Wikpedia list of fallacies.Something to keep in mind during holy week, when you will see lots of smart folks using these false arguments to riducule Christian beliefs.
For example, I am spending my leisure time listening to lectures on Rome and the classical world, so when I ran across a lecture about Christian sects in ancient Rome by a famous scholar, I started to listen....alas,
this very famous scholar starts out by talking with the attitude of a smart ass fifth grader, mocking his students for not being able to answer some trivial pursuit questions on the Bible, and when they answer wrong, he ridiculed his students for basing their beliefs on a book they barely know.
At this point, I couldn't take his attitude, which was to mock the ignorant. I mean, imaginge someone ridiculing students in a course on Chemistry because they couldn't recite the Periodic table.
So if he starts with illogic, it means I can't trust the rest of his statements.
To make things worse, this is a "Famous professor" speaking to the Commonwealth Club, a non religious group who hears lectures from all sorts of "cutting edge" speakers.
So I turned off the video, figuring he has an agenda and it's not to teach history. (it isn't: It's to try to rewrite the Bible by adding his favorite gnostic books)
Clue? He sets up a "strawman" fallacy, i.e. that all Christians base their beliefs on the Bible.
Strawman argument: Catholics (and Orthodox) Christians base their beliefs on the bible and tradition: Indeed, they would say the books in the bible were chosen because they agreed with the beliefs of the church which conveys the truth of our beliefs (1 Timothy 3 15), and that the spirit of God helps direct the bishops to decide what should be believed and which books belong in the scripture.
(a similar argument could be made for God's spirit helping the scribes who wrote down and organized the writings of the Old Testament).
Second strawman argument: That not knowing what the Bible says means you can't be a good Christian.
Well, that eliminates most Christians, including those who lived before the Bible was organized by Jerome and most Christians in lands where illiteracy was the norm.
Third fallacy: Non sequitor, that knowing trivia about the bible is the same as knowing Christian belief.
That's like saying I can't be a doc if I can't list all the bones of the body or how many they are. Or like telling a person if they don't understand quantum theory they shouldn't believe in electricity.
Fourth fallacy: Strawman, that the literal interpretation of the bible contradicts itself.
Where he's headed, of course, is to prove all the fallacies of the bible. Yes, we can have five points of view on Henry VIII but if different points of view are given in the bible, it's false. Cops know this as the
"Rashomon" effect, where eyewitnesses often get things different or even wrong.
And then there is the problem of having oral tradition changing with the telling. Those who wrote it down often tried to relay several different stories, often told with a different point of view.
Unlike Herodatus, who wrote down most of these stories, the scribes chose and crafted the stories with the aim to tell us on how God interacts with us.
In the new testament, these "different" stories are probably based on witnesses. Why do I say this? because any cop knows about the Rashomon effect of different people seeing different things in the same incident. If all the stories in the gospels were exactly the same, one would suspect they all came from a single source.
Fifth fallacy: false generaliztion: that all Christians read the bible literally. No, as far back as the early church fathers, the allegory of the stories was recognized.
Sixth premise: false generalization. we base our beliefs on a book: No, Catholics start with the beliefs that the truths of faith was taught by the bishops in unity, and can be found in both the bible and in our traditions, and say the early bishops chose the books that agreed with our beliefs, not vice versa. The non scientific theory behind this is that the spirit of God sort of pushes folks to stay on the right track in these things. But nevertheless, he has his argument backward.
But of course, it's a "straw man" argument: find the fake way of approaching a bible (strict literal approach) then find "mistakes" in the Bible, and voila, you win.
and the bigshot professor is selling a book meant to "clarify" what early christians believe (hint: it's not what most of us believe today). He'll add his own magic books that were rejected by the bishops to prove that the big bad Catholics with Constantine destroyed the real story in order to establish an empire or what ever you believe.
None of this agrees with history, as
Philip Jenkin's book shows, but never mind: The press will eat it up.
the real story, also found in
one of Jenkin's books, is the question: "Who do you say I am"?
If Jesus is God incarnate, then it changes everything.
If he's just a hysterical and historical construct by power hungry bishops, well, you can make up your own religion and do anything you want to and consider yourself a good man.
(in the US, this means stumpfing all the men or women you want; in the Philippines it means stealing everything in sight).
Expect to see a lot of this type of nonsense in Holy week.