Begging the Question

Okay, time to squeeze in a post:


As I mentioned earlier, every argument has to stand on two legs: it must be true and it must be valid. The Gospel is already a foolishness in the eyes of the unsaved (as foolish as, say, spending 120 years building a landlocked boat?); we don't ever want our inept handling of It to be an excuse for the lost to reject it.


One prominent example of really bad reasoning -- in fact, a prevalent one -- is the fallacy of begging the question. This happens when we assume our conclusion in our premises. I'm going to give an example that I encountered recently, but as I do so please remember the difference between TRUE and VALID. I am pointing out that the argument is INVALID, that the author is begging the question. I am not saying his argument is untrue--that is a separate issue entirely.


Here is the substance of the argument: the modern translations of the Bible are to be rejected because they (or, in some forms of the argument, their underlying texts) contain deletions or changes from the correct text.


Do you see how this is begging the question? How do we know the King James Version (or its underlying texts) is "the" Word of God for English-speaking people today? Because it does not contain deletions or changes. How do we know that the more-modern translations do contain deletions or changes? Because they do not contain words found in the King James, or they contain different words. It's begging the question; it's arguing in a circle. The fact is, modern translations contain differences. Whether or not they are deletions is a factual question that cannot be answered by arbitrary declarations.


Slipshod arguments such as these do nothing but swell one's ranks with the gullible. And it is unfortunate, since this opens a grand masterpiece of the translators' art to ridicule when it is not the King James Version that is ridiculous -- it is the sloppy thinking of a (thankfully) few.

I Can't Wait

It looks like the people who gave us "Flywheel" and "Facing the Giants" have done it again! Check out the trailer for Fireproof.

That Time of Year Again . . .

As homeschoolers my wife and I are gearing up now for next year -- evaluating curricula, compiling booklists for each child, and, most importantly . . . hitting you-know-where for deals!

Maybe It's Our Approach

My brother-in-law sent me this vintage Prohibition poster. Now I'm not one for changing how we do church. I'm not by any means a fan of the seeker-sensitive group. But just maaaaaybe the way we've approached the world is not the wisest, most winsome approach at times.

Back to Back to Basics

Picking up where I left off earlier, one of the most needed areas in Christianity is a tune-up in our thinking skills. This became apparent once again as I read several Christian non-fiction books recently.

A thorough introduction (is that an oxymoron?) to principles of logic would help preachers avoid some of the interpretive fallacies into which they are oft prone to fall. It would strengthen the apologetics skills of the men and women who go into the frontlines of the secular workplace every day. And it would put a much-needed end to some of the wacky non-issues that burn up so much pulpit time. A great little primer on the subject is Norman Geisler's Come Let Us Reason.

I think a good place to start is by recognizing that every argument must stand on two legs: it must be both true and valid. Absent one of those two legs it does not stand. Let's start with a standard argument (syllogism) as an illustration:

If it is raining, the street outside is wet. (major premise)
It is raining. (minor premise)
Therefore, the street outside is wet. (conclusion)

It must be true. That is, the premises must conform to reality. For example, if I claim that it is raining outside and it is not, in fact, raining outside, then the argument fails.
It must also be valid. That is, the premises must be free of fallacies, of errors in the way we have reasoned. For example, let's re-cast the illustration this way:

If it is raining, the street outside is wet.
The street outside is wet.
Therefore, it is raining.

This argument doesn't stand. Why not? Isn't it saying the same thing as the first illustration? No -- there are a lot of reasons that the street could be wet. Perhaps someone's sprinklers are running; perhaps I've just chased my sons around with my Super Soaker. This is a fallacy called "affirming the consequent". We've switched the "if" and the "then" and twisted the argument out of shape. And once again the argument fails.

This isn't hair-splitting. This is a fallacy that popped up a number of times in the arguments of several Christian books I recently read. And when you are witnessing or defending the faith in the workplace or preaching a sermon, that is the WORST time for the sloppy thinking that too often discredits the Truth by presenting it as an irrational thing.

Tighten up your thinking, Ambassador.

So Much for Appearances

So I'm typing my notes for Sunday morning's sermon and listening to my new Paul Potts CD in the background. If you're not familiar with that name, check out the video below. THIS is why you don't judge people by their outward appearance!