Welcome to Week #2 of APOL 104 D34
Posted on: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:58:40 AM EDT
Congratulations to all of you for the completion of the first week of class. So far, you all did an
excellent job completing the CRC and Contact Information quizzes on time. I pray that all of
you had a great experience.
All assignments for Week #2 are due next Monday, March 30, 2015 by 11:59pm EST.
Here is what you should expect from Week #2:
Text Reading:
Weider & Gutierrez, Chapters 2 - 3
Caner & Hindson (PEA): Logical Fallacies/ Reason and Faith
Video:An Introduction to Critical Thinking
Quiz #2
This quiz covers all of the materials from this week's Reading & Study. Begin this quiz only
when you are prepared to complete it. You are allowed to refer to your notes and textbooks at any
time during the assessment, but understand that you will have just thirty minutes to choose the
correct answers to twenty questions. The timer will continue if you leave this quiz without
submitting it. If you go over the time limit, you may still finish the quiz, but your instructor will
be alerted to your total completion time. Please note that you should not hit the BACK button on
your browser while testing because this will lock you out and you will have to send an email to
your instructor for re-access.
Should you encounter any other technical problems during the quiz, please submit a help ticket
via the Services/Support menu item.
The quiz must be completed by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday, March 30, 2015.
Discussion Board Forum 1 Replies:
Use critical thinking to review your classmates' threads and reply to 2 of them.
1. Your replies to at least 2 other classmates' threads should be 50–100 words each.
2. Title the subject line of the replies "Reply to John Smith," "Reply to Jane Doe," etc. so that it
will be clear to whom you are responding.
Your replies must include:
• 2 positive comments or observations about the post
• 1 suggestion or question for them to think about
• EACH reply must be a minimum of 50 words
Please note "I like what you said," "That's a good comment," and "I disagree with your
comment" in and of themselves do not count as complete replies.
Submit your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday, March 30, 2015.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Prof. Vinersar
Video:An Introduction to Critical Thinking:
Acts 17: 11 -- “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in
Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
Must investigate whether something is true. Don’t forward to an email until you have
investigated whether it is true. Don’t become a cynic or skeptical but be a critical thinker.
Critical thinking: A self-guided, self-disciplined process which directs individuals to think
correctly about themselves and the world around them. It is an essential method that guides its
adherents toward truth, involving investigation, analysis and self-corrective decision making; and
providing a consistent and coherent way to solve problems and come to conclusions.
Problem solving - we have to deal with every day.
5 Steps we need to take into consideration in applying critical thinking:
1. What’s the problem?
2. What are the alternatives? options?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantage to each of those options?
4. Coming to a solution
5. Doing an assessment. How well is this working? Do I need to make correction?
Sometimes our faith is tested as Christians. People may ask us, “How do we know Jesus rose
from the dead?”
How do you know: Our reply should involve critical thinking.
Some will say in reply, ‘b/c bible says so’. So then they ask how do you know the Bible is true?
Some will say, ‘b/c the Bible says it is: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” 2 Tim. 3:16
Be careful: that is ‘circular reasoning.’ -- Using the scriptures to support the scriptures.
What are the historical evidences? Extra-biblical evidence (Josephus)?.
Don’t use logical fallacies when you debate.
Ad homeinin - against the man, attaching the person instead of the issue.
Conflict of ideas and conflict of truths
What do you think about Jesus
C.S. Lewis talked about trilemma:
Was he a lunatic? Liar? Or Lord?
John 10:30, Jesus says: “ I and the Father are one.” -- So he was equating himself with God.
John 14:6 -- “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.” -- That is pretty exclusive. Is he lying??
Doubting Thomas (John 20: 25) -- “But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his
hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
Jesus was not angry but offered himself to Thomas as evidence.
John the Baptist sent message to Jesus when he was in prison: Are you the Way? Or should we
look for another? Jesus provided him with the evidence: He said the lame walk, the blind see.
The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Matthew 11:5).
What evidence do I have that Jesus was the Son of God? Investigate and find the ultimate truth.
Weider & Gutierrez, Chapters 2 - 3:
Chapter 2 - Critical Thinking
“The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.” Proverbs 14:15
We often have to set aside our passion in order to think clearly, to think critically, in order to
make wise decisions.
What is needed for critical thinking:
Context
Discernment - the path to discernment is through critical thinking.
“Kritikos” - to judge or discern, to make sense of, to recognize & comprehend. It is through the
process of questioning what is read, heard, seen and experienced that you can come to the best
possible conclusion about a matter in order to make wise decisions.
