Same-Sex Marriage: Equal Rights, Religion, and Bigotry

When it comes to controversial moral debates like same-sex marriage, trite sayings such as this one on the left are echoed quite often in a culture where the make-up man has become more important than the speech writer. It’s short, it’s rhetorically powerful, and it can be repeated, tweeted, and regurgitated faster than you can say “Anti-disestablishmentarianism.” Using only eighteen words, it gets the intended job done.

But often the truth of the matter takes a bit longer to unpack than can be offered in a thirty-second sound bite. A false assertion can be uttered in seconds, while offering a well thought out response which exposes the problem or mistaken assumption requires clear thinking, patience, energy, and time, virtues and luxuries many people either can’t afford or don’t want to.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a hot topic that is not going away anytime soon. Christian apologists need to be persistent in clarifying the issues, especially in the face of saucy slogans such as this.

So what’s wrong with this oft-repeated cliché?

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Objections

What follows are some of the most common objections to the pro-life view one is likely to hear from defenders of abortion, both in the media and in everyday conversation. It is my hope the pro-life responses underneath will be beneficial to those who are defending the unborn, whether it be via e-mail, Facebook, or face to face. Rather than reinvent the wheel each new conversation, I have found the following points to be especially helpful in simplifying the debate and defending the right to life of unborn human persons, over and against the common objections of the pro-abortion choice position.

It should be noted that the following objections are not the more philosophically sophisticated defenses of abortion one is likely to encounter from those such as Judith Jarvis Thomson or David Boonin. Rather, these are common rhetorical talking points often made by those less informed on the topic but which nevertheless need to be addressed due to their prevalence and sometimes unfortunate effect of leaving pro-lifers speechless. 

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Maybe you've heard the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. In this parable, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like.

One blind man grabs the tusk and says, "An elephant is like a spear!" Another feels the trunk and concludes, "An elephant is like a snake!" The blind man hugging the leg thinks, "An elephant is like a tree!" The one holding the tail claims, "An elephant is like a rope!" Another feeling the ear believes, "An elephant is like a fan!" The last blind man leaning on the elephant's side exclaims, "An elephant is like a wall!"

This parable is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds.

There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: "the view that all religious roads - certainly all major or ethical ones - lead to God or to ultimate reality and salvation."1 This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as "All religions basically teach the same thing" or "All roads lead to the top of the mountain."

The elephant parable, while attractive to many, suffers from a number of problems:

Logical Fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Say what? Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." It is frequently abbreviated "post hoc" and may also be called the fallacy of false cause or questionable cause.

Please note: you always get bonus points for saying it in Latin and it makes you sound smarter.

The post hoc fallacy occurs when a person concludes that a particular event caused another event simply because the first preceded the second in time. In other words, A caused B because A occurred before B. The danger in this line of reasoning is that nothing definitive regarding causation can be drawn from temporal sequence. Simply because one thing precedes another it does not necessarily follow that the first caused the second. We need sufficient reason or evidence to determine a causal relationship between two events, not merely temporal sequence.

For example, suppose I were to say, "Whenever we take Jake to the park it rains. We better not take Jake to the park anymore." The fact that it has rained when Jake has gone to the park does not mean his going caused the rain. In fact, I think it is pretty safe to assume that Jake going to the park has no causal relationship to the rain. To reason this way commits the post hoc fallacy.

Even when there is consistent correlation between two events it does not necessarily equal causation. For example, though a rooster may crow every day before the sun rises it does not follow from this that the rooster crow causes the sun to rise. In a similar fashion, a man may consistently brush his teeth before bed every night but it does not follow that brushing his teeth causes him to fall asleep. Correlation does not equal causation.

Logical Fallacy: "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Circular Reasoning"

Probably one of the most frequent logical fallacies you'll come across in debates or dialogue is referred to as "circular reasoning" or "begging the question." In Latin it is called petitio principii which means "request for the source." This fallacy may take several forms but one of the most common occurs when the arguer assumes the truth of the conclusion he is trying to prove.

For example, some Christians have wrongly argued this way:

Skeptic: How do you know God exists?
Christian: Because the Bible says He does.
Skeptic: How do you know the Bible is true?
Christian: Duh! It's the Word of God!

Notice in this dialogue the Christian is assuming that God exists and wrote the Bible in order to prove that God exists. This commits the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." The arguer cannot assume the truthfulness of the conclusion he is attempting to prove.

However, non-Christians are just as prone to logical fallacies and the following are some common examples.

"Miracles Can't Happen."

