APOLOGETICS, LOGIC, AND REASONING

Presented by Ratio Christi TAMU

Logically Captain…

Greek (άπολογία)

APOLOGETICS

WHY APOLOGETICS?

God commands the use of Reason. “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts,

always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.“ (1 Peter 3:15)

Philippians 1:7 Paul speaks of his mission as one of "defending and confirming the gospel.“(Phil 1:16)

IS APOLOGETICS ARGUING?

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, because they are useless and empty. (Titus 3:9)

Only if it is foolish!

OBJECTIONS TO APOLOGETICS

There have been many objections to apologetics from Christians:

THE BIBLE DOES NOT NEED TO BE DEFENDED?

"The Word of God is alive and powerful..." (Hebrews 4:12)

The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended but simply let loose. A lion can defend itself. Several things should be noted in response.

THE BIBLE DOES NEED TO BE DEFENDED?

How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?

The Qur'an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword....

A roar of a lion speaks with authority only because we know from previous knowledge what a lion can do. Without the tales of woe about a lion's ferocity, its roar would not have the same authoritative effect on us.

JESUS REFUSED TO DO SIGNS FOR EVIL MEN

Jesus rebuked people who sought signs. Hence, we should be content simply to believe without evidence

"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!" (Matt. 12:39 cf. Luke 16:31)

JESUS REFUSED TO DO SIGNS FOR EVIL MEN

First, even in this very passage Jesus went on to offer the miracle of His resurrection as a sign of who He was, saying:

"But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matt. 12:39-40)

PAUL WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN HIS USE OF REASON ON MARS HILL

Paul was unsuccessful in his attempt to reach the thinkers on Mars Hill (Acts 17)

later telling the Corinthians that he wanted to "know Jesus and Him only" (1 Cor. 2:2)

PAUL WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN HIS USE OF REASON ON MARS HILL

Paul did have results on Mars Hill Some were saved, including a philosopher A few men became followers of Paul and

believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others" (Acts 17:34).

nowhere in either Acts or 1 Corinthians does Paul indicate any repentance or even regret over what he did on Mars Hill

ONLY FAITH, NOT REASON, CAN PLEASE GOD

“Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Heb. 11:16

Asking for reasons, rather than simply believing, would displease God.

ONLY FAITH, NOT REASON, CAN PLEASE GOD

The text does not say that with reason it is impossible to please God.

God in fact calls upon us to use our reason (1 Pet. 3:15) and has given "clear" (Rom. 1:20) and "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3 NASB) so that we do not have to exercise blind faith.

This text in Hebrews does not exclude "evidence" but actually implies it.

GOD CAN'T BE KNOWN BY HUMAN REASON

“The world by wisdom knew not God" (1 Cor. 1:21 NKJV)

People cannot know the wisdom of God through reason.

GOD CAN'T BE KNOWN BY HUMAN REASON

Paul declared in Romans that the evidence for God's existence is so "plain" as to render even the heathen "without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20). 

The "wisdom" of which he speaks is "the wisdom of this world" (v. 20), not the wisdom of God. Paul called a sophist the "disputer of this age" (v. 20). Sophist could argue for argument's sake. This leads no one to God.

ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN BRING SALVATION

Salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. He alone can convict, convince, and convert (John 16:8; Eph. 2:1; Titus 3:5-7).

ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN BRING SALVATION

The Bible does not teach that the Holy Spirit will always do this apart from reason and evidence.

It is not either the Holy Spirit or Reason.

God is always the efficient cause of salvation, but apologetic arguments can be an instrumental cause used by the Holy Spirit to bring one to Christ.

Greek (λογική)

LOGIC

WHAT IS LOGIC

The science of analyzing

arguments? The science of good reasoning in

general?

Tagore A mind all logic is like a knife all blade, it

makes the hand bleed that uses it

WHAT IS A FORMAL ARGUMENT

Premises that lead to a conclusion P1: If God exists he works all events for the good

of those who believe; P2: Some events produce no good; C: Therefore God does not exist.

The conclusion either follows from the premises logically, or is at least probable given the premises.

√

APOLOGETICS IS NOT USED IN THE BIBLE?

Mostly, the Bible was not written for unbelievers but for believers. 

Apologetics IS used in the Bible. Genesis 1 deals with mythical accounts of creation  Jesus was constantly proving by signs and wonders

that He was the Son of God (John 3:2; Acts 2:22) Paul did apologetics at Lystra when he gave

evidence from that God existed and idolatry was wrong (Acts 14)

Mars Hill

ROADMAP

Types of Arguments• Inductive• Deductive

Bad Arguments• Formal Fallacies• Informal Fallacies

Tactics• Analysis

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

Inductive Results in a high probability that

the conclusion is true. Common in science

Deductive Arguments If the premises are true,

and the structure is correct, the conclusion

must be true.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Has premises and conclusion, but is probabilistic

100% of biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.

Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.

Used in the scientific method The conclusion is not certain, only

probable

STATISTICAL SYLLOGISM

Statistical Syllogism

P1: Most Greeks ate fish; P2: Socrates was a Greek; C: Therefore Socrates probably ate fish.

Similar in form to the deductive syllogism The conclusion is still not certain,

only probable

GENERALIZATION

Assumes a sample has the same attributes as a population

10% of the survey were Democrats

Therefore, 10% of people are Democrats

ANALOGY

Compares two situations Situations A and B are similar in properties

X and Y Situation A also has property Z Therefore, B probably has property Z as

well

May provide good evidence for a claim Is not conclusive

PREDICTION

Draws a conclusion about the future from the past Every time in the past that an apple has

been dropped, it has fallen. Therefore, if I drop an apple now, it will

probably fall

One of the foundational assumptions of science

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Has premises and conclusion

P1: All men are mortal; P2: Socrates was a man; C: Therefore Socrates was mortal.

The conclusion is certain, but only if the premises are true and the structure is correct

√

VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS

Validity An argument is valid if it has the

correct form Sound

An argument is sound if it is valid

and the premises are true

TYPES OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Categorical Logic Propositional Logic Modal Logic

CATEGORICAL LOGIC

First formalized by Aristotle Made up of simple statements Not all arguments can be translated

into this form But many can be translated into this form

CATEGORICAL LOGIC

4 types of statements All S are P No S are P Some S are P Some S are not P

Can be combined into groups of three called a syllogism

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Requires two kinds of premises Major Premise: All men are mortal; Minor Premise: Socrates was a man; Conclusion: Therefore Socrates was

mortal.

The premises must share a term (middle term)

P1: All men are mortal; P2: Socrates was a man; C: Therefore Socrates was mortal.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS

Not all combinations of terms are valid;

P1: All cats are mammals; P2: Oreo is a Cat; C: Therefore Oreo is a mammal.

P1: All mammals are animals; P2: some cats are animals; C: Therefore some cats are mammals.

X

√

PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

The most basic logic dealing with conditionals If then statements, etc.

More powerful than simple categorical syllogisms 9 basic rules

RULE #1 MODUS PONENS

If P, then Q P Therefore, Q

Valid, example: If the ground is wet, it is raining The ground is wet Therefore it is raining

(this one is unsound because the premise is false)

√

RULE #2 MODUS TOLLENS

If P, then Q Not Q Therefore, not P

Valid, example: If it is raining, the ground is wet The ground is not wet Therefore it is not raining

(This one may be unsound as well)

√

RULE #3 HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

If P then Q If Q then R Therefore if P then R

Example If it is raining, the ground is wet If the ground is wet, the roads are slippery Therefore, if it is raining, the roads are

slippery

√

RULE #4 CONJUNCTION

P Q Therefore P and Q

Example John is a good student Mary is a good student Therefore John is a good student and Mary

is a good student

√

RULE #5 SIMPLIFICATION

P and Q Therefore P

Example John is a good student and Mary is a good

student Therefore John is a good student

√

RULE #6 ABSORPTION

If P then Q Therefore If P then P and Q

Example If it is raining, the road is wet Therefore if it is raining, it is raining and

the road is wet√

RULE #7 ADDITION

P Therefore P or Q

Example It is raining Therefore if it is raining or the sun is

shining√

RULE #8 DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

P or Q Not P Therefore, Q

Example It is either raining or the sun is shining It is not raining Therefore, the sun is shining

√

RULE #9 CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA

If P then Q and If R then S P or R Therefore, Q or S

Example If it is raining the streets are wet, and if it

is sunny the streets are dry It is either raining or sunny Therefore, the streets are wet or the

streets are dry

√

ROADMAP

Types of Arguments• Inductive• Deductive

Bad Arguments• Formal Fallacies• Informal Fallacies

Tactics• Analysis

FORMAL FALLACIES

Result from errors of logical form May have true conclusions But the conclusion does not follow from the

premises

INCORRECT CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Many types: Ex:

All communists are leftists.  No conservatives are communists.  Therefore, no conservatives are leftists.

Ex: All dogs are animals.  No cats are dogs.  Therefore, no cats are animals.

X

X

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT

Improper modus ponens Ex:

If God exists, then objective morals and duties exist

Objective morals and duties do exist Therefore God exists

X

DENYING THE ANTECEDANT

Improper modus tollens Ex:

If God does not exist then objective values and duties do not exist

God does exist Therefore objective values and duties exist

X

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Mistakes in reasoning that arise from the content of the argument⁻ Ad hominem⁻ Red herring ⁻ Straw man⁻ Appeal to Authority⁻ Slippery Slope⁻ Weak Analogy⁻ Hasty Generalization

⁻ False Cause⁻ Appeal to

Ignorance⁻ Bandwagon⁻ Genetic Fallacy⁻ Begging the question

⁻ Appeal to Emotion⁻ Special pleading⁻ Equivocation⁻ Self refuting Statements

Meaning: “To the man” Favorite of politicians Ex:

"All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."

