US Foreign Policy:

2012 Election: The Epic Choice Between One Option

Across the nation, Democrats and Progressives rejoice over this week's election results while Republicans attempt to alleviate their shock and disappointment. Democrats compile their victories in lists including pot legalization in Colorado and Washington state, marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and Democrat gains in the US Senate, not to mention President Obama winning a second term. Republicans from the Fox News base blame their failed campaign on “fables that are recycled by [Obama’s] White House at taxpayer expense” (Michelle Malkin), morosely declared that “the white establishment is now the minority” (Bill O'Reilly), wondered “how we will survive…a deal with the devil [who will put] religion under attack” and said the only solution was to “get away from the East…and get grandfathered into the second amendment and don’t forget ammunition” (Glenn Beck). There was, as John Stewart so aptly put it, an avalanche on Bullshit Mountain. These reactions from both Democrats and Republicans are severely myopic and misplaced.

Democrats celebrating President Obama’s victory and marijuana’s legalization in the same breath perhaps suffer from short term memory loss. During the President’s first term, his administration cracked down on medical marijuana facilities and prosecuted the War on Drugs with a fervor surpassing even GW Bush’s administration’s. Obama largely remained silent on this topic, saying only that “what I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana…I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana." Romney’s position was hardly challenged; being an authoritarian Republican, he was expected to adopt the party’s anti-pot stance. Sadly, the lack of scrutiny for either candidate’s extremely authoritarian, conservative stance merely belied the power of big pharmaceutical corporations’ hold on these elections and the media.

Mark Levin, a popular conservative radio show host, laments that "conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism." Oh, please, cry me a river. Obama isn't much more left than Romney, and to call Romney a centrist is a joke. Both candidates belong to their respective (and often the very same) corporate donors. And both candidates were/are rather shockingly and similarly Authoritarian/conservative on most issues.

Romney also supported Bush’s Patriot Act, a law that revokes any individual rights granted in the Constitution in the name of an already unconstitutional War on Terror. So to argue that Romney even gave one pretense of caring about the Constitution or individual freedom/sovereignty indicates a marijuana high whose changes of legality have suddenly become greater. First-term President Obama strengthened government’s chokehold on individual freedom by extending and intensifying the Patriot Act each time he saw the bill: roving wiretaps, unrestricted access to records, and conducting surveillance on anyone suspected of terrorism. And in spite of 2008 Senator Obama’s campaign promises to legalize marijuana on the federal level and let states decide for themselves, President Obama has since then enabled and ordered over 1.7 million drug arrests and a nationwide increase in raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Subsequent legislation including anti-protesting bills, extensions on US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a brand new presidentially-initiated War on Libya firmly cemented President Obama’s opposition to individual sovereignty, support of preemptive war, and opposition to the Constitution.

The Republican Party mysteriously supported Mitt Romney in spite of his complete reversal in almost every popular social position and suddenly vague economic plans. If Republicans wanted someone unabashedly more conservative Christian than President Bush, they had no further to look than Virgil Goode. Ironically, his policies simply and succinctly compiled Romney’s and the Fox-driven Republican Party’s, the Christian Right’s, and Obama’s actual decisions.

Among the few differences between President Obama and the Republican Party is marriage equality. Kudos to the President for vocally supporting LGBT+ rights, but perhaps his position still misses the point. It’s not government’s job to determine the morality of any of our choices, let alone marriage. The political discussion should revolve around taxes and discrimination. Government should put a stop to its discrimination and treat people as individuals instead of trying to place them into categories and deal with us as groups. Our Constitutional rights (should) force the government to protect our individual rights and freedom.

Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson remain more centrist than either mainstream candidate, and they're miles away from the Obama/Romney false dichotomy we were peddled. They actually believe in freedom, the Constitution, individual sovereignty, and decent foreign policy. Sadly, the media, the presidential debate organizers, and their corporate owners prevented these other legitimate options from seeing the light of public discourse. America’s corporate oligopoly systematically cuts off the speech of anyone who refuses to buy into their power paradigm. They successfully quashed any benefits from either capitalism or socialism by protecting their own interests at any cost, by buying elections, and by suppressing opposing ideas and free speech.

Contrary to both Democrats’ and Republicans’ assessments, our nation will not crumble because our citizens retain their individual freedoms. As the wars on drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and soon Iran cost us billions of tax dollars, trillions in debt, and far too many soldiers’ and civilians’ lives, we must ask tough questions of each politician. We cannot afford to pander to corporations’ control and an illogically-constructed false choice between two strikingly similar ‘options’. We, the People, must demand freedom, refusing to sacrifice freedom for security, or we will end up with neither.

Two Positions, Same Solution

New York City Pride 2012

I am straight; I was born that way. I grew up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist church in Vermont. For two years I attended one of the most controversially conservative colleges in the US: Bob Jones University. So you can appreciate the unlikelihood that this past weekend I’d end up in New York City, marching in the Gay Pride Parade.

Yet there I was, wearing rainbow colors while marching through the heart of the US, screaming my voice out in support of LGBTQ and surrounded by friends, allies, brothers and sisters in love and acceptance. I marched with some 40 LGBTQ+ survivors of the Bob Jones University (BJU) fundamentalist cult, and our group in the Pride Parade was called “BJUnity.” We marched to show support and solidarity for those LGBTQ who have been systematically mistreated and brainwashed by BJU and other similar institutions. Our message was one of hope – that not all Christians hate and condemn gays for simply being true to themselves.

Churches had arrived to hand out water to the marchers and to apologize for the hurt, pain, and suffering through which supposed followers of Christ have put LGBTQ for centuries. The costumes ranged from brilliant to intriguing. And exuberance reigned as the overarching emotion felt throughout the thousands in the thronging crowds. This exhilaration paused twice, once at 1pm and once at 3pm, for moments of silence to remember and honor the victims of AIDS. These moments contained the most incredible feeling of togetherness as tens of thousands of people on many different streets, in unanimity, were silent.

I only saw one protest group, three or four apparently Hasidic teachers in black gowns and caps, holding signs about men marrying giraffes. Pride’s reaction? They were wished the same good day, were offered the same water by the churches, and enjoyed the same show put on by the ‘men of nature’ in the thongs behind us.

For three hours we became the servants Christ longed to inspire, loving strangers through words and actions, hugs and apologies, laughter and tears. There was no Jew or Gentile, no American or non-American, no male or female, no straight or gay, no high class or lower class, and no sinful person or righteous person. We had become a hodge-podge of humanity, a melting pot of awesome variety, and a beautiful collage of people gathered with one purpose: to love their neighbor as themselves.

Some adored Jesus and his teachings. Some followed the loving and peaceful path of Buddhism and enlightenment. Some identified as Muslim brothers and sisters. Some were Pagan. Some enjoyed another religion. Some rejected religion altogether. But in that moment, we were all one. Labels became meaningless, and we just enjoyed each other’s presence, humanity and diversity.

NYC Pride exemplified so many of the things religion should be giving freely to the community surrounding it. NYC was my church on Sunday, June 24, 2012. Now, all I have to do is characterize my life with this kind of selfless, unconditional love. As someone pretty cool once said, go out and do likewise. In that way, ‘church’ won’t be a place or rules. Instead, it will be a love that overflows in every circumstance and toward every person with whom I have the pleasure of interacting. 