Well known Scottish skeptic David Hume stated in On Miracles, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined" (My emphasis).

Unfortunately Hume is begging the question. Notice he makes the claim that a firm and unalterable experience counts against the belief in miracles. In other words, testimony and experience count 100 percent against miracles! But how would Hume know this? C.S. Lewis addresses this nicely in his book Miracles:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely "uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words, they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

"Jesus Never Existed."

Another example of circular reasoning can be seen in the claim made by some skeptics that "Jesus never existed." Given the ample amount of historical evidence for the life of Christ, how could anyone ever support the claim that Jesus never existed? The only way you could show that Jesus never existed is to prove that every account of Jesus that exists is false. Of course the only way you could prove that every existing account of Jesus is false is if you knew He never existed in the first place! This begs the question.

Abortion

The entire abortion debate centers around one question: What is the unborn? Many arguments in favor of the pro-abortion choice position beg the question by assuming the unborn is not a human being.

For example, some pro-abortion choice advocates argue that "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body." This begs the question by assuming the woman's body is the only one involved. If the unborn is a human being there are two human beings and two human bodies involved. Furthermore, it is never the woman's body that gets aborted. The woman survives the abortion, the unborn doesn't.

Conclusion: If all else fails, remember this: circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

Answering a Middle School Student's Questions about Global Warming

(Cornwallalliance.org)

When a middle schooler asks common questions about global warming, what do you say?

by E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance

Occasionally I receive emails from school children with questions about global warming. A particularly thoughtful one came recently from a student in Georgia, acting apparently on a teacher's assignment. Because the questions are so typical, I thought I'd share them my answers here.

1. Is global warming real and as large of a problem as some web sites tell the people?

This is an example of what logicians call the "fallacy of complex question." A "complex question" comes in the form of one that requires a "Yes" or "No" answer but that actually includes some parts that might be answered "Yes" and others that might be answered "No," or that asks only one thing, but answering either "Yes" or "No" implies something false. An example of the latter sort is the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you answer "No," you imply that you're still beating her; if you answer "Yes," you imply that you used to beat her. There is no way to give the grammatically required answer without condemning yourself. Similarly, the question above suggests that you want a "Yes" or "No" answer, but its first part ("Is global warming real" might receive a "Yes" answer without implying a "Yes" to the second part ("and as large of a problem as some web sites tell the people"). Further, the second part of the question almost necessitates a "No" answer, because some web sites make truly outrageous claims--e.g., that greenhouse warming might turn the Earth into a fiery ball. Absolutely no scientist I know of has suggested such a thing, but some laymen have. (Physicist Stephen Hawking came close when he suggested that runaway global warming could make Earth as hot as Venus, but Hawking was speaking off the cuff and hadn't really studied the particular physics of Earth's climate system. Probably it's not fair to take him seriously on the point.) To be sensibly answerable, your question needed to quantify what you meant by "as large of a problem as some web sites tell the people"--i.e., so large as to make life extinct on Earth, so large as to cause 20 degrees Centigrade increase in global average temperature, so large as to melt the Greenland or Antarctic ice cap, so large as to raise sea level by 1 foot, or 2 feet, or 3 feet, or 20 feet, or 60 feet, or so large as to cause massive deaths from heat stroke, etc. (The answer to all of those, by the way, is "No"--except to 1-foot to 2-foot sea level rise, and then the answer is "Maybe we'll see that much SLR (1 foot much more likely than 2), and maybe global warming will contribute partly to that (though it might be mostly just continued response of Earth's ice and oceans to warming that has already occurred).) Now, to the two parts of your question.

