In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God. Amen.
In our last lesson, we discussed the importance of critical thinking for the evangelist. Now we must get practical. There are specific errors in reasoning - called logical fallacies - that appear again and again in conversations about faith, religion, and truth. The evangelist must learn to recognize them, both when others use them and - perhaps more importantly - when he himself is tempted to use them.
A logical fallacy is like a broken link in a chain of reasoning. The chain may look strong, but if one link is broken, the entire chain fails. An argument may sound convincing, it may feel right, it may even lead to a true conclusion - but if the reasoning itself is flawed, the argument is unreliable. And the evangelist must be reliable. We represent the God of truth, and we must speak truthfully in every way - including in the way we reason.
Let us examine the most common fallacies you will encounter.
Ad Hominem - Attacking the Person
The Latin phrase ad hominem means "against the person." This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character, background, or motives of the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
Example in evangelism: You are explaining the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to someone, and they respond, "Well, you only believe that because you were raised Coptic. If you had been raised Muslim, you would believe something completely different."
This does not address whether the Trinity is true. It only attacks the circumstances of the believer. The correct response is to gently redirect: "My background may explain how I first encountered this belief, but it does not determine whether the belief is true. Let us examine the evidence together."
Our Lord Jesus faced this constantly. The Pharisees said of Him:
"Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" - John 1:46
They attacked His origin rather than engaging with His teaching. Nathanael almost missed the Messiah because of this fallacy - until Philip simply said, "Come and see."
Straw Man - Misrepresenting the Argument
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents another person's position, making it weaker or more extreme than it actually is, and then argues against the misrepresentation instead of the real position. It is called a "straw man" because it is easier to knock down a figure made of straw than a real person.
Example in evangelism: You explain that the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches that salvation involves the cooperation of God's grace and human free will. Someone responds, "So you believe you can save yourself by your own works without God? That is the opposite of the Gospel!"
This is a straw man. You never said that. The Orthodox teaching is that God's grace is the primary mover in salvation, and human free will responds to that grace. The person has replaced your actual position with a distorted version that is easier to attack.
How to respond: Calmly restate your actual position. "That is not what I said. Let me clarify what I actually believe." Do not become angry. The person may genuinely have misunderstood, or they may be doing this deliberately. Either way, clarity is your best weapon.
Appeal to Emotion
This fallacy occurs when an argument relies on feelings rather than evidence and logic. Emotion is used to bypass the mind.
Example in evangelism: "How can you believe in a God who allows children to suffer? What kind of monster would do that?" The emotional weight of this question is enormous - and rightly so, because suffering is a serious topic. But the question contains a hidden assumption: that if God allows suffering, He must be monstrous. This does not logically follow. The question deserves a thoughtful, compassionate response - but the evangelist must not allow the emotional weight to prevent him from thinking clearly.
St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the 20th Pope of Alexandria, addressed the problem of suffering by pointing to the Incarnation itself. God did not remain distant from suffering - He entered into it. The Cross is God's answer to suffering, not the absence of an answer.
False Dilemma - Only Two Options
A false dilemma presents only two options when, in reality, there are more. It forces a choice between extremes, ignoring the middle ground or alternative possibilities.
Example in evangelism: "Either the Bible is a perfect science textbook, or it is full of errors and cannot be trusted." This presents only two options. The Orthodox understanding is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, written for our salvation - not as a science textbook. It is completely true in what it teaches about God, humanity, and salvation, while using the language and literary forms of its time. This is a third option that the false dilemma tries to hide.
Another example: "Either you accept every single thing your church teaches without question, or you are not really Orthodox." This is also a false dilemma. The Orthodox Christian is encouraged to understand what the Church teaches and why. Asking questions is not the same as rejecting the faith.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as one of its premises. The argument goes in a circle, proving nothing.
Example: "The Bible is true because it is the word of God. And we know it is the word of God because the Bible says so." This is circular. Each claim depends on the other. Neither is established independently.
The Orthodox approach: We do not prove the Bible's authority by citing the Bible alone. We point to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, the testimony of the martyrs who died for this truth, the historical evidence for the resurrection, the fulfilled prophecies, the transformed lives of believers across two thousand years, and the unbroken Tradition of the Church that received, preserved, and transmitted these Scriptures. The Bible's authority is established within the life of the Church, not in a logical vacuum.
Appeal to Authority - Misusing Authority
There is nothing wrong with citing authorities - in fact, the Orthodox Christian treasures the authority of the Church Fathers. But this fallacy occurs when authority is misused - when someone cites an authority who is not actually an expert in the relevant field, or when they claim that an authority said something they did not say.
Example: "A famous scientist says that God does not exist, so God must not exist." Being a brilliant scientist does not make someone an expert on the existence of God. Expertise in one field does not transfer automatically to another.
Example within the Church: "My priest said this, so it must be true." We respect our priests deeply, but they are not infallible. Their teaching must be consistent with the faith of the Church as expressed in Scripture, the Councils, and the consensus of the Fathers.
Red Herring - Changing the Subject
A red herring is when someone introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original argument. The name comes from the practice of using a strong-smelling fish to throw hunting dogs off the trail.
