Tag Archive

Issues with “All Men” in 1 Timothy 2

Published on April 9, 2023 By sirrahc

In a recent podcast from Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl, a caller (beginning around 25:30) asked about Koukl’s understanding of the biblical doctrine of predestination. Koukl began with a basic definition of the word — i.e., to determine that something will take place before it takes place — and pointed out that a lot […]

RPL

Published on February 14, 2021 By sirrahc

“A good teacher doesn’t merely tell his students that they’re wrong. A good teacher shows his students why they’re wrong so that they don’t make the same mistake twice. He corrects because he cares.” — Tim Barnett Years ago, I did a series of posts on informal fallacies in logic. Never finished the series, but […]

Snippets of True Reason, part 3

Published on September 3, 2017 By sirrahc

Previous installments of the “Snippets” series covered four chapters each. This one covers the six chapters that make up the (sort of) middle of the True Reason book. Simply put, they “offer arguments for the rational strength of the Christian worldview.” See any familiar names among the authors? Nine: “Reason in a Christian Context” (Peter […]

Snippets of True Reason, part 2

Published on July 9, 2017 By sirrahc

Continuing on from Part 1, these next four snippets from True Reason (eds. Tom Gilson & Carson Weitnauer) provide more “evidence that the New Atheism fails to live up to its claimed connection with reason.” Targets include Sam Harris, John Loftus, and the failure of naturalistic presuppositions. Five: “Unreason at the Head of Project Reason” […]

Snippets of True Reason, part 1

Published on May 28, 2017 By sirrahc

One of the books I’ve been reading of late is True Reason, edited by Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer. It’s a collection of essays (originally published in electronic format) by various Christian professors and apologists, addressing issues related to the claims by today’s “New Atheists” that non-theists “own” reason & rationality, while theists are characterized […]

Informal Logic 101: How to Think and Argue Better, Part 10

Published on January 19, 2014 By sirrahc

Part 10: Scarecrows, Decoys, and Invisible Elephants We get three lessons today, boys and girls, as we head into the home stretch for this series (sort of)! Straw Man Everyone has heard of this one. You don’t have to be involved in debates and discussions on controversial topics for long before someone accuses someone else […]

Informal Logic 101: How to Think and Argue Better, Part 9

Published on December 15, 2013 By sirrahc

Part 9: Apples, Oranges, and Character Assassination “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” — Socrates Only two fallacies on the docket today, but they are biggies! Category mistake/error I’m sure you have heard the term, “It’s apples and oranges.” Maybe you have used it, yourself. When Person A says this […]

Informal Logic 101: How to Think and Argue Better, Part 8

Published on November 17, 2013 By sirrahc

Part 8: Validity and Clarity “Most of the arguments to which I am party fall somewhat short of being impressive, owing to the fact that neither I nor my opponent knows what we are talking about.” — Robert Benchley, American columnist & actor Hey, folks! Ready for another lesson in logic? Of course, you are!! […]

Informal Logic 101: How to Think and Argue Better, Part 7

Published on October 20, 2013 By sirrahc

Part 7: Causes and Comparisons “Correlation does not equal causation.” — many people, including me (‘cuz it makes me sound smart) We’re baaaaaaack, and we have a lot of ground to cover, so let’s get started! Clear thinking & reasoning require at least a basic understanding of causal relationships. Unfortunately, it’s also easy to make […]

Informal Logic 101: How to Think and Argue Better, Part 6

Published on August 19, 2013 By sirrahc

Part 6: Avoiding Presumptions “A presumption becomes a self-refuting assertion.” — R. Alan Woods Following hot on the heels of “Part 5: Facts Over Feelings”, today’s logical fallacies involve inappropriate presumptions that confuse and invalidate one’s argument. (Of course, I would never do this! … OK, OK, maybe.) Sometimes when making a case or […]