Is It True What the Say about Hell? The Logical Fallacies

The Logical Fallacies

If you have not read the introductory material below, please do so before proceeding to the list of the Logical Fallacies. It will clarify the importance of the list for those who wish to examine carefully the claims of various teachers regarding the doctrines of Hell and the Afterlife.
If you have already read this material on a previous visit, use this link to Jump to the Logical Fallacy Listings.

What Are the Logical Fallacies?

The principles of sound logic have been recognized for over 2000 years. During that time, categorized lists have been developed that identify and clarify the nature of the standard types of faulty reasoning elements--logical fallacies--used by those who wish to persuade others to agree with them on an idea. These fallacies were used by men to persuade people back in first century Rome, just as they are used in the 21st century world today to persuade people to buy cars and cosmetics, accept political and religious ideas, and much more.

One of the primary goals of this Is It True What They Say About Hell? website is to establish that the common doctrinal idea of an ever-burning Hell where the "unsaved" are tortured for eternity is built on faulty logic. It is based on both poor inductive reasoning (gathering information from the Bible from which to draw conclusions) and poor deductive reasoning (combining statements of assumptions to derive conclusions).

If I wish to present an "argument" to persuade others to agree with me on a specific topic, I need to provide a careful set of reasons and show how they support the conclusions to which I have come.

When the reasons offered in an argument
do not support the conclusion declared,
the one presenting the argument has committed
one or more logical fallacies.

Articles throughout this website point out various aspects of faulty reasoning related to teachings on the topics of Hell and the Afterlife. For a broad overview of the components of sound reasoning, see the article Establishing Doctrine.

Since many readers are not familiar with the formal principles of sound logic, the material below is included as a reference source regarding the Logical Fallacies.

"That's just your opinion!"

Often when someone attempts to correctly point out the fallacies in the reasoning of another person, the person with the fallacious reasoning will retort, "That's just your opinion!" They misunderstand the nature of the process of reasoning. Identifying a truly fallacious step in reasoning isn't related to "opinions." The principles of sound reasoning are more like the basics of mathematics. They are universal, not dependent upon any particular culture, or time in history, or any external factor.

An objective evaluation that someone has used "faulty logic" is not a matter of "personal opinion." There are certain topics about which there are no "right answers," and in those areas it is totally valid to state personal opinion. If I say "Limburger cheese tastes awful to me," I am not coming to a conclusion based on logic. I am stating a fact about my own preferences. You have a right to state a varying opinion on your own evaluation of the taste of the cheese--you may say, "To me Limburger cheese is the most delicious cheese there is." You are not being illogical. Personal taste is not a matter of logic.

But I might choose to state the following "logical proof":

Limburger cheese tastes awful to me.

I have asked three of my friends, and they all agree it tastes awful.

THEREFORE: Limburger cheese tastes awful to everyone.

If I do this, I have not followed the principles of sound logic, and I have not adequately supported my conclusion. I have relied on specific Logical Fallacies to arrive at that conclusion.

Another example of reasoning:

The Bible says "God is love."

It wouldn't be loving to deny someone something they really wanted, if it was in your power to provide it.

THEREFORE: You can ask God for anything you want, and He will have to give it to you.

This sort of "reasoning," which is used by many teachers in some religious circles today, is also based on logical fallacies. To say that it uses flawed logic is not a matter of "opinion." It is a matter of lining up the method of reasoning against the natural principles of logic that God built into our physical world.

"I'm So CONFUSED!"

Unfortunately, the longer and more complicated a line of reasoning gets, the more difficult it may be to spot logical fallacies in it. The individual steps may each sound very persuasive, and many of them may be logically sound. But it only takes one "weak link in the chain" of reasoning to make the final conclusion unsupported. And most readers and listeners are not trained in how to spot such weak links.

In addition, few people have the time, or are really interested enough or equipped adequately, to invest in the effort necessary to sort through carefully all the reasoning on all of the possible topics of Bible study. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect that the majority of people who consider themselves to be Christian will have done this. This may be one reason that the Apostle Paul had this to say:

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (James 3:1)

Why might a teacher be "judged more strictly"? One reason may be that they may end up being responsible for what others who have less education and intellectual skills believe and understand. If the teacher is in error on some topic, then those who rely on his or her teaching may end up in error.