 

Fallacious Fundamentalists: Logical Fallacies Committed By Fundamentalists

1. Abusive analogy: a form of ad hominem that attacks a person through negative analogies.
1. We are removing God from America with all the fervor of Germany just before WWII.
2. “Yes, I had been wrong to forget [her birthday], but I hadn’t ignored her birthday intentionally. I felt judged, put down—and rightly so. At the time, I couldn’t describe my feelings with a word like disrespected. During those years, when the feminists were going full blast, men didn’t talk about being disrespected by women. That would have been arrogant, and in church circles it would have been considered a terrible lack of humility.” (Eggerichs, 12)
3. When I walk across campus and see the girls dressed the way they are, it’s like walking through a minefield (Mahaney, 1:22-1:32). Anyone arguing for being blown up by mines?
4. “The impact [of media] is usually not felt immediately – it’s more like an IV in your arm that goes drip … drip … drip … gradually pumping a foreign substance into your system. If the substance dripping through that plastic tubing is toxic or poisonous, you may not feel the results right away, but once it gets into your system, your whole body will definitely be affected! … It all comes down to whether you’re going to let the world’s values, morals, and thinking drip day by day into your system, or you’re going to intentionally choose to be exposed to input that will help you become more wise and godly” (Demoss and Gresh, 152). By now, the listener can’t help but feel the drip … drip … drip as she remembers the TV’s shampoo ad that wrecked her life. There is, of course, no alternative.
5. “Women who do not want to do the will of God in regard to their husbands remind me of atheists always ready with a few reasons not to believe, but never considering the many reasons to believe” (Pearl, 22).
2. Accent: the use of emphasis to subtly change the connotative meaning of what is said, regardless of denotative meaning.
1. Of course women aren’t inferior to men. They just have different roles.
2. The Bible says God wants all men to be saved. That doesn’t mean God calls all men.
3. Accident: Calling up extreme and unlikely exceptions as reasons to reject a proposal.
1. If we reduce God’s law to love, people could justify sexual perversion.
2. Questioner: Why doesn’t BJU put locks on dorm room doors to enable privacy while changing or prevent stealing when absent from the room? Fundy: Well, if a girl were trying to commit suicide, we wouldn’t be able to get in to stop her.
4. Affirming the consequent: “cart before the horse” If AàB, then BàA
1. If you pray in faith, God will answer. God answered; therefore, you must be full of faith.
2. Those who are sexually reprobate, God punishes with aids. This person has contracted aids . . .
3. All things work together for good to them that love God. You love God; things will go well in your life.
5. Amphiboly: when a person says something in such a way that the meaning is lost in ambiguity
6. Analogical Fallacy: falsely assuming that an analogy that applies in one area must apply to others
1. America’s (tolerance of homosexuality, consumerism, violent entertainment) is like Rome’s. America’s collapse is inevitable.
2. When Israel forsook God’s law, they lost God’s blessing. America’s collapse is inevitable.
3. The church is your spiritual family. Obey your Pastor.
7. Argumentum ad antiquitam: arguing something’s correctness based on its age
1. Give me that Old Time Religion.
2. The Puritans made church an all-day affair. Why should we cancel our evening service?
3. “CCM is definitely traveling on a new road, a road much different from that traveled by the historic church.” (Fisher, xiv)
8. Apriorism: rejecting new evidence based on a preexisting belief
1. We know that God created man in His image. This fossil cannot be a prehistoric ape-man.
2. We know that homosexuality is not natural. Therefore, any scientific or psychological evidence that says otherwise is false.
3. “The only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors. . . Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures?” (Ryrie, 106) In other words, we know that the Scriptural representation of Christ is accurate; therefore, what Christ said in the Scriptures about the Scriptures must be true.
9. Argumentum ad Baculum: appeal to force
1. If you don’t straighten up your attitude, I will spank you.
2. If you continue to spread discord, we will be forced to discipline or expel you.
3. If you refuse to surrender your life to God, dear unsaved friend, you will go to hell.
10. Bifurcation: false dichotomy; bogus dilemma; reducing a choice to a couple or handful of extremes while ignoring other valid possibilities
1. If you support homosexuality/abortion, you either don’t understand the Bible or you don’t believe it.
2. You believe in either 7-day Creation or are an evolution-believing atheist.
3. If you want to surrender your life to God, come put your stick in the fire. If you want to remain in rebellion, stay in your seat. Remember inaction is still action.
4.  “Just two choices on the shelf, pleasing God or pleasing self” (Collier, 83).
5. If you support abortion, you aren’t truly a Christian.
6. This one contains many fallacies; other fallacies are noted in brackets. “If I come to the Bible with confidence that its words were breathed out by God and are therefore without errors, and if that confidence has been buttressed by years of proving the Bible totally reliable [argumentum ad ignorantium], then I won’t be shaken by a problem and I certainly will not conclude that it is in error [circular reasoning]. But if I think that there can be errors in the Bible, however few or many, then I will likely conclude that some of those problems are examples of errors. And even if there is only one, I have an errant Bible” (Ryrie, 108). The overall fallacy is false dilemma. He leaves out, of course, the options that you could believe the Bible inerrant and come across error or that you could search for errors but never find one.
7. This last one wins the prize for how many false dichotomies possible in one paragraph. “‘What’s the status of your lying embers?’ Quiz: 1. Relaxed or Totally stressed out? 2. Happy-to-be-single or Gotta-have-a-guy? 3. Good-with-what-you-got or Ugly? 4. FORGIVEN OR GUILTY? 5. Definitely-taking-my-problems-to-God-first or Gotta-ask-my-friends-for-advice? 6. Got-just-enough-friends or Lonely? 7. Friendly or Totally PMS-ing? 8. AUTHENTIC or HYPOCRITICAL? 9. In-control-of-my-tech-world or Would-die-without-text-messaging, facebook, and more? 10. Confident-in-my-stand-to-be-pure or Ashamed-to-stand-alone? 11. Content-with-what-you-got or MUST-shop-now? 12. The-real-deal or Different-depending-on-who-I’m-with? 13. Walking-in-victory or Unable-to-overcome-certain-sins? 14. Content-to-submit or Angry-at-my-parents? 15. Confident-of-God’s-protection or Afraid-of-Satan” (Demoss and Gresh, 15).
8. “You have two choices. You can doubt God and say, ‘I know God does not expect me to honor this mean man.’ Or, you can say, ‘God, I know your word teaches me to be a woman who is there to help meet all my husband’s desires and dreams. Make me that woman’” (Pearl, 49).
11. Blinding with science
12. Complex Question: loaded question; asking more than one question at once while requiring just one answer
1. Are you willing to surrender your life to God by giving up your sinful music?
2. What areas do your roommates need spiritual help in?
3. “Have you ever come to the point that Tish came to? Have you realized that, by your sin [sex before marriage], you’ve actually been rebelling against God? Have you confessed your sin to him? And have you surrendered control of your life to him” (Demoss and Gresh, 129)?
4. “Do I truly agree with God that this behavior is sin, or do I secretly think there is really nothing wrong with what I’m doing” (Demoss and Gresh, 137)? Bifurcation, poisoning the well, and loaded question all in one!
13. Composition
14. Concealed quantification: hiding the quantity involved by changing the sentence structure
1. Atheists are immoral. How many of them?
2. Homosexuals are promiscuous. All? Many? We’re left to guess…
3. “The prophet Ezekiel gives a vivid description that most Bible scholars agree refers to Satan” (Demoss and Gresh, 60).
15. Conclusion which denies premise: reaching a conclusion that, if true, falsifies the original premise and nullifies the argument
1. Everything must have a cause that in turn must result in a previous cause. Since we cannot go back forever, we know there must be an uncaused causer to start the process.
2. God died for everyone, but only some were elected for salvation.
3. Maybe it’s not sinful in and of itself to go to a bar, but others could see you there. So you would be sinning by allowing your Christian testimony to suffer.
4. When Christians question their faith and get off the straight and narrow path, some of them turn their backs on God and blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Obviously, they were not saved to begin with.
5. The notion that you can do something to have value or to earn God’s love is heretical… Responding to God’s love… is all that is required for you to experience His favor” (Demoss and Gresh, 78). So ‘responding’ doesn’t require action of some sort?
16. Contradictory premises
1. God created everything, and God did not create sin or evil. So God is not responsible for sin or evil.
2. Everything has a beginning; God has always been; therefore God is not everything. Obviously, then, pantheism is false.
3. God predestines all things. God doesn’t predestine sin. Your sin is not God’s will.
17. Argumentum ad Crumenam: appeal to riches
18. Cum hoc ergo prompter hoc: assuming that because two things happen simultaneously, one must have caused the other
1. I was reading the Bible and had a revelation. God spoke to me.
2. If you are feeling uncomfortable during this alter call, you know what I’m saying is true.
3. Rock n roll was becoming popular during the free sex era of the 60s. Obviously sex and drugs are inherent in the music.
4. “If you were trying to convince me of the truth of your argument by telling me the ‘full gospel’ crowd encourages women to take positions of leadership, you sure used the wrong argument. Check out their divorce rate, and you will understand my amazement at your choice of arguments. Statistics reveal that, on the average, modern Christians have a higher divorce rate than does the general population” (Pearl, 52). A response to a woman’s appeal to a different translation of the submission passages; because they teach equality and have a higher divorce rate, their divorce rate must be caused by their wrong views of women, marriage, and submission.