First: "Is global warming real?" Earth is always warming or cooling, in several cycles determined by cycles in solar energy and solar magnetic wind output; by cycles in ocean currents (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and others); by volcanic activity; by cycles in Earth's orbit and tilt; by cycles in Earth's magnetic field; by cycles in the intensity of cosmic ray influx (which in turn are determined partly by cycles in solar magnetic wind intensity and partly by Earth's position relative to the various arms of the galaxy). The primary driver of changes in Earth's average surface temperature appears to be cloudiness, which in turn is determined mostly by ocean cycles, especially the PDO. From about A.D. 900 to about A.D. 1300 (the Medieval Warm Period), Earth's average temperature appears to have been considerably warmer than it is now. From about 1350 to about 1850 (the Little Ice Age), it was significantly cooler. From about 1850 to now it appears to have warmed by about 1 degree C (1.8 degree F), although there are some very serious problems with the accuracy and comparability of temperature data, and that figure really could range anywhere from 0 to 2 degrees C (0 to 3.6 F). But during that 160-year period, there have been ups and downs. Earth seems to have warmed generally from about 1850 to about 1900 or 1910, cooled from about 1910 to about 1920 or the mid-1920s, warmed from then to about the early 1940s (the 1930s probably being the warmest decade on record for both the Earth and the 48 contiguous United States), cooled somewhat from then to the mid-1970s, warmed from then to 1998 or perhaps 2001 (1998 being the warmest year since 1850 for Earth, but 1936 the warmest for the U.S.), and cooled since then. So: Is global warming real? Yes, of course it is--sometimes. And in between times, global cooling is real. That's no surprise to Earth scientists, or even to historians (who are aware, for instance, that during the Medieval Warm Period the Vikings colonized Greenland and Vinland (now called Newfoundland), naming the first as they did because its coastal regions were green and farmable, and the latter as they did because they found grape vines growing there, but that during the Little Ice Age Greenland's glaciers expanded so much as to destroy the colonies and the Vikings had to withdraw, and Vinland has not continued warm enough for grapes to grow, and that during the Little Ice Age the Thames River in London, which never freezes now, used to freeze over so solidly that Christmas parties were held on the ice, and similarly the Hudson River near what is now New York City).

Just so you can see for yourself how variable Earth's temperature can be even within a time as short as 1979 to the present, here's a graph representing satellite remote temperature sensing data for that period, from www.drroyspencer.com:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_09.jpg

Who Has the Burden of Proof?

Probably one of the most important ideas to grasp concerning argumentation and debate is the issue of burden of proof. In his book Tactics, Greg Koukl dedicates an entire chapter to this topic (see chapter 4). What do we mean by "burden of proof"? Greg Koukl defines it this way:

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his view. Generally, the rule can be summed up this way: Whoever makes the claim bears the burden. The key here is not to allow yourself to be thrust into a defensive position when the other person is making the claim. It's not your duty to prove him wrong. It's his duty to prove his view.(1)

It doesn't matter whether you are discussing theology, philosophy, politics or ethics, the burden of proof rule is a crucial one to remember. It prevents you from being unjustly placed in a defensive position and forces the individual making the claim to carry his own load.

EXAMPLE #1: THERE IS NO GOD!

Perhaps you have been in a conversation or overheard one that goes something like this:

Skeptic: There is no God.

Christian: Really? How do you know that?

Skeptic: Well, how do you know there is a God?

Notice what has happened here. The skeptic started out the conversation by making a truth claim. In this case, he is making the claim "there is no God." The Christian rightly asks the question "How do you know that?" in order for the skeptic to provide justification for his position, as he should. After all, the skeptic is the one making the claim. Therefore, the skeptic bears the burden of proof in this case. But the skeptic doesn't accept it! Instead, he tactfully (and wrongly) attempts to shift the burden of proof to the Christian!

So how should the Christian respond? Should he answer the question? Should he accept the burden of proof? Should he give a three hour lecture on the kalam cosmological argument? No! Why not? Because he is not the one who made the claim. Instead, the Christian should point out to the skeptic that since it is the skeptic who made the claim it is his job to support it. The conversation might continue like this:

Skeptic: Well, how do you know there is a God?

Christian: Wait, hold on a minute. You started out this conversation by making the claim that there is no God. Since you made the original claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide some reasons or evidences as to why you think you are right. I am not going to accept any burden of proof at this point because I have not made any claims. So again, how do you know there is no God?

EXAMPLE #2: THE BURNING BUSH

Here is another scenario. Recently I was speaking with a friend of mine who is Roman Catholic. We began discussing the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (a five dollar word for sure, this is the idea that the bread and wine during communion actually become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ when the priest consecrates it.) As a Protestant, I disagree with the doctrine of transubstantiation and do not believe this is what the Bible teaches regarding the nature of communion. On the other hand, my Roman Catholic friend beliefs it wholeheartedly.

During our conversation, my friend attempted to defend the idea that God could take on the form of material objects by pointing to Exodus 3 where he claimed that God actually took on the form of the burning bush when He spoke with Moses. If God can become a bush, why can't he become the bread and wine in communion? That was his line of reasoning. Our conversation went something like this:

Roman Catholic: In Exodus it says that God took on the form of a burning bush and spoke to Moses. If he could do that, why couldn't he become the bread and wine?

Me: Actually, Exodus 3 does not say that God literally became the burning bush. Verse 2 says, "The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of the bush." There is nothing in the text that says God became the bush. It wasn't necessary for God to do so in order to make His presence known "from the midst of the bush" and speak to Moses.

