How Bad Logic is Crippling our Children

Chris Battle Podcast 9 Comments

Sometimes when we observe another person discussing their views, it can be difficult to understand how they came to that conclusion. More and more, the reason for this phenomena is that the person has arrived at their conclusions through poor thinking. Our society has in fact entered into an era that is marked by, among other things, the near abandonment of logic by a large portion of the masses. Because of this, it is becoming more difficult to convince people through sound argumentation; instead, they require an emotional appeal that opponents to Christianity seem to have mastered.

Resources

Classical Education Movement from Wikipedia

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi

The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn

A Concise Introduction to Logic (12th ed.) by Patrick J. Hurley

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by eds. William Lane Craig and James Porter Moreland
 

Outro Music “Nameless: the Hackers Title Screen” by BoxCat Games
Available on the Free Music Archive freemusicarchive.org/
Under CC BY license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Comments 9

  1. Was Dr Lane making a logical argument when he wrote, (regarding the actions that god sanctioned against the enemies of his people)?

    “So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”

    Richard Dawkins in response wrote of Lane

    “Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.”

    As you say an emotional response will often trump a logical argument and in this case as I see it, deservedly so .
    Whatever Dr Lane has achieved or will go on to achieve he will forever now be branded a ‘genocide apologist’ by many .

    Do you think Dr Lane got it wrong here?

    1. There are biblical reasons to justify blind rejection of all that disagrees with your faith:

      1st Timothy 6:20 – does not say ‘refute’ alleged scientific opposition, it says “avoid” scientific opposition.

      2nd Cor. 10:5 – you must assume your faith is correct and any opposition to it is by definition incorrect and must be destroyed.

      1. You are correct . This is what the bible teaches and this is why religious
        fundamentalism is so dangerous.

  2. Dawkins cash rant all he likes but he is on the side of hypocrisy and he doesnt see it . On atheist logic there is no objective right or wrong . There is no objective morality on atheism. It is blind pitiless indifference. So Dawkins slits his own throat . He’s for the abhorrent practice of abortion – the slaughter of babies in the womb. Yet he calls God brutal for His judgement of the Canaanites? Who is the hypocrite ?

    1. Mr. Donnelly, let’s see where the logic of your theological presuppositions leads, shall we?

      How could the act that ensures a child will never endure any genuine risk of going to hell, be a bad thing?

      Murder is only bad because under a naturalistic presupposition, we have no afterlife, therefore, taking another’s life without legal justification is the highest possible unfairness. There are no second chances to mitigate the harsh finality of physical death.

      But if under Christian theology, murder sends a child’s soul to heaven and thus ensuring they never will endure a genuine risk of going to hell, then suddenly, murder produces good and bad and you must decide whether the earthly bad or the spiritual good is the more important consequence to emphasize in the moral analysis. You are not doing a complete job if you turn away from the spiritual good caused by abortion and simply highlight the earthly bad that it does.

      You may say God doesn’t allow abortion today, but your god declares his personal responsibility for all human death, Deuteronomy 32:39. And if God’s ways are so mysterious that he commands “thou shalt not murder” but then tells his people to kill babies anyway (1st Samuel 15:2-3), then “thou shalt not murder” actually isn’t the end of the discussion. We must discuss whether your God ever commanded a woman to get an abortion, and his biblical soveriegnty is too great for you to pretend God would never do that. We’d also like to think your loving God would never ask his people to kill children, but apparently God is a bit more complex than just a big man in the sky peering down at us and shouting the 10 commandments, amen?

      And I would argue that God is deficient if, while knowing himself to be absolutely safe and YOU are the one in the danger of hell, he still wants you to be born, grow past the age of accountability and risk being roasted alive forever in hell. If your a god who is more concerned about you exercising your freewill, than he is in making sure your eternal destiny is protected, then your god sucks bigtime.