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates
even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the
heart.” - Hebrews 4:12
Homo sapien means ‘thinking man.’ The image of God refers to the fact that we have the same
intellect, emotion and will as God has -- but not to the extent of God’s infinite, omniscient (all
knowing) perfect understanding. God’s emotions are derived from his divine holiness.
Not all humans ‘think’ well. 3 Important Steps for a Balanced Critical Thinker:
1. Rehearse: You must evaluate the evidence of ‘so-called’ opinions
Opinions about personal preferences are neither right or wrong but are based on how we are
wired. But opinions on specific topics/issues, all opinions should be scrutinized to determine the
credence to that opinion. Everyone has a right to an opinion but it does not make every opinion
accurate and correct. Personal thoughts can be consistent or inconsistent, logical or illogical,
factual or non-factual.
If you have no desire to persuade someone to your opinion, you are just sharing your preference.
But if you want them to adopt your view, then you must have sound evidence and not just
emotions or individual perspectives.
As a critical thinker, you must be able to recognize whether an opinion is based on sound
evidence or is based on personal preference.
Be committed to asking the Who, What, Where, Why and How questions before declaring
something as sound and reliable evidence.
2. Reflect: You must reflect on the meaning of statements and ideas
A critical thinker must be intentional about reflection, the process by which you contemplate the
meaning of the statement, the motive of the statement and the level of significant impact of the
statement.
So often people hear, but they do not listen. Statements and ideas are presented and they are
assumed to be T or F. They can be misunderstood or ignored.
3. Reason: You must test the reasonableness of statements and ideas.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Critical thinking is the process of evaluating the
reasonableness of statements and ideas before acting upon them or passing them along as truth.
Many are duped by internet scams, fraudulent emails and phone calls. Think it thru before
responding. Many people assume b/c it is in print, or someone reputable reportedly said it, then
it must be true.
The Apostle Paul is considered to be the greatest apologist of Christianity, and he was tested.
(Acts 17:11).
Do not pretend to know what you do not know. If you don’t know the answer, don’t act like an
expert.
Do not blindly adhere to tradition unless they embody God’s truth.
Seek clarification of terms. Definitions are very important.
Explore the many sides of an issue. Get out of your comfort zone. Attempt to find and then
avoid your bias.
Be eager to learn from your experiences as well as the experiences of others.
Chapter 3: Right Questions Get Right Answers
Three primary approaches all of us take to making decisions:
1. Indecision -- Not making a decision is actually a decision in itself. There are times when it is
necessary b/c you do not have all the facts to make informed choice. But never coming to a
conclusion about a matter is unwise and foolish. How about those who have not decided about
Jesus? For many, death becomes before the choice is made and indecision becomes the decision.
2. Passive decision making - When a person chooses not to evaluate what they see/hear but just
accept the opinion of others as truth, thus making another’s opinion their own without applying
any critical skills. Sometimes you are lucky and choose right opinion. Some people approach
spiritual decision making in the same way. They are brought up in a religious tradition and
accept it as the truth because that is what they were told. They blindly accepted the traditions as
truth.
3. Active decision making - Everyone has to make important and/or difficult decisions. It is the
process of asking the right questions of yourself and others to come to the best possible
conclusion. These questions might include:
What is the decision I must make?
What values do I need to incorporate in making this decision?
What do I need to know in order to make a wise decision?
Can I trust the sources I am using to make this decision?
What alternatives are available within the scope of this decision?
Have I investigated the issue enough to make an informed decision?
Am I willing to make a decision and follow through on my decisions?
The gospel message is not based on a blind leap of faith, but rather on sound reasoning and
historical evidence. It is important to clarify that the terms biblical truth, spiritual truth, gospel,
gospel message and salvation all refer to the basic tenets of which believing Christians base their
faith.
What is an Argument?
What is the first thing you assume in an argument? That I am right and he/she is wrong.
IN the classic philosophical sense, ‘argument’ is an attempt to offer evidence to demonstrate the
soundness of an opinion.
An opinion is a personal belief or conclusion about an issue or topic based on critical thinking
OR emotional response.
Arguments can be sound (logical) or unsound (illogical).
The purpose of an argument is to change another person’s beliefs. Depending on how your argue
will determine if you are actually changing another person’s mind or making an enemy. It will
also determine if you have helped someone discover the truth or if you have manipulated them
into giving lip service to your beliefs, but they do not really accept them as fact.
What is Evidence?
Evidence is the basis or cause of a belief. It is a statement of justification and explanation of a
belief or an action.