19. Damning the alternatives: falsely claiming one position’s veracity by disproving known alternatives
1. If Christ were just 100% God, he could not have been tempted; if he were merely 100% man, he would not have been able to pay for our sins. The hypostatic union is the only accurate understanding of Christ.
2. “One of Satan’s strategies is to blind us to the lies we have bought into…In a few cases you may find yourself saying ‘I don’t believe that is a lie.’ Let me appeal to you no to get tripped up by a handful of particular issues where you may have a genuine disagreement. I am simply presenting what I understand the scripture to teach…I have chosen to start by dealing with lies that women believe about God (DeMoss, 46-47).
20. Definitional retreat: changing the definition of words in order to deal with an objection
1. Fundy: Women cannot hold leadership positions in the church. Respondent: But you allow women to teach Sunday school. Fundy: But that’s teaching children.
2. Fundy: The Old Testament law was how God wanted the world to function. Respondent: So God wants rape victims to be blamed and punished? Fundy: I’m not talking about that; you have to look at the big picture.
21. Denying the antecedent: If A à B, then –A à –B
1. If a person honors their parents, the person will live long. Matthew has not honored his parents; therefore his young death was God’s punishment.
2. “Teach your kids the Importance of living inside the circle. Inside there is peace and blessing. Outside the circle is danger.” (Tripp)
22. Dicto simpliciter: sweeping generalization
1. I don’t care that you were responding to an emergency; it’s disrespectful to text during the sermon.
2. It doesn’t matter if the mother’s life was in danger and the fetus couldn’t live outside the womb; abortions are murder.
3. Of course you voted for Obama; you’re a liberal. All liberals support Obama?
4. It’s wrong to lie. It doesn’t matter that you did it to protect someone’s life.
23. Division: Assuming that what is true for the whole is true for the individual parts
1. The Bible is inspired by God, and the Bible says “spare the rod, spoil the child.” Therefore spanking children is inspired by God. With that reasoning, going out and hanging yourself (Judas) or stabbing fat men while they defecate (Ehud) are also equally inspired biblical commands.
24. Emotional appeals
1. If you’re afraid to die, it shows that you need God to save you.
2. “If there is anger, unforgiveness, or rebellion in your heart, you are opening the door to the Enemy. Slam it shut” (Demoss and Gresh, 66)!
3. How can you refuse to surrender your sin when Jesus died for you?
25. Equivocation: using two different definitions of the same word in the same argument
1. Support the Church. Give your tithes so we can maintain our church.
2. “I (Dana) struggled with respecting my husband for nearly ten years of my marriage before I learned how beautiful it could be if I would choose to honor Bob” (Demoss and Gresh, 114). No argument was made as to why “respect” and “honor” are the exact same. Yet she seamlessly equivocates the two.
26. Every School Boy Knows: appealing to common knowledge or assuming that something is so self-obvious that even simple people understand it
1. Everyone knows that homosexuality goes against nature.
2. Even a child knows when he has done wrong. Anyone who claims to not be a sinner is, therefore, obviously lying.
3. “It is obvious to any reader by now that the CCM movement is seen as standing in opposition to the scriptural position” (Fischer, 173).
27. Exception that proves the rule: dismissing a valid counter-example
1. Fundy: Women are the weaker vessel. Respondent: This woman over here is stronger than most men. Fundy: The fact that you have to find an exception shows that women are generally weaker than men. Yes, indeed, shift ground in a definitional retreat while you prove the rule via the exception.
2. Your obvious need to bring up the XXY-male exception just goes to show that men are meant to be with women.
28. Exclusive premises: starting an argument with two negative statements; telling us what something is not says nothing about what it actually is.
1. No lifestyle homosexuals are saved, and no saved person would agree with bad doctrine that accepts homosexuality, so it’s obvious that homosexuals have bad doctrine.
2. Christians are not habitually sinful, and habitually sinful people are not truly loving, so true Christians possess Christ’s love.
29. Existential fallacy: using terms that imply existence without proving existence
1. All demons follow Satan, and Satan wants to control you, so some demons could possibly possess you. Also, since unicorns are magical, so drinking some unicorn blood will make you immortal. Unfortunately, nobody’s proved the existence of unicorns, Satan, or demons.
30. Ex post-facto statistics: applying probability laws to events that have already happened
1. Had I been in front of the slow driver, I would most likely have ended up part of the 10 car crash that happened minutes before I arrived. God must have been watching out for me.
2. What’s the likelihood that the earth would have evolved with the right temperature and atmosphere for us to breathe and live? It couldn’t have been just chance. The likelihood is irrelevant, because earth has already come into being.
3. “French scientist Lecomte du Nouy said it is 1 chance out of 10²⁴³. Swiss mathematician Charles E. Guye calculated it as 1 chance out of 10¹⁶⁰. Murray Eden of MIT and Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris both concluded that their digital computers showed that evolution was impossible.” (Ryrie, 201). So evolution was unlikely. But out of the many options, something had to happen. Once something did happen, it became 100% probability because it had happened. You can’t look at a past possibility and say the current (debatable) fact is not true simply because it was unlikely. This could also be a form of blinding with science, which many fundamentalists tend to avoid, seeing science as opposition to Scripture.
31. Existential pruning: starting by using a colloquial definition for a word, then retreating to a technical, literal, and scientific definition.
1. Fundy: Life begins at conception. Respondent: But heartbeat, breath, and consciousness are absent at conception. Fundy: But its cells are living.
32. False conversion: assuming that because something belongs in a category, the category equals that thing and assumes its characteristics.
1. All 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God. God’s inspiration is contained in the canon. Yes, and since all cats are animals, all animals must be cats.
33. False precision: statistical statements not backed by facts or actual information
1. 90% of what PP does is abortions.
2. Only 1% of the population is gay.
34. Gambler’s fallacy
35. Guilt by association
1. Doctrine of secondary separation. Enough said!
2. This rock beat is evil because tribes in Africa worship the devil with it.
3. Using a video projector is not a good idea. Liberal churches use projectors for their rock music worship, so we cannot use one.
36. Half-concealed qualification: hiding exceptions behind absolute statements in a way that emphasizes the absolute but allows an escape via definitional retreat
1. Practically everyone who starts enjoying and listening to rock music will end up endorsing bad doctrine.
2. “It is generally agreed that this church council [Council of Carthage] fixed the limits of the New Testament canon as including all twenty-seven books as we have them today” (Ryrie, 124).
3. “I often ask husbands, ‘Does your wife love you?’ They reply, ‘Yes, of course.’ But then I ask, ‘Does she like you?’ And the answer usually comes back, ‘Nope.’” (Eggerichs, 17)
4. “In many cases, the wife’s dislike is interpreted by the husband as disrespect and even contempt.” (Eggerichs, 17).
37. Hedging: an argument using ambiguous terms in order to allow for definitional retreat
1. We are against child abuse. What we advocate is biblical discipline, which involves corporal punishment and breaking the will of the child.
38. Argumentum ad hominem abusive: attacking the argument by attacking the person making the argument.
1. Don’t listen to what the feminists have to say. They aren’t natural women; they want to kill their babies.
2. Obama’s healthcare plan is bad because Obama is a socialist.
3. Rob Bell’s critique of Christianity cannot be trusted because he is a Universalist.
4. John Boswell’s attempts to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible are invalid because he is gay, and therefore biased.
39. Argumentum ad hominem circumstantial: appealing to someone’s belief in something to attack their argument
1. You can’t possibly support gay marriage if you believe the Bible. Do you believe the Bible?
2. Of course you’re supporting rock music; you like to listen to it.
3. The judge couldn’t possibly have ruled fairly on the gay marriage case; he’s gay.
40. Argumentum ad ignorantiam: assuming that what has not been disproved must be true, or assuming that what has not been proven must be false
1. Every attempt to disprove the flood story has failed miserably; having stood the test of time, the truth of the Bible’s description of the flood defeats any attempts to disprove it.
2. Secular scientists have never produced a genuine missing link; therefore, evolution must be false.
41. Ignoratio elenchi: setting out to argue one thing, and ending up arguing for something completely different without realizing it
1. Rock music is bad. Just look at Romans 12:1 where we are warned strongly against anything worldly.
2. We’re not a cult; we have lots of good things happening in our church.
3. “Guilty plea could mean a LOT of things. I think they would plead guilty because in the sight of God they are. NO matter what happened their daughter died while in their care.” In trying to prove that a guilty plea didn’t mean the Schaz’s were guilty, she doesn’t realize she argues that they are guilty. (facebook commenter).
42. Illicit process
43. Irrelevant humor: essentially a red herring, in the form of a funny story
1. Frank Sinatra said he did it his way. And look where it got him; he’s burning in hell!
44. Argumentum ad lapidem: ignoring an argument
1. If you place too much trust in your intellect, you will reason away the truth only discerned by faith.
2. I can’t understand everything in the Bible. Some things just need to be accepted by faith.
