Logical Fallacies: A Comprehensive Guide for Christian Apologetics and Defending the Faith

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

In the realm of Christian apologetics, the defense of the faith demands clear, coherent, and logically sound reasoning. Logical fallacies, which are flaws or errors in reasoning, often undermine arguments and must be vigilantly avoided and identified, whether found in one’s own presentations or in criticisms against the Bible and Christian belief. Recognizing and understanding logical fallacies is not merely an academic exercise; it is crucial for maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of the Christian witness. As 2 Corinthians 10:5 teaches, “we are destroying arguments and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” The apologist must be equipped to discern and dismantle unsound arguments while presenting the truth persuasively and honorably.

This article will explore the most common logical fallacies encountered in discussions about God, the Bible, and Christianity. It will define each fallacy, provide examples particularly relevant to Christian apologetics, and offer strategies for responding to them.

What Is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or unsound. Fallacies can be either formal or informal. A formal fallacy involves a structural error in deductive reasoning, whereas an informal fallacy involves errors due to the content, assumptions, or context of the argument. In defending the Bible, it is crucial to build arguments that are free of both kinds of fallacies, ensuring that truth is communicated without the hindrance of faulty logic.

The Apostle Paul himself modeled rigorous argumentation, as seen in his defense before Agrippa and Festus (Acts 26:24-29), where he reasoned from facts, appealed to common knowledge, and maintained clarity without succumbing to emotional manipulation or flawed reasoning.

Common Logical Fallacies in Christian Apologetics

Ad Hominem (Against the Person)

Definition: Attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

Example: “You Christians are just uneducated and brainwashed; therefore, your arguments about the resurrection are invalid.”

Response: Refocus the discussion on the argument itself. Personal attacks are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a claim. As Proverbs 18:13 says, “he who gives an answer before he hears, it is foolishness and shame to him.”

Straw Man

Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Example: “Christians believe in an invisible sky fairy who grants wishes.”

Response: Correct the misrepresentation by stating the actual Christian belief clearly. Christians believe in the eternal, self-existent Creator who has revealed Himself through history and Scripture, not a mythological figure.

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

Definition: Assuming the truth of the conclusion within the premise rather than proving it.

Example: “The Bible is true because it says it is true.”

Response: While the Bible does affirm its truthfulness (John 17:17), Christian apologists also provide historical, archaeological, prophetic, and manuscript evidence to validate its reliability. Thus, the defense does not rest solely on circular reasoning but on corroborative evidence.

False Dichotomy (Either/Or Fallacy)

Definition: Presenting two options as the only possibilities when others exist.

Example: “Either science explains everything, or religion explains everything.”

Response: Point out that science and Christianity are not inherently contradictory. Rather, they address different kinds of questions: science investigates the natural world; Christianity addresses ultimate questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

Appeal to Ignorance (Argument from Silence)

Definition: Asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or vice versa.

Example: “No one has proven that God exists, so He must not exist.”

Response: Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The existence of God is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning of the universe, moral realities, and the historical resurrection of Christ.

Red Herring

Definition: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.

Example: “How can you believe in the Bible when Christians have done terrible things in history?”

Response: Acknowledge historical wrongs committed by individuals claiming the Christian name but refocus on the question of whether Christianity itself—based on Scripture—is true. Wrong behavior by professing Christians does not disprove the truth claims of the Bible.

Slippery Slope

Definition: Arguing that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (negative) events.

Example: “If you believe in miracles, you’ll eventually believe in every superstition.”

Response: Miracles in the Bible are grounded in credible eyewitness testimony and occur within a theological framework that distinguishes between genuine acts of God and superstition.

Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum)

Definition: Claiming that a proposition is true because many people believe it.

Example: “Most scientists today are atheists; therefore, Christianity must be false.”

Response: Truth is not determined by majority opinion. Historically, many scientists have been devout Christians. Even if they were not, truth remains objective and independent of consensus, as exemplified by the biblical narrative against the backdrop of a polytheistic ancient world.

Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Judging something as good or bad on the basis of where it comes from.

Example: “Christianity cannot be true because it started in a backward, primitive society.”

Response: The truth of a message is independent of its origin. Christianity’s truth claims stand on historical evidence, not the cultural sophistication of first-century Palestine.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

Definition: Assuming that because one event followed another, the first caused the second.

Example: “After people started reading the Bible, wars increased; therefore, the Bible causes wars.”

Response: Correlation does not equal causation. One must demonstrate a causal connection, not merely assert sequence.

Equivocation

Definition: Using a term in two different senses within the same argument.

Example: “Faith is believing without evidence. Christians have faith; therefore, Christianity is based on irrationality.”

Response: Clarify the definition. Biblical faith (pistis) is trust based on evidence, not blind belief. Hebrews 11:1 describes faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” implying confidence based on reason.

Special Pleading

Definition: Applying standards, principles, or rules to other people or circumstances while exempting oneself without justification.

Example: “Skeptics demand historical proof for the resurrection but accept ancient history about Julius Caesar with far less evidence.”

Response: Point out the inconsistency. The documentary and testimonial evidence for the resurrection is superior in quantity and quality compared to many accepted historical events.

Tu Quoque (You Too)

Definition: Defending oneself by accusing an opponent of the same or similar wrongdoing.

Example: “Christians criticize atheists for lacking moral foundations, but Christians have committed moral wrongs too.”

Response: The truth of Christianity is not based on the moral perfection of Christians. The standard is the character of God revealed in Scripture, not the behavior of individuals.

Argument from Silence

Definition: Concluding that a claim is true or false based on the absence of contrary evidence.

Example: “Because there are no contemporary Roman records of Jesus’ crucifixion, it probably did not happen.”

Response: Many executions were not recorded officially in Roman records. The crucifixion of Jesus is historically attested in multiple independent sources, including early Christian writings, Jewish sources like Josephus, and Roman historians like Tacitus.

Appeal to Emotion

Definition: Manipulating emotional responses instead of presenting a logical argument.

Example: “Believing in hell is cruel and heartless, therefore it cannot be true.”

Response: Whether a doctrine is emotionally appealing has no bearing on its truthfulness. The biblical doctrine of hell is a sober warning based on divine justice and revealed truth.

Composition and Division

Definition: Assuming what is true of the part must be true of the whole, or vice versa.

Example: “Since some biblical stories involve violence, the entire Bible promotes violence.”

Response: The Bible accurately records human history, including human sinfulness. It does not endorse all the actions it describes.

Why Logical Soundness Matters in Christian Apologetics

Sound logic is not an end in itself but a means to faithfully communicate the truth of God. Since God is a God of order (1 Corinthians 14:33), the defense of His truth must reflect that order. Poor reasoning obscures truth and damages the witness of the gospel. The apostolic command to “always be ready to make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15) implies disciplined thought and sound argumentation.

In a world where emotion often overshadows truth and where skepticism toward Scripture abounds, demonstrating logical rigor becomes not only a tool for effective persuasion but also an act of faithfulness to the One who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Thus, mastering logical fallacies is a fundamental skill for every serious Christian apologist. It enables the defense of the faith to proceed on a solid foundation, one that reflects the rationality of God’s revealed Word and honors the call to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints” (Jude 3).

You May Also Enjoy

Modern Liberalism and Its Assault on Biblical Authority

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).