      Achieving final eternal protection from such a horrible fate is far more important than any moral growth you might experience walking around on this earth, wouldn’t you say?

      If I’m the one that is in trouble, it is only rational that I do what needs doing to protect myself, and irrational for me to blindly follow the advice of a god who thinks the moral growth I’d learn exercising freewill decisions down here on earth as I run around risking going to an eternal hell, is something more important than the ultimate end result of being guaranteed a place in heaven.

      And I would further argue that abortion doesn’t just stop a beating heart, it also accomplishes the indisputable good of sending them to heaven thus eternally protecting a child from the risk of hell. You need to decide what consequence weighs heavier in the moral analysis: If abortion is bad because it snuffs out a temporary earthly life, isn’t abortion also good because it creates the superior Spiritual benefit of protecting a child from any risk of going to hell? How could that benefit be a ‘bad’ thing?

      Biblically, greater weight is given to the salvation consequence, while the importance of life on earth is trivial in comparison.

      Also, if your God who commanded slaughter of babies (1st Samuel 15:2-3) does not change (Malachi 3:6), then you actually don’t know whether or not God approves of, or may even have personally caused, a woman to become motivated to get an abortion. There are too many biblical exceptions to the 10 commandments, for you to simply and naively say that “thou shalt not murder” is the end of the argument. You won’t condemn the Israelites who kill babies in 1st Samuel 15:2-3 merely because of “thou shalt not murder”, so apparently, this commandment is insufficient, standing by itself, to prove the immorality of those who disobey it.

      I deny Christian theology in whole, so this logic is only on the heads of those who aspire to biblical religion. Stop believing abortion accomplishes the good of eternally protecting a child from any risk of hell, and then you can talk about how abortion is nothing other than ‘evil’.

      Methinks this is the part where you dodge the merits with “that’s just worldly wisdom!”

      barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

      1. Barry, your understanding of Christianity is I think unfortunately marred by platonic & middle age based Christianity.
        Without going into great depth here, I would like you to consider that more and more Christians have come to realize that Hell is not endless. Here is a short explanation. Ezek 18 is a small gospel – the soul that sins shall die, it shall not live! So repent/turn from your sins – and live. Simple gospel! Now tell me – if a soul shall both DIE & not LIVE – doesn’t that sound pretty completely dead to you? So guess what! Souls die! Now what is a soul? Gen 2:7 says that God formed man from the ground (matter) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (immaterial part – life, life force), and man became a living SOUL. Here we see that man was not GIVEN a SOUL, as we often hear, but rather that a pile of matter received life from God and became alive and so BECAME A LIVING SOUL, or put simply, became a living person. This is demonstrated daily at every birth – our life we got from our parents, Adam got his life from God. Life only comes from life! And this is a biological fact by the way!
        At death, we see simply the reverse: the person/soul ceases to be as material body goes back to the ground and the immaterial lifeforce goes back to God, the author & sustainer of all life. Now, apart from the resurrection, can the soul go to Heaven at death? I don’t think so! The words Heaven/heavenly are used in 277 verses in New Testament (KJV), and not once is there a soul going there at death. In short – it looks like a doctrine of heaven was arrived at without considering those 277 verses with the word heaven, and putting a lot of emphasis on texts like the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and perhaps platonic ideas about the immortal soul. But again, Ezek 18 seems clear – as a living sinning soul/person, we can either repent and rise to eternal never-ending life in the age to come (Lk 18:30), or not repent and DIE and NOT LIVE – i.e. rise for judgment to eternal never-ending destruction (annihilation) in devouring hellfire from God (2 Thes 1:9 & Rev 20:9). Only by God’s gift of grace can we repent of our sins, change our ways, and live on. Otherwise, as souls, we shall completely die.
        I know this is a short intro, but the site jewishnotgreek.com provides perhaps the best detailed logical and scriptural explanation of all that. See also amazingdiscoveries.org where a very smart atheist skeptic zoology professor turned himself into a 7-day Creationist. Note that he had nothing to do with God after he was told in his youth that his mom, a protestant, went straight to Hell at death by an unloving un-Christ like Catholic. It took many years for this staunch evolutionist to return to God and now he fights deception and misunderstanding in the church, including Hell and evolution. I think like you, he denied a false understanding of Christianity.
        Now a baby can’t repent and can’t turn from its sins – so I will let God decide if it shall live, or if it shall die and not live – both seem possible and acceptable. With this view that no one will ever be suffering forever in Hell, aborting a baby to ensure it misses out on endless torment in Hell is obviously wrong, as again based on an understanding of Christianity many Christians would now deny, after a thorough searching of scripture on the subjects (see also Francis Chan & Peter Sprinkle authors of Erasing Hell?).
        “Thou shall not murder” or take someone’s life without justice is not the same as “thou shall not kill”. Any policeman or military or even judge can attest to that. Sometimes force is necessary. And God often used force to restrict our Satan inspired evil to others – just think of evil world destroyed by flood, think of evil towns with Sodom destroyed by fire, think of those entire evil towns in OT destroyed by Israel. Note also that before long, Israel/Jerusalem itself was also totally destroyed (and again later) for its evil ways, although Israel was always very religious. Humans are not often loving their neighbors! Hearing now of ISIS and of what we daily do to each other whether downtown or in war-torn famine stricken lands, I have no doubt that God’s judgment is once again at the door. Wickedness abounds! And like Israel, being very religious is not an assurance of salvation. Let’s repent and turn from our sinful ways, and let God handle those who kill and persecute us! In the end, in the judgment, “Vengeance is mine” says the Lord!
        Now before talking further about murder and genocides by Israel, let’s consider what powerful evolutionists and/or atheist have done – think of Hitler who in pursuing the EVOLUTION of a preferred race “a la Darwin” tried to exterminate all the Jews, and all the Lutherans and others not thinking like him. Or think of communists atheists states like China and Russia, who exterminated millions of enemies of the state. Then, think also of Catholics, perhaps wanting (based on faulty understanding) to scare some heretics (including many Jews) out of endless torments in hell, who threatened with and eventually burned them at the stake and also exterminated over the centuries millions others disagreeing with them. Power corrupts us humans, and saving prisoners of war (babies or even adult) often leads to all sorts of abuses and misery. But in addition, those evil towns destroyed by God/Israel were apparently sacrificing children to their gods. And, perhaps like Pharaoh killing all male Hebrew babies, they eventually reaped what they sowed for sacrificing other’s children, likely the children of slaves or prisoners, not often theirs. In the end, I have to trust our creator and ultimate judge will be fully just in the final and all important judgment to endless life or endless destruction and death.
        Note that Satan is the ultimate evolutionist who dared to think he could evolve himself up there to take God’s place and set his own laws and his own religion – mainly “you (your soul) will not really die” and “you will be like god” choosing what’s good and what’s evil (Gen 3). As a result, Satan will be destroyed & “really die” in the Lake of fire along many Christians and evolutionists setting their own religion and laws! Although this seem to contradict Rev 20:10 at first view, the devil and the last “anti-Christ” beast kingdoms are basically destroyed & consumed according to 7 scriptures (2 Thes 2:8, Heb 2:14, Rev 20:9, Ezek 28, Is 14, Dan 2 statue and Dan 7 beast). Note in particular that just before figurative text of Rev 20:10 (beast, false prophet, lake of fire), we have Rev 20:9 which explains in very plain texts that fire comes down from God above to earth (exactly like Sodom, an example to us, and 2 Thes 2:8) and fire devours the masses of wicked resurrected (those not part of first resurrection) along with the devil leading them (this Lake of fire is the second death described a bit further). But in addition, note that this matches the end-times Consummation according to the other apocalyptic book of Daniel, where we find that the “last anti-christ beast” kingdom is slain and its body destroyed /consumed in fire (Daniel 7:11, 26), and that the big statue (Daniel 2 kingdoms) is also destroyed to powder or chaff to “be no more” when our “rock” of salvation comes and establishes His everlasting kingdom.