3. Questioner: These rules are unnecessary and unbiblical. Fundy: But God has placed you under our authority, so you must obey them. That wasn’t the question, and non-sequiturs to ignore the argument at hand is fallacious.
45. Argumentum ad lazarum: appeal to poverty
1. Mega churches cannot be biblically following Christ because they are too rich.
2. You know I’m not preaching hogwash. You don’t go into preaching for the money, so you know I’m honest and sincere in my plea.
46. Loaded words: tainting an argument with emotionally charged words
1. Don’t let the lies of the devil mislead you; feminism can’t bring liberation – it only tears families apart.
2. Girls whoring around in their short skirts destroy men’s minds.
3. Christian rock is an oxymoron, like Christian prostitute or Christian drug dealer.
4. “Let me give you an honest definition of rock music: that music where text, music performers, and performance practices are conforming to the image of the earthly, sensual, and devilish” (Fisher, 73).
47. Argumentum ad misericordiam: appeal to pity
1. Don’t talk badly about the school. Just think of the damage to Christ’s testimony that would occur were Christians to disagree and fight amongst ourselves.
2. By going to the police and news about your abuse, you are destroying a man’s life, family, and Christian reputation. How can you do that to his family?
48. Naturalistic – appeal to nature: arguing that because something occurs in nature, that it is good or should occur that way
1. Homosexuality is wrong because it goes against nature. So are skyscrapers, medicine, and monogamy.
49. Naturalistic – is-ought: arguing that because something is, that it therefore should be
1. “We should seek to understand that communication [the Bible] plainly, for that is the normal way beings communicate.” (Ryrie, 131)
50. Argumentum ad nauseum: ignoring new arguments by repeating one’s original position
1. Fundy: Questioning your spiritual authority shows a rebellious spirit. Respondent: But questions can be good and not necessarily rebellious. Fundy: An attitude of rebellion is evidenced by a multitude of questions.
2. “My thought process went something like this: ‘A husband is to obey the command to love even if his wife does not obey this command to respect, and a wife is to obey the command to respect even if the husband does not obey the command to love.’ So far, so good. Then I reasoned further: ‘A husband is even called to love a disrespectful wife, and a wife is called to respect an unloving husband. There is no justification for a husband to say, ‘I will love my wife after she respects me’ nor for a wife to say, ‘I will respect my husband after he loves me.’” (Eggerichs, 16) Can you say the same thing with different words just one more time?
51. Non-anticipation: rejecting new ideas because all the good ones must have already been thought of
1. “[That old time religion] was good enough for the Hebrew children and it’s good enough for me” (Give Me That Old Time Religion)
52. Argumentum ad novitam: appeal to newness
53. Argumentum ad numeram: appeal to numbers
1. 500 people saw Jesus alive after he rose from the dead. It must be true.
2. So many godly preachers have decided against rock music. It would be unwise to disagree.
3. The canon of Scripture has been accepted for centuries by the church. I trust the wisdom of so many men of God.
54. One-sided assessment
1. There are no legitimate arguments for evolution. Think of the intricacy of the human brain … etc … etc …
2. This Christian college might not have your specific major, but you’ll make long term Christian friends, be steeped with the Word of God, free of worrying if your teachers teach the truth, and be prepared to face the professional world with a Christian worldview.
55. Oversimplification: assuming one simple cause in situations where multiple factors may have contributed to the outcome
1. We listen to a lie. We get too close. We dwell on the lie. We believe the lie. We begin to believe the lie is true. We act on the lie. We sin (Demoss and Gresh, 172). In this chain of events, apparently if you listen to a lie, you will end up sinning. Or perhaps the listening was the sin. Who knows, when slippery slopes and oversimplifications abound.
2. When you question your faith, you open yourself up to doubts. Doubts become Satan’s tools to undermining your faith in God.
56. Petitio principia: circular reasoning, or concluding exactly what your premise states
1. We know about God because the Bible tells us about God. And we can trust the Bible because it is the inspired Word of God.
2. God created the world. Just look at creation; God’s handiwork is evident throughout the world.
3. “It is essential to remember that the Bible is self-authenticating since its books were breathed out by God.” (Ryrie, 119).
57. Poisoning the well: preemptively discrediting your opponent’s character in order to diminish the effects of his arguments
1. No true American would say that. An example of the No True Scotsman fallacy
2. Only churches who have been deceived by the devil would accept homosexuality.
3. Those who dispute our rules are simply deceived, bitter, or a troublemaker. You were mentioning our lights-out policy? You now agree with me? How convenient!
4. “Immature Christians often try to justify worldliness by saying, ‘I can listen to any style of music I want to because it won’t affect anyone but me. And I’m saved, so I can always ask God to forgive me if I change my mind. What have I got to lose?’ The reasoning behind this thinking is a misuse of the concept of Christian liberty” (Fischer, 180). Anyone still want to side with the “immature,” “justifying worldliness,” “misus[ing] liberty” people? Didn’t think so.
5. “We are convinced that many young women are experiencing the destructive consequences of believing lies, but cannot the connection between what they are experiencing and those deeply embedded lies. It makes us wonder: can you see the deception in your own life” (Demoss and Gresh, 14)? So if I disagree with your overall point, I’m being deceived with lies? Guess I’ll keep my mouth shut.
6. “Apparently, some of you see it as clearly as we do” (Demoss and Gresh, 111).
58. Argumentum ad populum: appeal to popularity
1. There’s a reason that virtually all Christians from all ages disagree with abortion. The positive version, combined with a half-concealed quantification.
2. Popular music must be wrong because our current world system endorses it. The negative version, combined with guilt by association.
3. The world is rushing headlong towards accepting gay marriage, so obviously Christians should fight against the world’s devilish philosophy. The negative version, with some added loaded words.
4. “The path of least resistance is to go with the flow and follow the crowd, without stopping to ask, ‘Is this really true?’ Those who love Christ and stand for Truth will always be a small minority” (Demoss and Gresh, 36). The positive version, with a smidge of poisoning the well.
59. Positive conclusion from negative premise
1. No lifestyle homosexual is a true Christian, and no true Christian is depraved. So lifestyle homosexuals are depraved.
60. Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc: assuming that because one thing happened before a second thing, the first must have caused the second
1. My wife and I walked into the hotel room where jazz music was playing. I immediately was aroused, so obviously the jazz music caused my arousal.
2. Rome accepted homosexuality. Rome then declined morally and economically, eventually crashing. America must avoid homosexuality or befall the same fate.
3. I didn’t have sex w/ husband during the week of my period. He cheated on me that week. Obviously I sinned by refusing his sexual advances, thereby causing him to fall.
4. Birth control acceptance and use rose, and then divorce rates rose drastically. Obviously birth control destroys families.
5. Prayer was taken out of schools in 1963. Quality of education has decreased, school shootings have increased, and drug and sex abuse has increased since then. We need to put God back into schools or face dire consequences.
6. Jonny went to a secular college and then became an apostate. Attending secular schools destroys your faith.
7. She wore a miniskirt and was subsequently raped. Ladies, dress modestly.
61. Quaternio terminorum: using four terms in a syllogism (one too many)
1. My pastor follows God. By following my pastor, I will be following God.
2. “Since music is an emotional language, and since some emotions are wrong for the child of God, then some music is wrong for the Christian” (Garlock and Woetzel, chapter 3). The four terms in this faulty syllogism are ‘music,’ ‘emotional language,’ ‘some emotions,’ and ‘child of God.’ ‘Emotional language’ does not equal ‘some emotions,’ and valid syllogisms contain only three terms.
62. Red Herring: a non-sequitur designed to distract from the actual question
1. Questioner: rape is approved by God in Numbers 31, Deut. 22, etc. Fundy: Rape is not approved by God. Ephesians 5:25 says for husbands to love their wives.
2. Questioner: In the Old Testament law, God allows captors to take captives and rape them. Fundy: But in that time, indentured servitude was preferable to death. But it’s still rape.
3. Why focus on Christianity’s discrimination against LGBTQ and women? Islam is much worse and would kill LGBTQ or women who disagree with them.
63. Refuting the example
64. Reification
65. Runaway Train: supporting an position with an argument so broad that it applies to more than they are willing to advocate for
1. We must separate from the world and its music, dress, and worldview. So you also shun the world’s forks, knives, snow sleds, mirrors, vehicles, and buildings?
2. The more you give, the more you will be blessed. I will give my entire paycheck each week, why is God not blessing me or providing for my needs?
66. Secundum Quid: hasty generalization
1. Wow, that woman’s child is a brat. She must not spank him.
2. Spanking doesn’t harm children. I was spanked my entire childhood, and I’m ok.
3. My father used to drink and get drunk every night until he got saved… Alcohol is the devil’s brew.
4. “When you look to a relationship with a guy to make you happy, you are setting yourself up for disappointment, and potentially for disaster. It did for Samantha (Demoss and Gresh, 86).
5. “I sat down with my seventeen-year-old son, Rob, and his best friend, Ryan, to get a guy’s perspective on all this. What these two godly guys had to say was compelling” (Demoss and Gresh, 164). A guy’s perspective? Really? Hiding a half-concealed quantification in a hasty generalization is merely a red herring.