Roman Catholic: Well it doesn't say He didn't become the burning bush either! Where does it say that He didn't become the bush?

***Notice he has shifted the burden of proof.

Me: Wait a second. You are the one who brought this text up in support of your position. You are the one who made the original claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this text is saying what you are claiming it says.

Roman Catholic: But you are making a claim too! You are claiming God didn't become the bush! Show me where it says that!

***This conversation (can I call it ridiculous?) carried on for about half an hour.

Me: But as I mentioned, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proof. My only claim is that you have not made your case. You can't base your argument or evidence on what the text doesn't say. That is an argument from silence. Besides this, even if I grant that you are right on this point, it doesn't follow from this that transubstantiation is true.

Again, notice what happened here. First, my friend started out by making a truth claim, i.e. that God actually became the burning bush. I pointed out to him that there is no evidence or reason from the text to believe this.

Second, my friend attempted to shift the burden of proof to me by implying that it was not his duty to prove himself right but rather my job to prove him wrong!

In response to all of this, I pointed out three problems with his reasoning:

First, I rightly pointed out that, despite what he may think, the burden of proof rests with him. I tried to explain this to him as clearly as I could but in the end I don't think the information stuck.

Second, I pointed out that he was committing a logical fallacy: an argument from silence. Notice his statement above. During our conversation he implied that because the text does not say God didn't become the bush that this is somehow evidence that God did become the bush! The obvious problem with this fallacious reasoning is that you cannot base your argument or evidence on what the text doesn't say! That commits a logical fallacy, an argument from silence.

Third, I pointed out that even if he was correct in assuming God actually became the burning bush, it wouldn't follow from this that transubstantiation is true! Why not focus on more important passages in the New Testament that Roman Catholic apologists use to defend their views? Ultimately this was a silly conversation that got us nowhere.

CONVERSATIONAL TIPS:

First, never accept the burden of proof if it isn't yours to bear. Explain the rule "whoever makes the claim bears the burden." Of course, if you do make claims, be prepared to give reasons or arguments as to why you think you're right.

Second, don't get frustrated (as I did after a half hour of meaningless debate) when speaking with someone who seemingly is not willing to follow the basic rules of argumentation and logic. In cases such as this it is unlikely the conversation will ever be productive, or even get off the ground.

Third, explain yourself as best as possible. Stop, think for a moment, and pick your words carefully so you are able to speak as clearly and persuasively as possible.

Fourth, don't waste your time discussing issues that are distracting from the main topic. These are red herrings. Instead, focus in on the question under discussion and try to redirect the conversation toward more foundational and relevant matters.

Fifth, in the end, you may just have to "agree to disagree." If your interlocutor is refusing to be reasonable or abide by certain conversational rules it may be best to simply end the discussion on a friendly note and try again next time (if you dare).
______________________________________________

(1) Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 59.

Question: Is Christmas Pagan?

Last week I re-posted an article by Ken Samples entitled The Tricky Topic of Halloween. We have received some positive feedback and comments regarding the article. Many Christians struggle with this issue and don't know exactly how they should approach the holiday from a biblical perspective.

Recently we received a question regarding the issue of Christmas:

Hello there. I am a woman who grew up in a Christian household that always celebrated Christmas. My fiance was raised a Jehovah's witness and did not. We have a 7yr. old little girl who loves the holiday season as much as I do but needless to say the concept of having a Christmas tree is a source of contention in our house. For me Christmas is about the "reason for the season" and the spirit of giving. It also allows us to spend much needed time with family from near and far. And while my fiance kind of gets that, the whole Christmas tree thing is a problem for him. About a year ago he presented me with an article that stated how Christmas trees were originally used to hang people on etc....and in reading your post on Halloween, and how you stated you have to look at the origins and then look at how things have evolved since then and what they mean to you (or something along those lines), it got me to thinking.

Do you have any info regarding the origin of the Christmas tree and why its okay to put it up? Also, do you know why Jehovah's witness do NOT celebrate anything? I've asked but am slightly confused by the conflicting answers I receive. Please help! I want to be able to discuss this intelligently and KNOW what I am talking about! Thank you!!

Thanks so much for the question.

First, let me direct you to an article by Greg Koukl entitled Is Christmas Pagan? As you will note, there are some striking similarities between the origin of Halloween and Christmas from a Christian perspective. For example, in both cases the Church, in establishing these holidays and infusing them with Christian significance, was seeking to counteract pagan influence and give Christians an alternative celebration to avoid their being lured into pagan practice. This also allowed Christians the opportunity to proclaim the gospel at the same time. Because of these similarities in origin, the same arguments Ken Samples provides in his article can be used with regards to Christmas, and vice versa.

