Fallacious Redundancy

Christian message forums need rules to keep things under control and maintain decency and order among people who may strongly disagree with one another. Out of all the rules of conduct there is usually one that is omitted that needs to be implemented fast–the rules of argument. In other words, if people are not going to address an issue or problem that an individual brings up, they should not say anything at all. If you are going to attack the person rather than engage the issue that the person brings up, you should say nothing at all.

The following link here features a fellow Christian bother (Kerry) demonstrating exactly what to not do in a Christian message forum or anywhere else.

Another fellow Christian brother (King Neb) adheres to full Preterism  and because of this has been likened to the mockers spoken of in 2 Peter 3 ( I am not kidding!). After a great post in defending full Preterism the accuser followed with the following remarks:

“If your belief puts you out of fellowship with the rest or the majority of the body of Christ visible, the problem may be you. Humility”

To the above, King Neb offers the following:

Notice the response here. Kerry says I “may” be the problem. “May” expresses a little uncertainty; a possibility. There is a reason it is worded like this. Because Kerry’s argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

“It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.” – Wiki

This is Logic 101.

The question I have asked myself over and over again is if Kerry is “possibly” correct. And answering that question would involve doing exactly what I have done above….asking and answering three basic questions:

1. What do I affirm about the coming of Christ?

2. What did the mockers say about the coming of Christ?

3. Do 1 and 2 match?

And I have clearly demonstrated that 1 and 2 do not match. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 preterists. Therefore, Kerry’s charge that I am the scoffer of 2 Peter 3 is flat out wrong. Case closed on that one.

Yet, notice how Kerry responds. Does this Kerry fella exercise the humility he so desperately thinks I need? Nope. He doesn’t address a single point I raised from the text, but merely repeats his fallacious argument. I’m wandering if he even read it all. And worse, by making such an appeal, implies that Scripture alone is not the final authority.

Apparently it doesn’t matter to Kerry what 2 Peter 3 actually says; his standard is what the “rest or the majority” think.

It is sad how things get flipped around. Sad that people would go so far as to publicly announce that I and those like minded are those most vile scoffers of 2 Peter 3, yet refuses to budge on their judgment once shown from the very Scriptures they so flippantly quote how great of a stretch it is to conclude such a thing.

And I’m the one who lacks humility. Sad indeed.

Perhaps Kerry is blind to his own “vitriolic attacks…, to the shame of the Body of Christ” because the comfort of the majority empowers him? Sure looks that way to me. We certainly don’t see him addressing the Scripture in any detail.

Kerry, maybe you are the problem. I wander if you have ever stopped to consider that. Surely you can not rule out that possibility, because after all, that is all your response provides – possibilities.

Kerry responds: “And your beliefs still separate you from the rest of the body of Christ and regular sustained fellowship with them, submission to an ecclesiastical authority and so on. There’s a hint.”

King Neb’s response:

“The rest of the body? No it doesn’t. A large number? Perhaps. But the rest? Nope

Unless of course you now want to argue that only those who respond to Preterism the way you do should be considered the body.

Seriously dude, for someone who talks the way you do about truth to then base his argument on an appeal to the majority is astounding. A fallacy is a fallacy.

And you’re still not addressing 2 Peter 3.”

King Neb goes on to say:

“I want to include a little reminder explaining the fallacy Kerry has used above. Kerry wants to talk about the “majority” of Christians and what they affirm. Funny, because Gordon Clark, who always upheld formal logic as a standard, complained that the rejection of logic had become very “popular” in the 20th century. So I guess if the majority of people abandon logic, then we should too, right?

And apparently for Kerry, rejecting logic is ok as long as it is done in the name of “orthodoxy”.

Argumentum ad Populum

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof.

Folks, what a course in logic does is help train you to recognize the “forms” that a person’s argument takes on; to then help determine whether or not the person’s argument is “formally” sound.

We would laugh a person to scorn if an atheist ever got on HCR and claimed that Christianity must be false because the vast number of people reject it.

In fact, many of you have inherent within your own eschatology the idea that the true Church will become a very small remnant, as the world-wide apostasy grows worse and worse.

Many of you would be prepared to stand alone, if need be, then to deny Christ.

What are we to make of an appeal to the majority then?

Yet, Kerry’s argument, in FORM, is no different. Some of you may buy into the argument, but you are doing so merely on emotion because you probably find yourself agreeing with Kerry’s eschatology.

Logic is an objective guide that God has given us that has no place for emotional appeals. (end of quotes)

I want to note that I disagree with King Neb about the last sentence above. Logic can come from an emotional stance. I do believe that logic reflects the nature of God who is an emotional being.

In any case, King Neb (Godzilla), crushed Kerry(Bambi) in the above exchange. People who are committed to fallacious reasoning and monopolization of scripture will continue to get crushed and not admit it.