Two primary ways evidence is gathered: personal experience and data gained from an external
source.
Apostle Paul used personal experience with permission at his trial by King Agrippa in Acts 26.
However personal experience is limited in its ability to be persuasive since it cannot necessarily
be proven to be true and should not be relied on completely in the development of an argument.
External sources should also be gathered: eyewitness testimony, expert opinions, statistical
reports/analysis, published reports in magazines/journals/newspapers.
Paul uses eyewitness testimonies in 1 Cor. 15: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” -- He then proceeds to give
evidence of the resurrection of Christ through the eyewitness testimonies of others.
Evidence must be evaluated before presented as fact. Investigate the quality of the support to
deterimine if the evidence is legitimate.
Fallacies Used in Arguments:
A fallacy is simply any error, whether intentional or unintentional, in reasoning. The most
common kinds of fallacies are informal in nature, like counterfeit arguments. Here is a sampling
of some informal fallacies:
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Literally means ‘to the man’ and seeks to discredit a person’s argument by attacking their
personal character, origin, associations, etc. rather than their ideas. It is often used when
someone realizes that he cannot defend his beliefs, so he attempts to win an argument in a
popular way, through personal or humorous attacks. Ex: a politician will attack the opponent
personally rather than the opponent’s ideas to win a campaign, becoming a popularity contest
rather than focused on who is best qualified.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy:
Used when a person appeals to the opinions of an expert in a field rather than doing their own
research. It is assumed that their conclusions are true based solely on their reputation. It is also
used when a person appeals to the authority of a popular, well-liked person, who is respected by
the audience, but the person has no real authority on the matter. Ex. Celebrity marketers/ads.
Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy:
Used when a person claims something is true simply b/c it cannot be disproved or that something
is fictitious b/c it cannot be proven to be true.
Ex: the existence of God, either the affirmation or negations of His existence is often argued
using the Appeal to the Ignorance. Affirmative: I know that God exists b/c no atheist, no matter
how clever, has ever provided evid to the contrary.” Negation: The only reality is what can be
known through the senses, and since I cannot see God, He doesn’t exist.
Ex: Conspiracy theories “the govt is hiding the truth from us.’
Bandwagon Fallacy
Used when a person justifies a course of action b/c ‘everyone else is doing it.” Often used when
peer pressure (fear of rejection or promise of affection) causes a person to defend their action or
inaction.
Ex: “I cannot believe that the U.S., as civilized as it is, still allows the death penalty. Most other
countries have already made capital punishment unlawful. How can the U.S. continue this
barbaric practice?” The U.S. is accused of being immoral for allowing capital punishment. But
what valid argument(s) are given to indicate that capital punishment is immoral? None were
given, so the argument is fallacious.
Begging the Question Fallacy
Sometimes referred to as ‘circular reasoning.’ Occurs in an argument when a person assumes that
their conclusion is true by the premise itself, or that the conclusion is supported by itself, or by
simply restating the conclusion in a different way. Ex: Capital punishment is the intentional
killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. Thus capital punishment
should be illegal. C is assumed in its premises, assuming capital punishment is equiv to murder.
Ex: A Christian is asked to defend their belief that the Bible is true. Their response is to quote
scripture. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful to teaching, rebuking, correcting and
training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3:16). The argument is then that the Bible is true b/c the Bible
says its true. Unfortunately no evidence is given to support the conclusion other than the source
itself. Can you see the circular reasoning? That would be like arguing that your opinion is right
b/c your opinion is right. Other religious texts also claim to be true, but that argument alone does
not make them true.
False Analogy Fallacy
An analogy is a comparison of similarity between 2 things. A false analogy occurs when an
argument is formulated on the basis of a comparison of unrelated things. There are times when
an argument is given but its comparison is not legitimate.
Ex: comparing evolution of arthropods to changes in modern car processes.
Ex 2: Animal Auschwitz can be found on many websites & in articles which are in opposition of
the killing of animals for food. The analogy is that transporting and killing of animals for food is
similar to the Nazi regime killing 6 million Jews. From a theistic perspective, where man is
unique b/c he is created in God’s image, this analogy is not only a false analogy, but offensive.
False Dilemma or either/or Fallacy
Occurs when a person oversimplifies a complex issue to make it appear that only two
alternatives are possible.
Ex: Homeschooling children prevents children from social interaction. You must either send
your child to a traditional school or you condemn your child into receiving an inferior education.
For this to be true, you must assume there are only 2 options possible.