Second, Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) do not celebrate Christmas, as well as many other holidays, because of what they consider "pagan" origins and associations. But I think the information and arguments provided in the two articles above explains well enough why discounting a holiday today because it may have had pagan origins or associations in the past is not a justifiable reason in and of itself. Like the meaning of words, the meaning of holidays can change over time. Christians may celebrate holidays for different reasons and motivations, none of which have anything to do with paganism.

Along these same lines, the Watchtower Society prohibits JW's from celebrating birthdays and will often seek to provide support for their beliefs from scripture. Regarding birthdays, their reasoning is that in both Genesis 40:20-22 and Matthew 14:6-10, the only biblical passages to specifically mention birthdays, both occasions are portrayed in a negative light and involve someone being put to death by a pagan. In Genesis, Pharaoh had his chief baker put to death. In Matthew, Herod had John the Baptist put to death. Therefore, we shouldn't celebrate birthdays.

But this line of reasoning commits a logical fallacy: guilt by association. There is no justification for concluding that a day is "evil" simply because something bad may have happened on that day. It was Pharaoh and Herod who were evil, not birthdays. Birthdays are nowhere forbidden in scripture.

Third, if I could recommend a book, you may want to check out Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes. This is an extensive critique of JW theology and practice. You may want to use discretion with a book of this sort so as to not cause unnecessary offense with your fiance, especially if he views it as "apostate" literature.

Hope that helps! Feel free to e-mail or comment with a follow-up.

Self-Defeating Statements

"There is no truth!"

How many times have you heard that before?

In their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek provide one of the most valuable tools and tactics a clear-thinker needs to master and have in their arsenal:

If someone said to you, "I have one insight for you that absolutely will revolutionize your ability to quickly and clearly identify the false statements and false philosophies that permeate our culture," would you be interested? That's what we're about to do here. In fact, if we had to pick just one thinking ability as the most valuable we've learned in our many years of seminary and postgraduate education, it would be this: how to identify and refute self-defeating statements.(i)

What is a self-defeating statement?

A self-defeating (or self-refuting) statement is one that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it is a statement that cannot live up to its own criteria. Imagine if I were to say,

I cannot speak a word in English.

You intuitively see a problem here. I told you in English that I cannot speak a word in English. This statement is self-refuting. It does not meet its own standard or criteria. It self-destructs.

The important thing to remember with self-defeating statements is that they are necessarily false. In other words, there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. This law states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. So if I were to say, "God told me He doesn't exist" you would see intuitively the obvious self-refuting nature of this statement.


How do you expose self-defeating statements?

Simple: you apply the claim to itself. This is what Geisler and Turek call the Road Runner Tactic and what Greg Koukl refers to as The Suicide Tactic (see chapter 7 of his book Tactics).

Below is a list of self-defeating statements that are commonly repeated in our culture today. The goal should be three-fold: (1) recognize self-defeating statements, (2) expose them for what they are, and (3) avoid being caught off guard and taken in by them.

Below each self-defeating statement is an explanation of why it commits suicide along with suggestions on how you can respond. If this is your first time dealing with self-refuting statements you may need to read them a couple times. Stop and reflect on what the statement is saying and then see if you can identify its self-refuting nature.

Feel free to leave comments with your own favorite self-defeating statements and I will add them on. Enjoy!

1. There is no truth.

If there is no truth this statement itself cannot be true. Therefore, truth exists. You cannot deny truth without affirming it. You might respond, "Is that true?" or "How can it be true that there is no truth?"

2. You can't know truth.

If you can't know truth then you would never know that "you can't know truth." This person is claiming to know the truth that we can't know truth. You might respond, "Then how do you know that?"

3. No one has the truth.

This person is claiming to have the truth that no one has the truth. If no one has the truth then the statement "no one has the truth" is false! You might respond, "Then how do you know that is true?"

4. All truth is relative.

Sometimes also stated as "Everything is relative." If all truth is relative then this statement itself would be relative and not objectively true. In other words, the person is claiming that it is objectively true that all truth is relative. You might respond, "Is that a relative truth?"

5. It's true for you but not for me.

This statement is self-refuting because it claims that truth is relative to the individual and yet at the same time implies it is objectively true that something can be "true for you but not for me." This statement commits the self-excepting fallacy. You might respond, "Is that just true for you, or is it true for everybody?"

