Logical fallacies are arguments that contain errors in their structure. An argument can be fallacious if it is incoherent, irrelevant, or simply doesn’t logically follow from its premise to conclusion.
If we can identify fallacious reasoning in an argument we can prove the argument invalid and unsound. Understanding logical fallacy helps us avoid errors in our own reasoning, and it helps us recognize error in arguments posed to us.
Following are a few common fallacies that affect interpretation of scripture and to formation of doctrinal beliefs. These are not all-inclusive but are some more common fallacies in Bible study. Students are encouraged to study other fallacies outside this list.
Contextomy
Contextomy is the fallacy of quoting out of context. Contextomy lifts a quote or passage out of its surrounding, altering its meaning. When presented out of context, the passage or quote can be interpreted in a manner other than it was originally intended by the author or speaker.
In Biblical study and interpretation, contextomy is commonly referred to as proof-texting. In proof-texting, one lifts a piece of scripture out of its context then presents the proof-text as evidence to support or refute a doctrinal position.
One-Sided Argument
A one-sided argument is a fallacy also known by other names: Cherry-picking, stacking the deck, suppressing evidence, etc. A one-sided argument controls and isolates information to assert its position. The intent of the one-sided argument is to present only the information one finds favorable to establish, support, and defend his or her chosen position while excluding contradictory information.
Proof-texting is a prime example of the one-sided argument being used in Biblical interpretation and the formation/defense of doctrines. While proof-texting is contextomy, it can also be a one-sided argument when done to isolate a single idea and disregard opposing ideas in the scriptures. The person offering a proof-text is choosing a piece of scripture that seemingly supports his or her chosen doctrinal position; the proof-text ignores opposing scriptural texts or is positioned as definitive evidence against opposing scriptural texts. The proof-text may ignore language, context, and other scriptural evidence to its contrary.
Proof-texting basically asserts an argument as follows:
P1 Verse X.
P2 Verse X is directly quoted from the Bible, so it is the inerrant word of YHWH.
P3 Verse X states or supports my belief (insert interpretation of X here).
C1 Therefore, what I believe is true and irrefutable.
When we test this argument for soundness we often find P3 to be false, because the verse is being taken out of context, its meaning is distorted, and its presentation as “evidence” is a one-sided argument. We test P3 by asking: Does verse X truly say what the presenter claims (given the language and surrounding context of the verse)? Is the presenter’s interpretation of verse X consistent with all scripture?
The one-sided argument does not have to rely on a single statement or a single verse of scripture. One can proof-text or build a one-sided argument with a larger portion of scripture. One could easily quote an entire paragraph or an entire chapter of a book of the Bible and present it as evidence for a doctrine while ignoring linguistics, surrounding context, and other portions of scripture. The same argument structure as above would be used, just with a larger section of the Bible being proof-texted:
P1 Chapter X.
P2 Chapter X is directly quoted from the Bible, so it is the inerrant word of YHWH.
P3 Chapter X states or supports my belief (insert interpretation of X here).
C1 Therefore, what I believe is true and irrefutable.
Argumentum Ad Populum
An argumentum ad populum is an argument that appeals to popular belief or majority consensus. The argument asserts a claim, then it supports the claim by stating the claim is widely accepted. In this fallacy, widespread acceptance of a claim is presented as evidence the claim is true; however, no evidence is actually given. An argumentum ad populum can be structured as follows:
P1 Most Christian theologians believe X
C1 Therefore, belief X is true
Another way to structure an argumentum ad populum is:
P1 Belief X has been the accepted mainstream doctrine for the past 2,000 years
C1 Therefore, belief X is true
Some ways the argumentum ad populum can affect Biblical study and interpretation include:
1. A doctrine is asserted as true because a consensus of elders, rabbis, pastors, theologians, etc. agree it is true.
2. A doctrine is asserted as true because it is the established position of a denomination, and most members of the denomination accept the doctrine as true.
3. A doctrine is asserted as true because most members of a local congregation accept it is true.
4. A doctrine is asserted as true because it has been the accepted as the true doctrine for a long time.
To overcome the argumentum ad populum, we simply have to recognize one is presenting “popular acceptance” as evidence. Then, we reject the fallacy and insist on evidence to support the claim.
Straw Man Argument
A straw man argument attempts to defeat an issue by mischaracterizing it, replacing it with a separate (but seemingly same) issue, then attacking the mischaracterized issue to create an appearance the original issue was addressed. A straw man argument functions as follows:
1. Issue X is presented.
2. Respondent misrepresents issue X as issue Y, where issue Y superficially appears the same as issue X.
3. Respondent then attacks issue Y with the intent of convincing others he or she addressed issue X.
The straw man argument operates by making the switch without being noticed. If the audience accepts the switch from X to Y, then the one making the straw man argument may succeed in fooling the audience and winning the argument. To defeat the straw man argument, one must see the switch, identify it as an attempt to divert from the issue, then redirect attention back to the original issue.
Red Herring
A red herring is a diversion intended to distract one from the issue at stake. A red herring ignores the original issue and moves focus to a new issue. The intent of the red herring is to avoid the issue entirely and is structured as follows:
1. Issue X is presented.
2. Respondent ignores issue X and replies with issue Y
To defeat the red herring, one returns attention back to the original issue and insists on its resolution.