doing the hard thinking.
In culture, and in the church for that matter, this also looks like for every bad thing that happens, you blame the president, or pastor if in a church setting, simply because he is at the top. While he does bear the weight of the blame because of the leadership, it does not necessarily follow that he (or she if you find yourself in an egalitarian church) is truly that made/caused the blunder. Should the president/pastor deal with the issue when it comes up because he is responsible for the whole, yes, but that does not mean that a misstep of a staffer or person in the church is because he was not doing his job. This would be like blaming T.J. Tims for the misstep of Sam Allberry, that the relational misgivings of Allberry were the direct result of a T.J.’s failure to have proper oversight within the church. The truth of the matter is that it was Sam’s failure to be transparent and forthright about the situation that led to his dismissal as an Elder/Pastor.
We in the church need to be careful of tossing out answers/conclusions before truly thinking about what the best conclusion is given the evidence. When we do toss out answers/conclusions to objections without thinking, the anti-intellectual charge only gets grosser and grosser.
Confirmation Bias. What kind of sources do you look at? A question not many people are asking before, during, and after researching a topic. Confirmation bias is a fallacy about the types of sources we use to bolster our position. A person is guilty of confirmation bias when the only sources used or read are those that confirm the position. This goes for any person and any position. If an atheist only reads sources that confirm atheism, then that atheist is guilty of confirmation bias. If a Christian only reads sources that confirm Christianity, then that Christian is guilty of confirmation bias.
This is why I tell my students to consume a variety of different perspectives. At the beginning of the 2025 fall semester, I asked my student leaders at Grove City College to give me a ratio of the Christian to non-Christian content they consume. Purposefully leaving it broad to get a holistic picture, the ratios barely dipped below a 90% to 10% split Christian to non-Christian content. This was not intended as a slight to them as if they should consume content that would potentially poison their faith. The intent was that because they were in leadership and actively teaching, they should be consume non-Christian resources so that they can effectively teach. They should consume non-Christian content because how can you destroy arguments (2 Corinthians 10:5) if you don’t actually digest the arguments from the objector. Given that I am 3 hours away from them, this was an attempt to disciple them from a distance. I ask the same question to you: “What is the ratio of content that you consume?” And a further question: “If you consume 100% Christian content, why?”
Begging the Question. Have you seen the circle present in some arguments? If you have then you have noticed this fallacy. Begging the question is also called circular reasoning. It is when the conclusion of the argument is assumed to make one or more of the premises true. Take this common argument from some apologists:
1. The Bible says that evolution is not true.
2. I believe the Bible.
3. Therefore, evolution is not true.
The reason this commits the fallacy begging the question is because there is no independent reason given for not believing the evolutionary story we have been given. There could be independent reasons for not believing the evolutionary story we have been told, but given this argument, nothing is given beyond “the Bible.”
Why do we not want to commit this fallacy? I think it is pretty obvious. When we beg the question in this fashion, we do not give any real reasons apart from the one we already assume. For instance, evolution is a scientific theory and when giving reasons for why to not believe it, the Bible may be part of that argumentation as part of the structure of the apologists belief system. However, that does not give any real reason for why evolution is false. We would need to see scientific evidences put forward as reasons why to doubt the traditional evolutionary story and believe the particular biblical picture for which the apologist is advocating. The argument itself is a non-starter, meaning it does not get us any further in the discussion of evolution.
Appeal to Authority. “My mom said that you are wrong, so take that!” A quip we hear from children or maybe we have used it as a child. Though recognizable and relatable, this is a perfect example of the fallacy appealing to authority. This appeal is to call into the argument an authority of some sort insofar as they are an authority in something which then renders the argument true. Appealing to authorities for your argument is not a bad thing. Doing so gives you more credibility because you have engaged with authorities in the area in which you are making your case. When it becomes fallacious is when you do what the child did in the opening quote, bring an authority up as if that settles the case. The reality of the situation is that we rarely have unanimous decisions in matters. There is always someone who dissents for one reason or another.