Ex: You are either for abortion or the only other option is for women to use unsterile abortion
clinics where many will die/be injured. Pro-life homes is an alternative to abortion.
Hasty Conclusion
Occurs when one makes a judgment on the basis of one or even a few samples. A C is made
w/out enough evid.
Ex:
Ambrose: James, have you tried the new restaurant?
James: Yes, and it was awful. The service was terrible and food didn’t taste good. I am never
going back.
Later:
Maryann: Ambrose, have you tried the new restaurant?
Ambrose: NO, and I am not going to try it. I heard it was awful.
Maryann: I went there and I loved it. I was hoping we could go there later.
Ambrose: I changed my mind. Let’s go. I think I will like it.
Ambrose makes two hasty conclusions. He first accepts James negative opinion without
investigation. Then he makes a second hasty conclusion based on Maryann’s experience.
Is/Ought Naturalist Fallacy
When a person comes to a conclusion about the way things ought to be on the basis of how
things are or are assumed to be. It is coming from an ‘ought to’ to ‘is.’ Commonly used by
people to justify everything from the use of hymnals to acting selfishly in our decision-making.
Ex: an anthropologist might argue that imposing one culture’s ethic on another is unethical.
What if a culture practices racisim by systematically killing another race of people who live
within their cultural territory? Should it be assumed that b/c racisim is practiced that it ought to
be practiced without outside pressure to change? This fallacy is also often used to promote racist
ideas.
“That’s the way it is.” -- But we do not believe that is the way it ought to be.
Overgeneralization Fallacy
When a judgment is made about an entire group of people based upon the behavior, usually
undesirable, of a few in that group. Stereotyping are overgeneralizations that can become
assumptions and shared by many people and at times, an entire group. Examples of stereotypes:
churches, mosques, politicians, televangelists, feminists, athletes and blondes. People develop
stereotypes when they are not capable of or willing to gather accurate info needed to make a fair
judgement about a person or a group of people. They can be very destructive and should be
avoided.
Ex: “All homeless people are lazy. If our city is to be safe, we need to take drastic measures an
send the homeless to another city.” An entire segment is labelled as lazy.
Ex: “All Christians are hypocrites.” It is often assumed that b/c Christians commit sins of
commission and omission, they are hypocrites. However, this is due to a misunderstanding of
both words: hypocrite and Christian. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be one thing when
he is actually another, or its one who acts contrary to his stated beliefs. A hypocrite is an actor
who plays a role. A Christian is a person who has been born again or is one who has been saved
by the grace of God. The point of confusion occurs b/c those who are accusing Christians of
being hypocrites do not realize the Bible clearly states that Christians still do sin (1 John 1:8). A
Christian is hypocritical, however, when he claims not to participate in a particular sin when in
reality, he does.
Oversimplification Fallacy
To conclude that an effect has only one cause when in reality it is the result of multiple causes. It
is also ignoring the complexity of the issue and omitting other vital info to draw a conclusion.
Used when people are asking legitimate questions about why something tragic has happened. It
can also be sued in everyday reasoning about common situations.
Ex: Can you believe the shooting that took place at school yesterday? If gun laws were stricter,
this wouldn’t have happened.” Unless further info is gathered, the issue is too complex for 1
reason to be given. There are many other reasons to consider.
Red Herring Fallacy
This argument is raising an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the primary issue. This
fallacy often appeals to fear or pity. It can also use guilt to manipulate other into agreement and
action. It is often inserted into an argument to help person win argument w/out directly dealing
with the real issue. It is irrevelant to the issue at hand, though it may seem related.
Ex: “Euthanasia should be legalized in the U.S. Americans are overburdened with costs of
health care. The elderly overburden the system.” The real issue is the legalization of euthanasia.
Although we want health care costs reduced, this does not address the morality of killing the
elderly.
Selective Perception Fallacy
Also known as the one-sidedness or special pleading -- arguing a point by selecting and
presenting only the evidence that supports one’s current position or opinion. It omits evidence
against it. It gives reasons against an opposing view w/out considering reasons for it. You need
to investigate both sides of issue. Ex: “I was born gay.” Or “Condom distributions only increase
teen pregnancies and STDs.”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Used when a person argues against an action on the unsupported assertion that it will lead to a
worse condition. An assumption is taking place. The argument can be described in this way: “A
leads to B which inevitably leads to C. Although there might be reasons why C in this case is
assumed to occur, in reality it is only speculative and can’t be proven.
Ex: “I don’t understand why you allow your son to play those military video games. It is only
going to desensitize him an turn him into a violent man one day.”