67. Shifting ground: intentionally changing the substance of the argument when the original proposition becomes untenable
1. No good Christian should read Twilight. Well, sure it’s not a sin. You’re right. But I believe that it is dangerous for children.
2. Christians have no business in sinful places like bars or nightclubs. The Christians might not sin themselves while attending such places, but surely their testimony would suffer.
3. Fundy: God brought this pregnancy into her life. He must want her to have the child. Respondent: “But God brings cancer into people’s lives. Does that mean they should simply accept it and die?” Fundy: No, God has given us the means to fight cancer.
68. Shifting the burden of proof: stating a position without justification and expecting others to do the work of proving or disproving it (specialized form of ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’ and often followed by the ‘exception that proves the rule’ fallacy)
1. Rock music portrays sex, anger, and rebellion; there is no such thing as a wholesome rock song, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
69. Slippery slope: essentially arguing that anything you propose will lead to absurd ends
1. If you question solid doctrine, where will you stop? Pretty soon you’ll be questioning everything, and truth will become relative for you. Without truth, how can you even make an argument for anything?
2. “If, for instance, some errancy can be expected and tolerated in historical matters, but not in doctrinal areas, how do I know which historical matters? After all, some important doctrines are built on historical matters. So where do I stop?” (Ryrie, 108).
3. “When you arrive for your first day of college you’ll be greeted by numerous credit card companies. All of them will have ‘free’ gifts for you if you sign up for their credit card. You could be tempted by the cozy collegiate blanket for home games, the month of free pizza, and the $25 iTunes gift card (Don’t fall for it. If you do, by the time you get out of college, you are likely to have racked up credit card debt in the range of $3,000 – 7000.) (Demoss and Gresh, 62).”
70. Special pleading: justifying holding a double standard, exempting your position from the critique you levy at others
1. Normally, I wouldn’t tell a congregant that Twilight is part of the occult, but when preaching from the pulpit I must come across stronger than normal for people to listen.
2. Fundy: Islamists pose a great threat to American freedom. Just look at the atrocities committed in Allah’s name. Respondent: But look at the atrocities committed in the name of God and Jesus. Fundy: But that’s not the same thing. True Christianity calls people to love their neighbors.
3. Normally I wouldn’t condone covering up sin, but he’s a role model to too many people. His public fall would destroy many people’s faith.
4. Piercings are prohibited by the Old Testament. But piercing the ears looks feminine, so one piercing in each ear is all right for women.
5. Sure, contradictory premises are fallacious, but since we are clearly told that God is sovereign, having predestined everything, and man fully responsible for his choices, I must accept this paradox and live with the tension it produces.
71. The straw man: setting up a weaker, more absurd version of a person’s argument so it’s easier to knock it down
1. “The mantra of [the feminist movement] was ‘women can do anything men can do.’ Convinced that women needed the same jobs and pay as men, women like Gloria Steinam led the way to redefining woman. They burned a few bras here and signed a few petitions there and won the attention of women and men alike. Today, women can hold the same jobs as men, but there is little in our culture today that encourages these women to make being a wife and a mother a priority. In their quest for equality, feminists have undermined the concepts of motherhood and homemaking… [To feminists,] having a career outside the home is more valuable and fulfilling than being just a wife and mom” (Demoss and Gresh, 161).
2. Evolution teaches that “life began completely by chance when a single cell appeared from nonliving matter” (Ryrie, 198). He is oversimplifying and misrepresenting their views in order to make them seem absurd.
72. Argumentum ad temperantium: urging listeners to accept your position because it’s more moderate or closer to the middle
1. If both sides are shooting at us, we’re probably close to the truth.
2. Liberal Christians hate us and KJV-only Christians disagree with us, so our moderate position is likely true.
73. Thatcher’s blame (damned if you do, damned if you don’t)
1. John is struggling financially. God refuses to bless him because of his liberal theology. George has two houses, four cars, and a golf membership. Obviously his liberal theology doesn’t factor in Matt. 5:5, which says the meek will inherit the earth.
2. Jocelyn Zichtermann is bitter at God. All she does is criticize Christians and condemn good doctrine. That’s when she’s not off sulking in her liberal church.
3. If Obama gets reelected, America will continue to devolve into economic poverty because of his socialist ideals. Either that, or America will godlessly prosper, eventually becoming the harlot described in Revelation.
4. “One of the most antagonistic questioners vehemently objected to my assertion that at heart we as human beings were basically self-driven – hence our bent to evil. The louder she argued, the more she proved my point” (Zacharias, 64). And if she hadn’t argued, she would have proved his point.
74. Trivial objections
1. Tattoos are bad because they look trashy.
75. Tu quoque: but you did it too!
1. You say I’m using a logical fallacy, but just a minute ago you used one too.
2. Many evangelicals “are also antagonistic toward those who take this [biblical] position. They use terms such as legalistic, tradition-clinging, old-fashioned, ostrich-like, unconcerned for souls, and pharisaical to describe those who hold a high standard… We should not be afraid to identify some of these views… as worldly, compromising, lacking in spiritual understanding, carnal, hypocritical, and selfish” (Fischer, xv, preface). It’s like Tim Fischer planned it – first show that they’re poisoning the well, and then it’s ok to do it to them. Brilliant!
76. Unaccepted enthymemes: building an argument off an unstated assumption that your opponent has not and may not agree with.
1. Rock music is definitely Satan’s tool. Satan loves ensnaring Christians in worldly lusts. Perhaps he does. But we never agreed that rock music is a worldly lust.
2. Depression is caused by sin in your life. All sin originates with the sin of pride. While the listener spends time disputing the first or last statement, the unaccepted enthymeme (depression is pride) slides by unnoticed.
3. “Many women are offended at the thought that there are any differences between men and women… Concepts like femininity, submission, or respecting men are foreign to them” (Demoss and Gresh, 162). But we never agreed that the difference between men and women is femininity, submission, and respect.
4. “Thus a contradiction and therefore an error appears in this account only for those who want it. Good exegesis requires no error” (Ryrie, 109, grammatical errors in original). But we never agreed that allowing for error requires error.
5. “Repeatedly we ask girls, ‘have you ever been exposed to satanic activities?’ Repeatedly they answered, ‘no.’ Then we ask them about specific things. ‘Have you ever looked at or read your horoscope?’ Have you ever participated in psychic activities?’ ‘Have you ever had your palm read?’ ‘Have you ever played a video game or watched a movie that portrayed demonic forces or witchcraft in a positive way?’ (Demoss and Gresh, 63). What if the girls didn’t agree that horoscopes, psychic palm readings, or video games and movies are satanic activity? But you’ve already bypassed that step via unaccepted enthymeme…
77. Undistributed middle: Assuming two sub-categories are equal to each other simply because they both belong to a broader main category. An easy to understand example: horses are mammals and dogs are mammals. Therefore horses are dogs.
1. All true Christians follow God. Many followers of God are oppressed and persecuted by the world. True Christians will be persecuted for Jesus’ sake.
78. Unobtainable perfection: unfairly holding other arguments to perfect standards
1. Rock music is bad because it can take the attention off God and focus it on the person’s feelings. The same could be said of any music.
2. We shouldn’t make condoms available because they encourage promiscuity. But teens still have sex, even with abstinence-only teaching, so indicting the condom argument for not achieving actually perfect abstinence is unfair.
79. Argumentum ad verecundiam: appeal to false authority by supporting an argument by citing ‘experts’ from unrelated fields
1. “Hundreds of leading scientists reject evolution. (Close examination shows few, if any, whose expertise is in evolutionary biology.)” (Pirie, 173)
2. You struggle with depression? Pastor says that is a pride problem. Is ‘Pastor’ trained and licensed in Psychology?
3. Many rock singers believe that sex and drugs are inherently part of rock and roll. Their singing prowess has no bearing on their knowledge of morality or science.
4. “God gave Adam the most precious gift a man will ever receive—a woman. I know it to be so because my husband tells me quite often” (Pearl, 21).
5. “My experience as a counselor and as a husband confirms this truth [that men’s primary need is respect and women’s love].” (Eggerichs, 17) Considering that he has not done any formal research and that his own personal relationship does not necessarily generalize to all other couples, he is not qualified to claim such a “truth.”
80. Wishful thinking: arguing that because something is more agreeable, it must be so
1. There must be life after death. If not, there would be nothing left to live for.
2. Imagine where we would be if Jesus hadn’t come to save us! Yes, imagine. But imagination has no bearing on whether or not Jesus actually did come to save us.
3. Christ must be risen. Otherwise, everything I’ve taught you is false, my preaching was worthless, your faith is in vain, and the dead have no hope (Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:12).
4. “The Lord said the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds. Is this plainly an erroneous statement because the mustard seed is not the smallest? Before jumping to that conclusion, remember that it was stated by Jesus Christ, and if He spoke a lie, then how could He have been sinless” (Ryrie, 113)?