AD HOMINEM

X

An irrelevant fact intended to divert attention from the real issue

Therefore, if morality exists, then God must exist too!

Sure, but what about slavery in the Bible? That does not sound very moral to me…

Don’t take the bait!

RED HERRING

X

Misrepresenting your opponents position so it can be more easily defeated

“Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist‘ might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.” –Richard Dawkins

“one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.” -Richard Dawkins

STRAW MAN

X

X

APPEAL TO ILLEGITIMATE AUTHORITY If an argument is based on authority, it

should be a legitimate authority, otherwise it is a bad argument

Ex: Biogeography gives very strong evidence for evolution. But Ray Comfort says evolution is false!

X

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Argues that by permitting A to occur, a far-fetched Z will occur. Only fallacious if Z is not a likely

consequence of A Ex:

Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. –yourlogicalfallacy.com

X

WEAK ANALOGY

If using an inductive analogy, the analogy must be strong or the argument is fallacious

Ex: Cars and motor-boats both have engines and steering wheels. Cars have wheels Therefore boats must have wheels as well

X

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Drawing a conclusion about a whole group based on a few members of that group Not all generalizations are hasty

Ex: Both of the politicians I have met were liars Therefore, all politicians are liars

X

FALSE CAUSE

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc (After this therefore because of this) Correlation does not imply causation

Ex: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows

how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.

–yourlogicalfallacy.com

X

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

Draws a conclusion from a lack of evidence Absence of evidence is not necessarily

evidence of absence

Ex: You arguments have failed to show that God

exists; Therefore, God must not exist.

X

BANDWAGON

Everyone knows that… Ex:

Everyone knows that Stephen Hawking disproved God…X

GENETIC FALLACY

Claiming a belief is false because you can explain why someone believes it “Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen

to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. if you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.” –Richard Dawkins

X

BEGGING THE QUESTION

How do I know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says it is true, and I

believe it!X

ARGUMENT FROM EMOTION

An appeal to emotion

“they were religious, and that provided all the justification they needed to murder and destroy” –Richard Dawkins

“Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts…” –Richard Dawkins

X

SPECIAL PLEADING

Exempting your claims from your own requirements Everything that exists has a cause God exists So what caused God? A: God doesn’t count because He’s uncaused!

X

EQUIVOCATION

Using the same word with two different meanings Define your terms!

SELF REFUTING STATEMENTS

The argument proves itself to be wrong

ROADMAP

Types of Arguments• Inductive• Deductive

Bad Arguments• Formal Fallacies• Informal Fallacies

Tactics• Analysis

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

Arguments are rarely stated in simple syllogisms

We must take complex arguments and break them down into simple parts we can analyze

EXAMPLE 1

What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in the Bible. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

We pray sincerely, will anything happen? No. Of course not

http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

ANALYSIS

What was the argument Maybe…

God promises to answer all prayers God didn’t give me what I prayed for Therefore God does not exist

ANALYSIS

False premise

God promises to answer all prayers

Christians do not necessarily believe this, so the argument is unsound

ANALYSIS

What was the argument?

If I pray and God exists, then God will answer my prayer

I prayed God didn’t answer my prayer Therefore God does not exist

This is valid, but Christians may disagree with the premises

EXAMPLE 2

“We could learn to live with people from all races and not immediately hating and wanting to kill someone just because they believe in a different god.Yes, a world without God would be a far better, friendlier and happier place. A world without religion would also be a safer place for innocent children, who have been abused by the religious-lot for centuries and continue to be abused.”

–god-does-not-exist.org

ANALYSIS

This argument was an argument from emotion

It did not provide facts or evidence It only claimed that religion harms

children

EXAMPLE 3

To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

ANALYSIS

What is the argument: There is no empirical evidence that can

only be attributed to God If God exists, then he will produce

empirical evidence Therefore God does not exist.

ANALYSIS

What is the argument: There is no empirical evidence that can

only be attributed to God If God exists, then he will produce

empirical evidence Therefore God does not exist.

This is deductively valid (maybe) But is it True?

√

ANALYSIS

There is no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God

If God exists, then he will produce empirical evidence

Therefore God does not exist.

We would disagree with the first premise, and maybe even the second premise!

XX

CONCLUSION

Logic can be a useful tool in understanding arguments

But arguments are rarely in logical form Therefore, it is useful to be able to

analyze arguments in logical form to find errors