Straw Man Fallacy
Occurs when a person presents another person’s argument against a weak, misrepresented, or
exaggerated form in order to win the argument. It is not representative of their opponents true
position.
Ex: Most evolutionists argue that Christians who believe in a young earth and who believe the
biblical account of Noah’s ark are wrong b/c there is no way that all the animal species alive
today could fit in the ark. This is a misrepresentations of the biblical Creationists view.
Creationists do not believe that all of the animals that exist today were created during the
creation week. Thus, the ark did not have 2 of every kind of animal that exists today. This is due
to distinction between micro and macro evolution. Different kinds of species did micro-evolve
into the various species we see today. God created the dog kind, where all breeds of dogs
orginate. Creationists deny that dogs evolved into an entirely different organism, which is
macroevolution.
James 1:5 -- “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all
without finding fault, and it will be given to you.”
Encyclopedia:
The apologist who knows how to identify logical fallacies will fare better than his opponent
every time.
Categories of Logical Fallacies:
1. Formal fallacies - faulty argument based on intellectual errors.
2. Inductive fallacies - One that seeks a proper conclusion but has insufficient data to support
that conclusion.
3. Informal fallacies - the most numerous among all forms of logical fallacies. One that is
designed to change the subject.
NOTES
Logical Fallacies
The Nature of Logical Fallacies:
Fallacy is an element of an argument that is inconsistent in its logic, and thus renders the
proponent's conclusion unacceptable and unsound.
A person will usually use a logical fallacy for one of two reasons
1.) He is unaware he is making an intellectual leap and thus he is unformed
2.) He knows his argument is weak, so he attempts to divert attention from his faulty
premise, in which case he is deceptive
The study of logical Fallacies is tantamount in the fields of law and philosophy
The study of the Fallacies is essential to discovering a crack in the arguments provides
verification for another premise.
Three major categories: 1.) formal fallacies 2.) Inductive fallacies and 3.) Informal fallacies
The Categories of Logical Fallacies
Formal Fallacies- a faulty argument based on intellectual errors. It begins with an
unstated assumption, and the prepared listener can recognize this fact. (Example A person argues
that pizza is food)
It can also defy logic (A person can argue that the average family in America has two children)
Verbal Fallacy; a person uses terms that may or may not be defined the same way by all people
(example: Jesus was good, therefore he concludes.)
Inductive Fallacies- one that seeks a proper conclusion but has insufficient data to support that
conclusion. (Example: the network takes a substantial sample of the population and announces
that 85 percent of Americas support abortion on demand)
Unrepresentative sample- it is if the network called people only in a certain region of the country
that is disproportionately
The Fallacy of exclusion is used when evidence that would affect the conclusion is purposefully
excluded.
The inductive fallacy of "cherry picking" is the opposite form of erroneous argumentation.
The evidence that does not support his conclusion is labeled irrelevant or unnecessary
Two of the most popular inductive fallacies are the straw man argument and begging the
question. (Example: The straw man argument attempts to put words into the mouth of the
opponent. The proponent argues against a position that the opponent does not hold.
Informal Fallacies- the most numerous among all forms of logical fallacies. They are as varied as
the approaches that people use. (Example: I cannot be a Christian because all Christians are
hypocrites.)
One that is designed to change the subject. When a person does not have the evidence in his
favor, he attempts to divert attention from the issue at hand, and in so doing, attempts to win the
argument on terms other than the facts at hand.
Appeals are favored among those in contemporary culture.
The most pernicious informal fallacies are attacks. (Example: In Latin, an ad hominem attack
assaults the opponent rather than dealing with the issue at hand.)
It is essential that the Christian diligently attempt not to use logical fallacies. The Bible implores
the Christian to speak truthfully and without deception.
Reason and Faith
Reason and Faith Defined:
General Revelation- speaks of those things revealed by God in the natural world that can be
known by reason.
Special Revelation- is those things revealed by God in His World that can be known only by faith
Reason- the ability to think. It is the God-given facility, power, or instrument by which
we can understand the world, make proper judgments, and discover truth. (Examples: Physics,
logic, philosophy, and mathematics)
Human reason not only helps us know that God exists, but it also helps us learn what God is like.
Gods invisible qualities are His eternal power, and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that man are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)
Reason can demonstrate that God exists or that the Bible is historically reliable, but it cannot
convert the soul.
What is Faith?
It is not an excuse for our ignorance, faith is not blind.
Fideism- is the view that no rational proof is necessary for belief.