Works Cited

The Bible. KJV, of course.

Collier, Ken. Biblical leadership: becoming a different kind of leader.

DeMoss, Nancy Leigh. Lies women believe.

DeMoss and Gresh. Lies young women believe.

Eggerichs, Emerson. Love and Respect

Fischer, Tim. The battle for Christian music.

Garlock, F., and Woetzel, K. Music in the balance.

Mahaney, C. J. What guys think about modesty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n-NWbd3pis

Pearl, Debi. Created to be his help meet.

Pirie, Madsden. How to win every argument; the use and abuse of logic. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31763545/How-to-Win-Every-Argument-The-Use-and-Abuse-of-Logic

Protestant Hymns. Give Me That Old Time Religion. http://www.hymnlyrics.org/hymns_spirituals/give_me_that_old_time_religion.php

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic theology.

Tripp, Tedd. Tedd Tripp Live; Parenting During Early Childhood http://kimddavidson.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/tedd-tripp-live-parenting-during-early-childhood/

Fundamental Fear of Fire: Terror Management Theory and Fundamental Christianity

  

A Fundamental Fear of Fire:

Terror Management Theory and Fundamental Christianity

by Jacob Oblak

The Psychology of Religion

Professor Raymond Lambert

December 11, 2011

Few topics produce anxiety like the topic of death. When confronted with the reality and inevitability of death, most people have internal fears and anxiety associated with those thoughts. In fact, historical study suggests that this anxiety is inherent to all of humanity. Indeed, psychologist Ralph Hood explained that “we humans do not take kindly to death…[but] repress, deny, shun, and withdraw where possible from reminders of death” (Hood, Hill and Spilka 184). German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, known for his investigation of human motivation, said that “the fear of death is the beginning of philosophy and the final cause of religion” (Durant 328). Christian Fundamentalists, like most people in the world, would readily agree that their death is inevitable. However, their intense fear of absolute death results in their condemnation of non-believers to hell, manipulative practices, and conformity that isolates them from dissent and suppresses contradictions.