Example in evangelism: You are discussing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and the person says, "But what about the Crusades? Christians have done terrible things throughout history." The Crusades are a real historical topic worthy of discussion - but they have nothing to do with whether Christ rose from the dead. The person is changing the subject to avoid the original question.
How to respond: Acknowledge their concern briefly, but redirect. "That is an important topic, and I am happy to discuss it later. But right now, we were talking about the evidence for the resurrection. Let us finish this conversation first."
Tu Quoque - "You Do It Too"
The Latin phrase tu quoque means "you also." This fallacy occurs when someone deflects criticism by pointing out that the critic does the same thing. It does not address whether the original criticism is valid.
Example: "You say that Islam spread by the sword, but Christians also used violence throughout history." Even if this is true, it does not address the original claim. Both claims may be true, and both deserve examination on their own merits. One wrong does not justify another.
Our Lord Jesus addressed this kind of thinking directly:
"And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" - Matthew 7:3
But notice - He said this to encourage self-examination, not to justify ignoring genuine problems. The tu quoque fallacy uses the pointing of fingers as a way to avoid accountability altogether.
Slippery Slope
The slippery slope fallacy claims that one action will inevitably lead to a chain of extreme consequences, without providing evidence for each step in the chain.
Example: "If we allow people to ask questions about church traditions, soon they will reject the Fathers, then they will reject the Bible, and eventually they will become atheists." This is a slippery slope. Asking questions does not inevitably lead to atheism. In fact, many of the greatest saints were great questioners - St. Augustine of Hippo wrestled deeply with intellectual questions before his conversion, and his wrestling made his faith stronger, not weaker.
How Christ and the Apostles Reasoned
Our Lord Jesus Christ was the perfect reasoner. He never used a fallacy. When the Pharisees tried to trap Him with the question about paying taxes to Caesar, He did not fall into their false dilemma. He asked to see a coin, identified the image on it, and said:
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." - Mark 12:17
He refused the either/or trap and presented a third option that addressed the deeper truth.
When the Sadducees tried to disprove the resurrection with a hypothetical story about a woman married to seven brothers, Christ did not argue about the hypothetical. He went straight to the root of their error:
"You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." - Matthew 22:29
The apostle St. Paul reasoned from the Scriptures in every synagogue he entered. In Athens, he engaged the philosophers on their own terms, quoting their own poets and building a logical case for the God they did not yet know (Acts 17:22-31). He did not use tricks or manipulation. He used truth, logic, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
How to Point Out Fallacies Without Being Condescending
This is perhaps the most important practical point. Knowing about fallacies can make a person arrogant. The temptation is to say, "That is a straw man fallacy!" in a tone that communicates, "I am smarter than you."
Do not do this. The goal is not to win an argument. The goal is to bring someone closer to Christ. Here are some guidelines:
Ask questions instead of making accusations. Instead of saying, "That is a straw man," say, "I want to make sure you understood my point correctly. What I actually said was..." This gives the person a chance to correct themselves without losing face.
Assume good faith. Most people do not use fallacies on purpose. They genuinely believe their reasoning is sound. Treat them with the respect you would want if someone were correcting your thinking.
Model good reasoning yourself. The best way to teach sound reasoning is to practice it. When you make your case clearly, honestly, and without fallacies, people will notice the difference.
Remember that you are an ambassador of Christ. St. Paul wrote:
"Speaking the truth in love." - Ephesians 4:15
Truth without love is a weapon. Love without truth is sentimentality. The evangelist speaks the truth in love - clearly, honestly, gently, and always for the good of the other person.
A Practical Exercise
This week, listen carefully to conversations - in person, online, in videos, in sermons. Try to identify at least three logical fallacies. Write them down. Then ask yourself: have I ever used any of these fallacies in my own arguments? If so, how can I make my reasoning stronger and more honest?
The evangelist who reasons well honors God with his mind.
Conclusion
Logical fallacies are broken links in the chain of reasoning. The evangelist must learn to spot them - not to win arguments, but to serve the truth. Our Lord Jesus, the apostles, and the Church Fathers all demonstrated how to reason clearly, honestly, and lovingly. We must follow their example.
The person who speaks the truth in love, with clear and honest reasoning, will be a powerful witness for Christ - not because of clever techniques, but because truth and love together are irresistible.
"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." - 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
Key Takeaways
- A logical fallacy is a broken link in a chain of reasoning - the evangelist must learn to spot them in others' arguments and avoid them in his own
- Common fallacies in evangelistic conversations include ad hominem attacks, straw man misrepresentations, appeals to emotion, false dilemmas, and circular reasoning
- Christ and the apostles were models of clear reasoning - Jesus refused false dilemmas, and St. Paul built logical cases from Scripture and even pagan philosophy
- The Orthodox approach to defending the Bible's authority avoids circular reasoning by pointing to the witness of the Church, the testimony of martyrs, and historical evidence
- Pointing out fallacies should be done through questions, not accusations - the goal is bringing someone closer to Christ, not demonstrating intellectual superiority
- Speaking the truth in love means combining clear reasoning with genuine care for the person
Dive Deeper
Resources coming soon.
To our God be all glory and honor, now and forever. Amen.