Tuesday, April 10, 2012


When I debate atheists, from time to time I point out when they commit some of the standard logical fallacies.  The genetic fallacy probably comes up as often as any other.  This occurs when you incorrectly assume that by proving the origin of a belief, you have thereby disproven the validity of that belief.  For example, atheists often claim that morality is merely the byproduct of evolutionary processes.  Even if true, however, at best this may show how people arrived at their individual sense of morality.  It does nothing one way or the other to demonstrate whether objective morality actually exists independent of our perceptions.

In fairness, though, if the theist is entitled to point out logical fallacies committed by the atheist, they should be permitted to do the same in return.  One favorite tactic of many is to claim that in advancing the kalam cosmological argument, Christian apologists like myself commit the “fallacy of composition.”

Monday, April 09, 2012

Reading Biases Between the Lines

I have written previously warning Christians about the way we treat others and avoiding hypocrisy. The Christian Church has a reputation for being too political, sometimes radical, and intolerant and in many instances those of us within the church are at least partially responsible for that perception.

However, I also want to take the opportunity to illustrate the opposite side of the equation.  Sometimes those outside the church work very hard, in my opinion, to find a reason to attach these labels to Christianity, even when it is not justified.  I recently read a conversation on Facebook which began with the following post:

"I just got an email forwarded where the original sender's e-signature stated 'As Christian Patriots, we must be committed to doing the 'Right Thing for the Right Reason', no matter what the cost or consequence.' How can this NOT be construed as creepy! 'No matter what cost'? Isn't that the type of radicalism that promotes terrorism? Eek."