Admitting death’s inevitability and proximity poses no problem for fundamentalists. However, this admission comes with major caveats. Christian fundamentalists present a choice: either you get saved by believing correctly, or God will send you to hell. More succinctly, these fundamentalists teach that there is no need to fear death as long as you have received Jesus as your savior. This dichotomous presentation stems both from viewing of death as the worst punishment and from a fear of death. When the God of the Old Testament was displeased with people, he most often killed them (Meredith 121-123). In the New Testament, Paul views death as the enemy (I Corinthians 15:26, NKJV). Jesus even argued that losing limbs was better than eternal death in hell (Mark 9:43, NKJV).

The fallacy of wishful thinking (claiming an argument’s veracity because things would be horrible if it were not so) often emerges as a response to fear of death. Fundamentalists claim to base their beliefs on the Bible, and many of their arguments for why Christianity is correct stem not from logical and reasonable persuasion, but from fear of death. A prominent argument propounded by Paul, to whom most fundamentalists attribute nearly half of the New Testament, posits that if Paul’s teachings about Christ were untrue, Paul’s “message has no meaning and your faith…is nonsense and sin still has you in its power. Then those who have died as believers in Christ no longer exist. If Christ is our hope in this life only, we deserve more pity than any other people” (Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, NKJV). Paul’s fear of cessation of existence, or absolute death, provides the ultimate foundation for his belief in Christ’s salvation.

In their groundbreaking Psychology of Religion, Hood, Hill and Spilka suggest that an inability to accept the reality of death could be the cause of fundamentalists’ insistence on heaven and hell, saying that “the idea of total termination is rightfully terrifying to most people; hence the need to convince oneself that life never really ends (Hood, Hill & Spilka 185-188). Fundamental Christianity compounds their fear of mortality by introducing punishment after death: hell. A prominent theologian for Christian Apologetics Research Ministries, a well-known evangelical Christian organization, states that “hell is a real place.  It is not mere unconsciousness.  It is not temporal.  It is eternal torment.  Perhaps that is why Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there” (Slick). Fundamentalist Christianity often employs this belief during sermons and revivals to pressure non-believers into accepting Jesus as their personal Savior. As one fervent fundamentalist puts it, “only 1% of the population is truly born-again.  This means that 2,328 people enter into Heaven each and every day.  And sadly, 230,548 people plunge into hellfire each and every day… It's Jesus or Hell” (Stewart). This form of manipulation of human fear and anxiety runs rampant throughout fundamentalism.

Indeed, one of the most famous sermons in Christian history, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards, finds its way into many sermons in fundamental churches all over the world. This sermon focused solely upon this premise: for the “unconverted persons [without] Christ,…that lake of burning brimstone is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air” (Edwards). Many fundamentalist Christians fear death more than anything else simply because they cannot be certain they have lived a life worthy of a Christian. Their ultimate fear is finding themselves at the judgment seat of Christ, being counted as one who was deceived, and being cast away as an unbeliever (Matthew 25:31-46). And many fundamentalists suppress this fear by repeating Paul’s argument that their beliefs must be correct; otherwise, their life would be vain and their death would be final.

To remove the natural anxiety of the thought of death as far from consciousness as possible, fundamentalists must first ignore any contradictions, inconsistencies, or fallacies both in the Bible and in their interpretation and application of it. For instance, fundamental Christian theologian Charles Ryrie, in his Basic Theology textbook for many fundamentalist universities, addresses the question of the Bible’s authority by arguing that “the only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors….Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures” (Ryrie 106). This specific example of a priori reasoning clearly shows the avoidance of real questions or real discussion as to the veracity of the holy books in question. Indeed, Ryrie begins his writing by admitting that his trust in the authority of the Bible “is a basic presupposition” (ibid 16). Therefore, his efforts in later chapters to prove that assumption are mere circular reasoning.

Indeed, fallacies abound throughout fundamentalism’s arguments for their doctrines and for the Bible. Ryrie exemplifies multiple fallacies in one quote:

If I come to the Bible with confidence that its words were breathed out by God and are therefore without errors, and if that confidence has been buttressed by years of proving the Bible totally reliable, then I won’t be shaken by a problem and I certainly will not conclude that it is in error. But if I think that there can be errors in the Bible, however few or many, then I will likely conclude that some of those problems are examples of errors. And even if there is only one, I have an errant Bible” (ibid 108).

The overall fallacy is one giant bogus dilemma, as he presents readers the choice between two opposites: either the reader accepts Ryrie’s proposed explanation for the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, or the reader must conclude that errors exist and that the Bible is not authoritative. Missing are viable alternatives. One could ostensibly believe the Bible is inerrant and come across error, or one could believe in the possibility of errors, search for errors, but never find one.

Additionally, Ryrie claims to have proved the perfection of the Bible by years of never having found an error. Ryrie’s inability to find an error illustrates the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which philosopher and logician Madsen Pirie described as an “appeal…to ignorance” that “is committed when we use our lack of knowledge about something in order to infer that its opposite is the case” (Pirie 92-3). Incidentally, Ryrie’s reaction to a potential error shows his a priori reasoning process as he intimates that his prior belief in inerrancy will dismiss the problem. Ryrie has so insulated himself from the very possibility that his view might be incorrect that his illogic poses no threat to his faith in his systematic understanding of God. Biblical contradictions raise no questions as to the Bible’s historicity or accuracy; they merely show the world’s attempts to undermine his faith and his ardent avoidance of the thought of total cessation of being.

The fundamental Christian has already sidestepped those potential contradictions, obvious logical flaws, and subsequent mindfulness of death with a foolproof method called the belief perseverance effect. Faced with new facts that contradict existing beliefs, fundamentalists like Ryrie simply dismiss those new facts with a priori reasoning. According to PhD Psychologists Shiraev and Levy, this approach is “not rational at all. Specifically, when our beliefs are being challenged, we a prone to feel that we personally are being challenged...[and] we tend to cling to our beliefs, sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence” (Shiraev and Levy 85-6). As one prominent fundamentalist pastor, Ernest Pickering, argued, “The Bible presents a faith which, while not irrational, is not the product of human reason, nor sustained by it” (Pickering 75-6). Belief perseverance is no mere phenomenon in fundamental Christianity, showing up in select individuals who were especially prone to such illogic. Pickering preempted any questions, facts, or evidences contrary to his existing beliefs by discounting reasoning and logic themselves. Belief perseverance is a central, foundational piece to fundamentalism’s approach to thought. They are taught by pastors similar to Pickering that employing belief perseverance by “discounting, denying, or simply ignoring any information that runs counter to [their] beliefs” (Shiraev and Levy 86) is actually godliness.

A priori belief perseverance precipitates this godliness, and fundamentalists apply it to questions regarding science as well. Without delving into the various arguments surrounding creation and evolution, one need look no further than Ryrie’s analysis of the question to know that further discussion is pointless. Ryrie argues that “whatever truths science may uncover can never be accepted as absolute truth” (Ryrie 206). No matter what verifiable scientific facts might be presented to the fundamentalist Christian, regardless of the topic, the Christian has been coached by pastors, theologians, and spiritual leaders in fundamentalism to reject scientific practice outright. In this way, those leaders maintain control over their constituents, because no outside facts are permitted to cloud the thinking of their followers.