6. There are no absolutes.

This statement is an absolute statement about reality that claims there are no absolutes. You might respond, "Are you absolutely sure about that?"

7. No one can know any truth about religion.

This person is claiming to know the truth about religion and it is this: you can't know truth about religion. You might respond, "Then how did you come to know that truth about religion?"

8. You can't know anything for sure.

If you can't know anything for sure then you would never know it! This person is claiming to know with certainty that you can't know anything for sure. You might respond, "Then how do you know that for sure?"

9. You should doubt everything.

If you should doubt everything then you should doubt the truth of the statement "you should doubt everything." You might respond, "Should I doubt that?" And remember: always doubt your doubts!

10. Only science can give us truth.

If only science can give us truth we could never know that "only science can give us truth" because this is not something science can tell you! That is because this statement is philosophical in nature rather than scientific. You might respond, "What science experiment taught you that?" or "What is your scientific evidence that only science can give us truth?"

11. You can only know truth through experience.

If you can only know truth through experience you would never know the truth of the statement "you can only know truth through experience" because this is not something that can be known through experience. You might respond, "Can you know that truth through experience?" or "What experience taught you that?"

12. All truth depends on your perspective.

If all truth depends on your perspective then even the truth "all truth depends on your perspective" depends on your perspective. This is another objective statement which claims relativism is true. Again, it commits the self-excepting fallacy. You might respond, "Does that truth depend on your perspective?"

13. You shouldn't judge.

The person who says this is making a judgment, namely, that it is wrong to judge! You might respond, "If it is wrong to judge, then why are you judging?"

14. You shouldn't force your morality on people.

This person is forcing their moral point of view that it is wrong to force a moral point of view. You might respond, "Then please don't force your moral view that it is wrong to force morality."

15. You should live and let live.

The person who tells you to "live and let live" isn't allowing you to live how you want! They are prescribing behavior for you rather than taking their own advice. You might respond, "If that's your philosophy, why are you telling me how to live?"

16. God doesn't take sides.

If God doesn't take sides then He does in fact take the side that doesn't take sides. You might respond, "Does God take that side?"

17. You shouldn't try to convert people.

This person is trying to convert you to their position that it is wrong to convert people! You might respond, "If it is wrong to convert, why are you trying to convert me?"

18. That's just your view.

This statement is self-refuting if it treats an objective statement as if it were subjective. This is the subjectivist fallacy. The hidden assumption is that your view is relative and a matter of personal opinion. If that is the case, this statement can also be relativized and made into a matter of personal opinion. You might respond, "Well that's just your view that this is just my view."

19. You should be tolerant of all views.

Most statements regarding tolerance are self-refuting if by "tolerance" the person means "accepting all views as equally true and valid." If that is the case, the person who says "You should be tolerant of all views" isn't being tolerant of your view! You might respond, "Then why don't you tolerate my view?"(ii)

20. It is arrogant to claim to have the truth.

This person is claiming to have the truth that "it is arrogant to claim to have the truth." Therefore, by his own standard, he is the arrogant one! You might respond, "My that is awfully arrogant of you!"
_________________________________________________

(i) Geisler and Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 38.

(ii) Note: true tolerance means "putting up with error" and carries with it the idea of respect and value with regards to persons. This is in contradistinction to the postmodern definition of tolerance which means holding all truth claims as equally true and valid.

The Tricky Topic Of Halloween

(Reasons.org) written by Kenneth Samples

In terms of holiday commercial sales, Halloween ranks second only to Christmas. But is this extremely popular tradition (especially in the United States) the devil's night, a literal satanic and occult extravaganza? Or is Halloween a harmless celebration?

Many Christians raise questions and express concerns about holidays that have some historical connection, at least in terms of dates, to ancient pagan beliefs and practices. Some refuse to allow their children to participate in Halloween celebrations. Others would like to abolish the event. Addressing common questions about this scary holiday may alleviate some of the concerns surrounding this controversial cultural issue.

Isn't the origin of Halloween connected to an ancient form of paganism?

Like the dates of a number of major holidays (including Christmas), Halloween can be traced, at least in part, to an ancient pagan celebration. The winter festival "Samhain" was celebrated on or near October 31^st by the ancient Celts. Samhain was a pagan tradition that commemorated the end of harvest, the beginning of winter, and the recognition of the physical cycle of death, which included crops, animals, and humans.

In conjunction with this festival, many pagans believed that the human spirits of the recent dead would not pass on to their final resting place in the next world until being placated with gifts. The restless spirits' "tricks" could be avoided only if appropriately "treated," thus originated the present-day Halloween practice of children dressing up like spirits and arriving at the front door chanting (or demanding) "Trick or Treat."