Do you wish to teach others what you understand? Then you have an obligation to be sure that the reasoning you have used to come to your understanding is sound. If you just "inherited" that reasoning from someone else, you need to be careful to examine it for yourself, especially in topics as sober and critical as the nature of Hell. If you do not, then you may be held accountable for the error you lead others into.

Not everybody needs to understand all the details of how logic works, although that would be an ideal to aim at. But it is absolutely mandatory that teachers who can influence others use and apply these principles. Otherwise they will lead both others and themselves to false conclusions. And those who are either unable to "do the logic" themselves, or read through all the Bible with comprehension, will be unable to escape from the deception. If you choose to set yourself up as a teacher to share what you understand with others, then you are obligated to put in the effort to understand the principles of sound reasoning as they apply to what you want to teach.

If you find that too difficult, then you need to rethink whether you ought to be teaching.

"But this is too complicated," some may say. "I try to read through the explanations of how correct reasoning works, and I just find I'm SO CONFUSED!"

If that describes you, and you are tempted to want to teach others about doctrines that you are not really equipped to sort out with sound logic, then you need to pray for wisdom from God regarding what to do. There certainly are many less complex biblical ideas and principles than Hell and the Afterlife that you could choose to teach to others. He may want you to focus your efforts on sharing, for instance, the basics of the Sermon on the Mount for now. The world is full of people who need very much to hear that message!

But if you are convinced that you are up to the task of comprehending and internalizing the principles of sound logic, then the following list will be of assistance as you consider the other articles on this website. And it will be a useful reference for your attempts to apply logic to all areas of your life.

The Logical Fallacies List

The following list of some of the most common standard Logical Fallacies is the Table of Contents from:

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

See that website for an excellent overview of each of these fallacies. The author provides practical examples of each and the steps needed to prove that a particular argument commits the fallacy.

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options

From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn

Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author

Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person:

the person's character is attacked

the person's circumstances are noted

the person does not practice what is preached

Appeal to Authority:

the authority is not an expert in the field

experts in the field disagree

the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population

Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception

Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other

Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause

Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect

Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed

Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Missing the Point

Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion

Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings

Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations

Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says

Category Errors

Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A

Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B

Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

Syllogistic Errors

Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms

Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property

Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate

Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject

Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises

Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies

Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

Fallacies of Explanation

Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)

Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)

Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)

Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)

Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)

Fallacies of Definition

Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)

Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which should be included)

Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined)

Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)

Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)

Another useful website regarding the Logical Fallacies, that includes explanations of even more fallacies than those on the list above, is at

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

This site contains a collection of articles, on the topic of Hell and the Afterlife, that may each be used independently for research purposes. But it also is designed as a systematic, sequential overview of the whole topic, which can be read like a book.

For those who would like to take advantage of this perspective of the content, the articles are arranged in the Reading Guide as they would appear as chapters in a book, along with a few reference chapters at the end such as would appear in a book Appendix.

Use the links below to go to the next article, previous article, or first article
in the Reading Guide sequence.

← →
Previous Next

←←
Back to Beginning

PLEASE NOTE:
No single short article can comprehensively cover any aspect of the topic of Hell. If you have questions or concerns regarding the material in this article, be sure to first read through the site FAQ before writing to the author. It may already specifically address the very points you are wondering about.
Unless otherwise noted, all biblical references in this and other articles on the
Is It True What They Say About Hell? website are from the New International Version (NIV).

All of the articles on this Is it true what they say about Hell? website were written by Pam Dewey, with the support and sponsorship of Common Ground Christian Ministries. For more of Pam's inspirational and educational writings, visit her Oasis website.
All website content © 2007, Pam Dewey and Common Ground Christian Ministries
All rights reserved. Material may be copied for personal use of the site visitor. For permission to copy for any other purposes, please contact the author at
oasis7@gmail.com