Fundamentalists avoid their anxiety over their imminent death not only by refusing to consider alternatives to their views, but also by striving for conformity through isolation from dissenters and by suppressing any apparent contradictions. The immense pressure placed on both prospective converts and existing members intensifies with the threat of hell as the alternative to belief. This exemplifies an extreme version of the normative influence, which “leads people to conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant” (Kassin 227). This normative influence bringing conformity shelters fundamentalists from the alternative of death. To avoid pondering the possibility of their wrongness, many have separated themselves from that very possibility, for the anxiety created by the consciousness of impending death can be profound.

Pioneer psychologists and researchers Solomon, Pyszczynski, and Greenberg found that salience of death greatly affected Christians’ view of other people. They conducted studies in which “mortality was made salient to half of the subjects,…[and] mortality salience led to more positive evaluations of the in-group member (the Christian) and more negative evaluations of the out-group member (the Jew)” (Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon, 1990). This intergroup bias surfaces in most social issues confronted by fundamentalism. Since in-group/out-group bias is difficult to avoid in any circle, its presence alone might not be problematic if many in fundamentalism were fighting bias.

However, this bias does not merely occur in random sections of fundamental Christianity; intergroup bias, like belief perseverance, is mandated by their doctrine. Fundamentalists use the term separation instead of bias. Ernest Pickering argued that if someone “is teaching error and he cannot be persuaded to the truth, he must be excluded from fellowship” (Pickering 219). Other criteria warranting separation according to Pickering included those “walking in immorality” (ibid 219) and those who “failed to follow the prescribed rules and to maintain the required standards” (ibid 220). Essentially, fundamentalism requires a total separation from those who disagree with their dogmas, beliefs, morality, standards and practices. For fundamentalists, there can be no acceptance of differences, for this would lead to apostasy. In fact, many fundamental Presbyterians have enacted ecclesiastical separation for years to avoid apostasy (14^th General Assembly 52-72).

The intergroup bias resulting in total separation from opposing ideas is foundational to Christian fundamentalism. Fred Moritz, the executive director of the fundamental Christian Baptist World Mission, argues that “a militant spirit…is a necessary, greatly misunderstood, and oft opposed part of our faith and heritage” (Moritz 97-8). The militancy and separation required by fundamentalists isolates the followers of fundamentalism from dissent or people who disagree. All outsiders are cast into the category of unsaved, thus enforcing fundamentalism’s out-group homogeneity bias through detaching themselves and their fellowship from those out-group members. Many such Christians will quote Jesus’ admonition that “he who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad” (Matthew 12:30, NKJV) and apply it to anyone who disagrees with them on any matters of importance. This false dichotomy merely further separates the fundamentalist group from what is often termed the Other.

Professor Lilia Melani, of Brooklyn College, defines the Other as “an individual who is perceived by the group as not belonging, as being different in some fundamental way….The group…judges those who do not meet that norm…as the Other” (Melani). Such segregation and separation often results in prejudice: “the Other is almost always seen as lesser…inferior…less intelligent…or immoral” (Melani). Indeed, such prejudice frequents fundamental Christianity. Homosexuals are viewed as out-group and the Other. Famous fundamental Christian pastor John MacAurthur authored a book called Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong, and he argues that “gay and lesbian desires are…‘unnatural,’… [and] a person who is homosexual (gay or lesbian) or effeminate is not a true believer no matter how passionate their claim… [and] have an unresponsive and hostile heart when it comes to the truth” (MacAurthur 98-9, italics in original). The foundation for his denunciation of the gays who disagree with his view of truth rests on the term unnatural. This naturalistic argument lies at the very heart of their intergroup bias. Shiraev’s and Levy’s study on critical thinking outlined the naturalistic fallacy quite succinctly, citing Scottish philosopher David Hume’s research into the is-ought problem. As they point out, “our personal values can bias our thinking…when we equate our description of what is with our prescription of what ought to be” (Shiraev and Levy 82).

The fallacious nature of fundamentalists’ argumentation slows them only slightly. For set against the foundation of isolation from such opposing ideas or viewpoints, members of fundamentalist groups rarely encounter strong opposition, thereby avoiding their fear of mortality almost entirely. This avoidance of critical opposition creates some cognitive dissonance as bible-believing fundamentalists wrestle with biblical examples of persecution that early Christians faced. This often results in fundamentalists intentionally looking for persecution wherever they can find it, sometimes through their own invention or instigation. Moritz believes that “impending persecution” justifies “contend[ing] for [the faith] at any cost” (Moritz 101), and in the Bible Peter warns that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12, NKJV). Christians find such persecution at the hands of liberals who somehow refuse them the right to even say the word ‘Christmas’ (Gibson 1) or liberals who promote a “‘gay agenda’ in our postmodern era” (MacAurthur 98). Fundamentalists’ search for persecution yields persecution, which essentially creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their “expectations create reality” (Shiraev and Levy 74), and they believe that they are being persecuted. This in turn comforts them, because Jesus explicitly states that his followers “will be hated by all nations for [Jesus’] name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9, NKJV). Their comfort through persecution directly alleviates their fear of complete cessation of life and their fear of meaninglessness.

Fundamentalists fear the absolute cessation of consciousness so greatly that they go to great lengths to condemn non-believers to hell, ignore contradictions and opposing facts, and enforce conformity. Their methods are psychologically manipulative, as they rely heavily on mental control and fallacious reasoning. Their constituents remain isolated from those who would disagree, and fundamentalist leaders strictly enforce this separation. Sadly, this psychological, mental, and spiritual abuse merely compounds the eventual anxiety that will be produced when a fundamentalist does finally, truly consider death. They find ingenious ways of avoiding these death thoughts and putting them off indefinitely. As noted philosophical psychologist Ervin Yalom says, “Every person must choose how much truth he can stand” (Yalom 277). Apparently for fundamentalists, their choice involves only their preexisting suppositions. Other truths are simply too much.

Works Cited

Durant, W. (1977). The story of philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster. Print.

Edwards, Jonathan. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Calvin College Computer Science, 08-06-1741. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Gibson, John. The War on Christmas. New York: Sentinel HC, Penguin Books, 2005. Print.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory ii: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(1), 308-315. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-14626-001

Kassin, S., S. Fein, and H. R. Markus. Social psychology. 7th. Boston: Houghton Mifflin College Div, 2008. Print.

MarAurthur, John. Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2009. Print.

Melani, Lilia. "The Other." Core Curriculum 10.07; The Emergence of the Modern . Brooklyn College, 09 05 2009. Web. 11 Dec 2011. Meredith, J. L. (2009). Meredith's complete book of bible lists, a one-of-a-kind collection of bible facts. Bloomington: Bethany House.

Moritz, Fred. Contending for the Faith. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 2000. Print.

New King James Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979. Print.

Pickering, Ernest D. Biblical Separation, The Struggle For A Pure Church. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1979. Print.

Pirie, First. How To Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1969. Print.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology, A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth. La Habra: Moody Publisher Press, 1999. Print.

Shiraev, E., and D. A. Levy. Cross-cultural psychology, critical thinking and contemporary applications. 4th. Boston: Pearson College Div, 2010. Print.

Slick, Matthew. "Hell." Christian Apologetics Research Ministries. Carm: Christian Apologetics Research Ministries, 2011. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Stewart, David. "Billions of People are Going to Hell!." Jesus Is Savior. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Yalom, I. D. When nietzsche wept, a novel of obsession. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.

14th General Assembly. "APOSTASY AND ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION." PCA Digest. 1985: 52-72. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. .