        Back to gospel: The soul that sins shall die and not live. So repent and live! Now what is sin? Paul says “I had not known sin but by the law” (Rom 3:20, 4:15, 5:13 & 7:7). Which law – God’s law? Man’s law? Satan’s law?
        God’s law for us humans is given very simply: Love the Creator God (Commandments 1-4) and love his creatures (commandments 5-10). Note that God had to give us the big Ten, so we would know for example that loving God does not include sacrificing babies to Him, and love our neighbor does not include having sex with his wife or his young children, or even with him, as that would not honor father and mother. Have you ever lied, stolen or looked at a women lustfully? Well, we are sinners, all needing repentance.
        God bless, and see you at the resurrection,
        Christian Gauthier

        1. You have addressed far too many topics. Trying to respond to every little thing you said would require me to devote only a small bit of attention to every subject, and I’d rather stick with one subject and see it through. So pick a single subject.

          1. Barry,
            Since endless torment in Hell is the biggest part of your argument, I guess we could start with the first 3-4 para above in my comment, as well as Matt 10:28:
            “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
            Now, per Matt 10:28, we don’t need to fear anyone down here who can destroy our material body, because when we all rise from the grave in the bodily resurrection of both the just and the unjust (John 5:28-29), there is a JUST ONE who is able to give life to the just (those that turn from their sins) and able to take all life in the complete death of the unjust, when He finally destroys both the material body and the immaterial soul/person of the unjust in the judgment of Hellfire. This is the Second Death that we must all fear – not so much the first death which is temporary, as we rest in peace for a moment, until we awake at first or second resurrection to judgment. Now, similar to the flood, this earth will be fully cleansed of all wickedness and evil by the purifying Lake of fire right here on earth (Rev 20:9, etc) and re-created anew (2 Pet 3).
            God bless, and see you at the resurrection! Christian

  3. It is difficult to figure out what point you are making, but from what I can gather, you attempt to defeat my logic by denying that hell is literal fire, and therefore, allowing kids to live past the age of accountability does not open up a door to losing their soul forever, the horrible risk that follows logically in the case of other Christians who think god roasts certain people in hell forever.

    If then you take a liberal position on the concept of hell, you aren’t defeating my argument, you are just indicating that you are not of the theological persuasion that my argument was aimed at. I made the argument without knowing you took such liberal position on hell. Clearly the liberal position on hell does not imply that aborting kids is a good thing.

    I would concede, therefore, that once the Christian takes the liberal view of hell fire, then abortion cannot be justified under their theology, and my argument would only be effective against fundamentalist who still view hell as eternal literal fire.

    However, I could counter that God still takes personal responsibility for all human death in Deuteronomy 32:39, so you still end up with the same basic problem of murdering always necessarily being the will of God. As soon as you dare day God did not want that man to kill some child, you create exceptions to biblical language that the bible author had left intentionally without exception.

    When a man murders a child, is the will of God as expressed in Deuteronomy 32:39 being fulfilled, yes or no?

    You will probably say God declares in Ezekiel 33:11 that he takes no pleasure in the death of human beings, but according to another bible verse, the “delight” God experiences in rewarding those who obey him, is the exact same “delight” he takes in causing women and children to endure rape and other ravages of war that necessarily accompany the process of tearing a nation away from their homeland. Deuteronomy 28:63. Whether you wish to research the MT Hebrew “sus” or the Lxx Greek “euphraino”, both words do not mean mere action, but necessarily connote rejoicing, happiness, merry-making, or glee…and it’s the same exact word used both times.

    You escaped the abortion problem, but fell into the murder-justification and “sadistic-god” problems along the way 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.