Let’s look at an example while continuing the evolution debate. First a rehash of the argument:
1. The Bible says that evolution is not true.
2. I believe the Bible.
3. Therefore, evolution is not true.
Though the argument as put does beg the question, it also appeals to an authority that not every person holds to. To make it fallacious, the Bible is held up as the settling factor in the debate. It is “my mom said so” repackaged in biblical language. The Bible is an authority and has great weight but when arguing a point like evolution, we should appeal to an authority only as supporting evidence, not as a settling factor. Instead, if we were to use authorities correctly, we should see something along the lines of:
1. Genesis 1-11 are best understood as recounting literal history.
2. A reading of Genesis 1 would give us all of creation in seven, 24-hour days.
3. The Bible has been shown to be historically reliable.
4. Because the Bible has been shown to be historically reliable, I believe what the Bible says regarding history.
5. This understanding of the Bible is at odds with the standard evolutionary story.
6. Therefore, the standard evolutionary story is not true.
All in all authorities are great! They are experts in a particular field but we need to make sure that when we use an authority on anything it is supplemental for the sake of a premise rather than a proof as to the truth of the conclusion. Using them should be done wisely so that we do not rip them out of their expertise. If you are entering into theology, an authority would have a PhD in theology not a PhD in biology. The theologian will be able to adequately weigh in whereas the biologist will not. Cite all you want but don’t let them do the heavy work for you! Do your own thinking!
Special Pleading. I think we are all guilty of this one at some point in the relatively recent past. As English speakers, special pleading seems to be natural because there are always exceptions for the rule. “’I’ before ‘e,’ except after ‘c.’” is what we are told. Then you expand your vocabulary a bit and find out that the rule has exceptions like “neighbor” and “weigh.” To a non-English communicator, this is bonkers! These exceptions are what make special pleading a logical fallacy. It happens when we make exceptions for our own position regarding evidences.
Imagine you are in a discussion with a genuinely curious non-theist and you (a Christian) make no effort to provide evidences, when asked, for the claim that God exists because Romans 1:19 tells us that all are aware of God. You just simply state that God exists and that the Bible tells us that we all are aware of God so we should believe that God exists because the Bible says. This tells the non-theist that your belief that God does in fact exist are untouchable and it is a direct violation of 1 Peter 3:15 (as I understand Peter’s exhortation).
This brings into question the burden of proof. When someone bears the burden of proof, he or she is the one who has the responsibility to show their work, so-to-speak. Usually this is the person who comes making the claim. The claim, about God’s existence, for instance can be either affirming (affirming) or disaffirming (negative), yet it is still a claim. Every lively discussion will see an ebb and flow of the burden of proof between all those involved but that does not always happen. To refer back to our example in the previous paragraph, let’s add in the caveat that you, the Christian, first initiated and made the claim that God does indeed exist. The burden is on the Christian and it would be fallacious to refuse that burden and try and shift it to the person who does not have the responsibility. Do the hard work and be ready to make that defense for your claim and do not side step the issue.
Tu Quoque. A common attack against the Christian is that of hypocrisy. Rightfully so. We are all hypocritical to some extent. We are human and do not always live consistently. Did you know we can do this with our reasoning as well. This is what is called a tu quoque fallacy. It literally means “you too” and when we are guilty of this fallacy we dismiss the person’s argument(s) because they do not live according to them.
I personally see this happen all the time regarding atheism. There are certain apologists who say that because of Romans 1:19, the atheist knows God exists, that they suppress that truth in unrighteousness (1:18), and that he or she thinks she is wise but is really a fool (1:22). The claim goes further then when the retort comes out that the atheist cannot actually live a consistent life within an atheistic worldview because of the role Christianity has played in culture creation. This is fallacious because it has nothing to do with the merit of the atheist’s argument(s) and everything to do with the livability of the worldview. While I do agree that an atheist cannot live consistently within atheism, that does not mean an atheist’s argument(s) is not worth considering and thinking critically about.
We see the same coming toward Christianity as well. There are some that claim that because Christians are so bad at actually being Christian that Christ is not worth believing in. The arguments for Christianity are not even considered. With both the Christian position and the atheistic position, there needs to be a distinction made between the position holder and the position itself. Truth should be sought and the ability of the position holder to hold the position well has no bearing on the truthfulness of the position itself.
So as we move on from here, let’s do our best to break the habit of judging the truth based on secondary or tertiary witnesses to the truth.
Concluding Thoughts
I hope that this primer on some of the fallacies associated with conversational argumentation is helpful. These are only some of the most commonly committed fallacies that I have dealt with in my time as an apologist (I have encountered others). Christian or no, the ones we have laid out the past two articles should give you enough ability to navigate well in conversation so as to not invalidate you own position or fail to truly honor the person with whom you are arguing. For more training on logic and critical thinking, I recommend Travis Dickinson’s Logic and the Way of Jesus (which served as a huge inspiration for the past two articles) and Clear Thinking in a Messy World: A Christian Guide to Logic, Reason, and Cognitive Bias by Kenneth Samples and Mark Perez. Dickinson goes deeper into the formal logic than Samples/Perez while the latter digs deeper into informal reasoning. Both go hand in hand and it would do you well to read both books.
Comments will be open on these two, so please let me know where you were before reading and then where you are after reading.