But while Halloween has distant connections to ancient pagan beliefs and practices, the holiday has also been strongly influenced by Christian belief and practices. The word "Halloween" comes from "All Hallows' Eve," a reference to the evening before the Christian celebration of All Saints' Day (November 1^st). The so-called hall of fame for the faithful in the book of Hebrews (11:1-40) initiated All Saints' Day, which was (and is) devoted to remembering Christian believers who have died, sometimes suffering as martyrs.

By overlapping this practice of honoring and thanking God for the example of faithful believers with the Samhain festival, the church attempted to counteract heathen thought and influence. This was especially true in areas of Europe where Samhain was popular. Christian apologists Bob and Gretchen Passantino note the church's apologetic reasons for doing so: "The Church not only sought to give Christians an alternative, spiritually edifying holiday; but also to proclaim the supremacy of the gospel over pagan superstition."¹ Historically, Halloween has been influenced by both pagan practices and Christian devotion.² Therefore, to view Halloween as only a pagan holiday is inaccurate.

Since the origin of Halloween is tied, at least to some degree, to pagan beliefs and practices, shouldn't Christians avoid any involvement with its celebration (e.g., avoid having their children go trick-or-treating)?

Christians need to use good reasoning to support their moral and/or spiritual convictions. Drawing and applying biblical inferences to life's questions and challenges takes intellectual skill and care. To condemn the practice of trick-or-treating outright on the basis that Halloween has certain pagan origins is, in this author's mind, to come perilously close to committing the genetic fallacy.

The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea, person, practice, or institution is evaluated solely in terms of its origin, without giving appropriate consideration to how it has changed or evolved in contemporary practice.³ For example, one would be foolish to reject the scientific discipline of astronomy because its origins were connected to the ancient occult practice of astrology. Why? Because the practice of astronomy has changed significantly over time. While the Bible expressly forbids a believer's involvement in certain pagan and/or occult practices (Deut. 18:9-13), for the vast majority of American families Halloween has nothing to do with the practice of, or belief in, occultism. Rather, this celebration gives children an opportunity to dress up in funny, spooky, and/or outrageous costumes and accumulate candy by the pillowcase full (a little known metric measurement).

Aren't many of the seemingly benign practices of Halloween directly connected to paganism and occultism?

Christians have a biblical mandate to discern what is evil and resist and/or avoid its influence. However, to what extent should one go to avoid evil people and their practices? And to what extent are practices evil in themselves?

Since Adolf Hitler brushed his teeth, should one rather knock one's teeth out to avoid any association with an evil person and his practices? Could practices that were once associated with pagan superstition (such as carving pumpkins and bobbing for apples) be purely benign for people with a totally different motivation and intent? Should one avoid eating meat (especially lean and inexpensive meat) that has been offered to idols, even if one is convinced the idols don't really exist? The apostle Paul assured the first-century Christians that they could eat such meat in good conscience knowing that the idols were not real.⁴

Doesn't participation in Halloween open a door to the occult?

According to the Bible, the world of the occult is real and energized by demonic powers. This realm therefore must be recognized and resisted by Christians. Spiritual beliefs and practices bear consequences in this world and in the next. However, this author distinguishes a clear difference between the real occult practices of spiritism, magic, and divination and the contemporary practice of trick-or-treating, carving pumpkins, and bobbing for apples. The door of the occult world must be entered through human interest and initiative. General Halloween practices engaged in by most people do not draw them into occult activities.

The intent here is not to engage in hairsplitting over potentially dangerous activities but rather to make logical and moral distinctions. Of course, if any Halloween practice is perceived as violating one's conscience and commitment to biblical truth then that person should rightly abstain.

Isn't the apparently harmless practice of trick-or-treating really a subtle concession to and promotion of an occult worldview?

Again, one must follow his or her conscience on the matter, but this author finds it hard to believe that the systematic collection of candy in a given neighborhood by "Spider-Man" and his "Rugrat" friends constitutes the promotion of an occult worldview or spiritistic racketeering. Personally, it seems difficult not to heartily treat a young child dressed up as "Captain America" or "G.I. Joe." Even the recognized Christian authority on cults and the occult, Walter Martin, said: "If Big Bird comes to my door, he's definitely going to get a treat."

Doesn't the present-day practice of Halloween carry a strong association with dark occult images?