Personal commitment, not reason, is all that is necessary for truth.
Fideism, however, fails as an adequate test for truth:
1.) Fideism as a worldview offers no test for truth. It is simply an unsubstantiated belief.
2.) To simply believe something will never actually make that belief true.
3.) Some people have contradictory beliefs, but two contradictory points cannot both be true
4.) Either fideisms are making a truth claim or they are not. The best question to ask a fideist
is why he believes a given view.
The Act of Faith:
It involves the whole person. It involves a personal commitment and trust in
someone or something (several aspects of faith are emotional, intellectual, and volitional
assent- Summarized by Thomas and Richard Howe)
*Emotional aspect of Faith- involves the feeling of assurance, trust, or confidence
in a person. (Is not wishful thinking)
*Intellectual aspect of Faith- is belief (it is when the mind commits and trusts
even when at times our emotions fail us.)
*Volitional aspect of Faith- involves the will (it is when we live out our
convictions on the basis of our life. Also characterized in the Bible as faithfulness.)
Subject of Faith:
The subjects of faith are those things that are being believed.
Christians believe that these are truths revealed by God by special revelations,
through the Bible and through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Special revelations speaks of those things revealed by God which are known by
faith, *Truths about God
* Original sin
* Salvation
*Redemption
*Trinity
* Incarnation that cannot be known or discovered by reason
The Object of Faith:
Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. We must place our faith in
the proper object, and the proper object of our faith is God.
The writers of Hebrew tells us that "in the past God spoke to our forefathers
through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has
spoken to us by His Son" (Hebrew 1:1-2)
Jesus Christ is called the Word, the Truth, and the Light of the world.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REASON AND FAITH
Reason without faith:
Reason alone is insufficient for several reasons
1.) The Bible teaches us that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews
11:6) 2.) Reason alone cannot produce faith. Faith involves the will and reason cannot
force the will to believe. (Reason can show us that God exists, but it cannot produce faith
in God)
3.) There are some truths that cannot be known by reason. They are simply
beyond reason's ability reason. (Therefore faith completes reason in that provides the
truth that is necessary for salvation.)
Faith without Reason:
Reason does not produce faith, it does support faith.
The Bible teaches us that we must examine all things carefully and hold firmly to
what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Jesus taught that the greatest commandment in the law is that we should love the
Lord our god with all of our heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:36-37)
Reason and Faith:
The best way to understand the relationship between reason and faith is to see
each in its proper role.
1.) We must realize that God is the author of both reason and faith, there need be
no disagreement or contradiction between them. (Reason and Faith are the two distinct
ways of knowing truth about God)
Both reason and faith cooperate in bringing a person to Christ. Faith goes beyond
reason, but is not contrary to it.
2.) Both are important. Both are given to us by God. It is one of the ways that we
reflect His image; therefore, it should not be overlooked or undermined.
The Place of Reason in faith:
Faith uses Reason. Because faith and trust require an object in which to be
committed, one must inquire into the things that are to be believed before the can be
believed.
Faith uses reason in the first act of knowing those things that are to be believed.
Reason supports faith. It is not sufficient to produce faith, it does support it.
(Example: reason can be used to help remove barriers of unbelief.)
The Bible exhorts us to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you
to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15)
It is by reason that we can discover truths about the existence of god, the
historicity of Jesus, and the reliability of the Scriptures.
Reason can also be used to show that faith is reasonable. While by faith we
believe things that go beyond reason that does not make them unreasonable. (Example:
the Bible teaches that God is triune. Within the one nature of God there are three co-equal
persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Trinity is believed by faith in the authority if the Scripture, it goes beyond our
reason to fully grasp.
By the aid of reason to fully understand that not everything that can be
apprehended can be fully comprehended.
The Place of Faith in Reason:
The nature of faith demands that it involves the personal response of trust and
commitment in someone or something.
In Christianity the object of our faith is Jesus Christ himself.
For this reason evidence alone can never be a sufficient basis for our love and
trust for God.
Reason must take its place under faith. Reason and Faith are two ways in which
Christians know the truth about God.
In the case of faith, our certainty does not rest on our reasons, but rather, on our
faith in God.
CHAPTER 2: CRITICAL THINKING
It is a common practice that we do every day, but we may never be aware of it.
(example: in the English language, how do you know whether the word "r-e-a-d" should
be understood as a directive to "read a book" or if it is to be understood as a past-tense
word describing a moment that someone "had already read that book last week?")
Discernment is through critical thinking. Some in American culture even reject
the idea of questioning what another person believes by championing the idea of
tolerance and pluralism.
Critical thinking is a self-guided process which directs individuals to think
correctly about themselves and the world around them.
Guides you through truth.
It involves investigation, analysis and self-corrective decision-making which
provide consistent and coherent way to solve problems and come to conclusions.
The word critical comes from the Greek word "kritikos" from which the English
word "critic" is derived. (It means to judge or to discern, to make sense of, to recognize
and comprehend.
It is through the process of questioning what is read, heard, seen and experienced
that you can come to the best possible conclusion about a matter in order to make wise
decisions.
Homo sapiens means "thinking man."
We as human beings have the same intellect, emotion, and will as God has...but not to the
extent of God's infinite omniscient (all-knowingness), perfect understanding.
Not all Humans "think" well.
If you want to be a balances "critical" thinker, it is imperative that you follow
these three important steps:
1.) REHEARSE: you must evaluate the evidence and "so-called" opinions.
2.) REFLECT: You must reflect on the meaning of statements and ideas.
3.) REASON: you must test the reasonableness of statements and ideas.
REHEARSE: Recognize and evaluate the evidence and "so-called" opinions.
Everyone has a right to share their opinion about a particular issue, but all opinions must
be scrutinized to determine how much credence one should give to that particular
opinion.
Because it is a personal thought, it has the propensity to be consistent or
inconsistent, logical or illogical, factual or non-factual.
People who have no desire to persuade another to adopt their opinion on an issue, they
are simply sharing their "preference."
Each person who desires to think critically must be committed to asking the
"WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/WHY/HOW" questions.
REFLECT: Reflect on the meaning and significance of statements and ideas.
A critical thinker must be intentional and reflection.
Reflection in this context refers to the process by which you contemplate the meaning of
the statement, the motive of the statement, and the level of significant impact of the
statement
Ask yourself "What did they mean by that?" "Is that significant to my life?"
So often people hear but do not listen. The statements and ideas presented are assumed
TRUE or FALSE. Many times they are misunderstood or worse ignored.
Reflection is often a momentary experience that occurs throughout the day.
Reflection is necessary for a proper response.
REASON: Test the reasonableness of statements and ideas.
The process of evaluating the reasonableness of statements and ideas before acting upon
them or passing them along as truth.
The Apostle Paul, the writer of the majority of the New Testament, is considered to be the
greatest apologist of Christianity, and he was tested.
In the book of Acts, the author, Luke, illustrated this process of critical thinking when he
stated, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they
received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see
if what Paul said was true? (Acts 17:11)
Give yourself an Honest Look
To become a critical thinker you should develop some positive activities that will become
habits over time. (Constantly evaluate your own beliefs, attitudes, values, and opinions.)
*Why do you believe what you believe?
* Is your attitude correct?
* What do you value and why is it important to you?
Do not pretend to know what you do not know.
As the Apostle Paul encouraged the church at Ephesus, "let us not become weary
in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up"
(Galatians 6:9)
Do not blindly adhere to tradition.
If you remain faithful to a religious group you whole life even though you question or
know that what is being taught is not true. Rather than breaking from tradition you pacify
your family but deny the truth. Is it really worth risking an eternity in Heaven?
Seek Clarification of terms
The solution is that you understand what it means so that you can also be confident when
you share it with others.
Explore the many sides of an issue.
Do not seek arguments and evidence to support your belief and not ignore arguments and
evidence to the contrary.
Critical thinkers should attempt to find and avoid the bias in their own arguments as well
as in the arguments of others.
Be eager to learn from your own experiences as well as the experience of others.
An experience provides the catalyst to enhance your education.
Chapter 3: RIGHT QUESTIONS GET RIGHT ANSWERS
3 primary approaches all of us take when making decisions:
1.) Indecision
2.) Passive decision-making
3.) Active Decision-making
Indecision:
Indecision- not making a decision- is actually a decision in itself.
Often we think we will have time in the future to make a choice. But for many,
death comes before the choice was made and indecision becomes the decision.
Passive Decision-Making:
This is when someone accepts the opinions of other as truth, thus making
someone else’s opinion their own.
Sometimes people approach spiritual decision-making in this passive way.
Active Decision-Making:
Active decision-making is a process of asking the right questions of yourself and
others to come to the best possible conclusion. These questions might include:
*What is the decision I must make?
*What values do I need to incorporate in making this decision?
*What do I need to know in order to make a wise decision?
*Can I trust the sources I am using to make this decision?
*What alternatives are available within the scope of this decision?