When images are offensive, one should by all means avoid them. But is the use of all dark images in every context wrong? How about the use of dark images in the realm of literature? Was it wrong of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien (both Christian writers) to include dark images (witches, monsters, etc.) in their writings? At what point does a Halloween costume become a dark image that should be avoided? Again, this is largely a matter of conscience.


Suggestions for Christians when it comes to Halloween

Put the arguments and conclusions found in this article to the test of Scripture, reason, and conscience (1 Thess. 5:21) and accept or reject them accordingly.

Consider that not everything is a morally black-and-white issue for Christians. Halloween may be a gray area. Therefore, allow Christians to follow their own conscience on the issue. Avoid the temptation to judge those who hold different convictions on secondary issues.

Whatever is decided about Halloween, try to avoid using bad arguments to support moral convictions. Using sound arguments to support convictions carries great weight with others.

If trick-or-treating violates a Christian's conscience, alternative events (fall parties or celebrations of All Saints' Day) allow children to view Christianity as a religion that permits them to have fun. Sinful activities should always be avoided, but be careful that children do not develop a "party-pooper" view of God.

Use Halloween as an opportunity to discuss how Christian families should confront questionable cultural practices. Discuss the worldview differences between classical paganism and Christianity.

Different people do have different ideas about whether or not to celebrate Halloween. However, one thing is certain. October 31^st not only commemorates All Hallows' Eve, but also honors Martin Luther's protesting of certain medieval Catholic beliefs and practices, which sparked the 16th century Reformation. And, the central truth of the gospel can be celebrated in a variety of ways every day of the year-even on Halloween.


References

1. Bob and Gretchen Passantino, "What about Halloween?" available from www.answers.org/issues/halloween.html; Internet; accessed 26 March 2002.

2. Answers In Action, a ministry that specializes in the study of cults and the occult, offers a thoughtful, balanced, and informative treatment of the subject of Halloween from an evangelical Christian perspective.

3. Britannica Junior Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (Chicago: William Benton, 1967), s.v. "Halloween."

4. See T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 3d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), 36-37.

5. 1 Cor 8:1-13.

10 Arguments Thoughtful Atheists Won't Use

"Through countless discussions surrounding atheism, it has become apparent that someone must be feeding bad advice to atheists. Since the following errors are made repeatedly, this partial list has been populated to warn atheists of this underground movement in order for them to avoid these pitfalls. If you are an atheist and hear any of the following advice, realize that if used, it will be harmful to your cause." - Doug Eaton



Doug Eaton and the Apologetics.com staff dedicated an entire show to this issue.

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!

Keyes vs. Obama: Death Penalty and Abortion

Unfortunately, Keyes did not get a chance to respond to Obama's last statement but I would like to make a few observations.

Obama attempts to differentiate between the slaveholder and the pregnant woman "exercising her right to choose" by saying that the woman is making her choice "in extraordinarily painful circumstances." He attempts to dismiss Keyes' comments as mere rhetoric. This reply is weak and mistaken for several reasons:

First, Obama never addresses the argument. The analogy by Keyes is plain and provocative. Both the slaveholder and the pro-abortion choice advocate discriminate based on a morally irrelevant factor: level of development. Obama never addresses this but simply attempts to dismiss it as "rhetoric."

Second, Obama resorts to rhetoric himself. He characterizes abortion as a woman's "right to choose." Of course the question is, "choose what?" If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, no one should have this "right." Obama does not address the only important question of the debate: what is the unborn? In refusing to address this, Obama must resort to euphemisms such as "right to choose" which, ironically, amounts to empty rhetoric in the absence of reason.

Third, Obama begs the question by assuming the unborn is not a human being. Imagine you lived back when slavery was under debate in this country. What if someone were to say, "Yes, but you don't understand. Slaveholders are exercising their right to choose slavery in extraordinarly painful circumstances. Times are tough. Slaveholders have families to feed and businesses to run. If you don't like slavery, then don't own a slave. But don't force your morality on others."* In point of fact, this was the exact logic used by some pro-slavery advocates. But notice all of this assumes slaves are not persons and instead are property, which is exactly what Obama is doing in the case of the unborn. He is assuming that which he must prove. He is begging the question.
____________________________________________

* As a side note, this line of reasoning also commits the relativist fallacy. It treats an objective truth claim as if it were a relative or subjective preference claim. In other words, when a person says that abortion or slavery is immoral, they are making an objective truth claim. They are not making a subjective preference claim such as "I don't like abortion or slavery." To treat an objective truth claim as if it were a subjective preference claim is to commit the relativist fallacy, which is what both the slaveholder and Obama do. This is why the bumper sticker "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" completely misses the point.