*Have I investigated the issue thoroughly enough to make an informed decision?
*Am I willing to make a decision and then follow through on my decision?
The gospel message is not based on a blind leap of faith, but rather it is based on the
sound reasoning and historical evidence.
What is an Argument:
It is an attempt to offer evidence to demonstrate the soundness of an opinion.
It can be the result of using critical thinking or simply an emotional response to
information presented.
Arguments can be sound (logical) or unsound (illogical).
What is the purpose of an argument? It is intended to change another person’s beliefs.
What is Evidence:
The basis or cause of a belief. It is a statement of justification and explanation of a
belief or an action.
There are 2 primary ways evidence is gathered:
1.) Personal Experience
2.) Data gained from an external source.
The Apostle Paul used Personal Experience as his approach when he was given
permission by King Agrippa to defend himself at his trial in Acts 26.
Paul shares his personal experience by being confronted by the risen Christ on the road to
Damascus.
King Agrippa said to Fetus and Bernice, “This man is not doing anything that deserves
death or imprisonment” (acts 26:31)
(Examples: of external evidence include the eyewitness testimony of others, expert
opinions, statistical reports and analysis, published reports in magazines, journals or even
newspapers, etc.)
Fallacies used in Arguments:
A Fallacy is simply any error, whether intentional or unintentional, in reasoning.
The most common kinds of fallacies are informal in nature.
AD Hominem Fallacy:
Literally means “To the Man.” This fallacy seeks to discredit a person’s argument
by attacking their personal character, origin, associations, etc.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy:
Appeal to Authority argument is used when a person appeals to the opinion of an
expert in a field rather than doing their own research.
Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy:
Is used when a person claims something is true simply because it cannot be
disproved, or that something is fictitious because it cannot be proven to be true.
Bandwagon Fallacy:
Is used when a person justifies a course of action because “everyone us doing it”.
This argument is often used when peer pressure (fear of rejection or promise of affection)
causes a person to defend their action or inaction.
Begging the Question Fallacy:
Sometimes referred to as “circular reasoning.” It occurs in an argument when a
person assumes that their conclusion is true by the premise itself, or that the conclusion is
supported by itself, or by simply restating the conclusion in a different way.
False Analogy Fallacy:
An analogy is a comparison of similarity between two things. A false Analogy occurs
when an argument is formulated on the basis of a comparison of unrelated things.
Sometimes that approach is appropriate in conjunction with an unrelated area.
False Dilemma or Either/Or Fallacy:
Occurs in an argument when a person oversimplifies a complex issue to make it
appear that only two alternatives are possible. There is not a third alternative to choose
from and the answer to that question doesn’t commit this fallacy. However, when a false
dilemma does occur, you should ask yourself whether additional options are plausible.
Hasty Conclusion Fallacy:
It occurs when one makes a judgment on the basis of one or even few samples.
This argument is used when a conclusion is made without enough evidence.
Is/Ought Naturalist Fallacy:
Occurs when a person comes to a conclusion about the way things ought to be on the basis of
how things are or are assumed to be. This is a very common fallacy that is used by people to
justify everything from the use of hymnals in our churches to acting selfishly in our decision-
making.
Overgeneralization Fallacy:
Is when a judgment is made about an entire group of people based upon the
behavior, usually undesirable, of a few in that group. This is also known more popularly
as “stereotyping.”
Oversimplification Fallacy:
It is to conclude that an effect has only one case when in reality it is result of
multiple causes. It is also ignoring the complexity of the issue and omitting other vital
information to draw a conclusion. This type of fallacy is normally used when a person is
asking a legitimate questions about why something tragic has occurred.
Red Herring Fallacy:
It is raising an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the primary issue. It often
appeals to fear or pity.
Selective Perception Fallacy:
Is also known as One-sidedness or Special Pleading is arguing by selecting and
presenting only the evidence that supports one’s current position or opinion. It omits the
evidence against it. Selective Perception gives reasons against an opposing view without
considering reasons for it.
Slippery Slope Fallacy:
Used when a person argues against an action on the unsupported assertion that it
will lead to a much worse condition. The argument could be described this way: A leads
to B which will inevitably lead to C. Although there might be logical reasons why C in
this case is assumed to occur, in reality it is only speculative and cannot be proven.
Straw Man Fallacy:
Occurs when a person presents another person’s argument in a weak, misrepresented, or
exaggerated form in order to win the argument. The reason this argument is fallacious is that it is
not representative of their opponent’s true position
Reason & Faith:-
