Thursday, December 29, 2011

The Divinty of Jesus Christ


The Divinity of Jesus Christ


There are those within the world that make the assertion that Jesus Christ is not God but a created being.  One organization that comes to mind is the cult of the Jehovah Witnesses.  They look at the Christ as being the first being that God created.  He is a lesser god if you will.  These assertions about the Lord are a direct assault upon the nature and character of God.  If their claims are true, than God is a liar and deceiver and should not be worshiped in any type fashion.  Here, I present some arguments to establish the claim that indeed Jesus Christ was and is God.
 
I) His direct claims to Deity
    1) Introduction: Who is Jesus?
        A) Philip Yancey states, “It occurs to me that all the contorted theories about
             Jesus that have been spontaneously generating since the day of His death
             merely confirm the risk God took when He stretched himself out on the
             discussion table-a risk He seemed to welcome.  Examine me, test me,
             you decide.
        B) The writers of scripture invite us to examine this person Jesus for ourselves
             and to conclude for ourselves His significance.  But we cannot focus the
             investigation just on His teachings or works.  First and foremost we must
             focus the investigation on His identity.
        C) Jesus does not fit the mold of any other religious leader.  He does not fit
             the mold because no other religious leader claimed to be God.  Jesus is the
             only one that made this claim and He is the only one who has ever convinced
             a great portion of the world that He was God.
        D) How could a man make others think that He was God?
    2) The Trial
        A) Mark 14:61-64
        B) Lawyers and Judges have examined this trial, their conclusions are as follows
            1) Judge Gaynor, jurist of the New York bench, maintains that it was the
                 crime of blasphemy made against Jesus: “It is plain from each of the
                 gospel narratives, that the alleged crime for which Jesus was tried and
                 convicted was blasphemy:...Jesus had been claiming supernatural
                 power, which in a human being was blasphemy” (John 10:33).
                 His reference was to Jesus making himself God and not to what
                 Jesus said concerning the temple. (Deland, MTJ, 118-19).
            2) A.T. Robertson says “Jesus accepts the challenge and admits that He
                 claims to be all three (the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God).
                 ‘Ye say’ is just a Greek idiom for ‘Yes’ (compare ‘I AM’ in Mark        14:62
                 with ‘Thou hast said’ in Matt. 26:64).” (Robertson, WPNT, 277)
            3) H.B. Swete, in explaining why the high priest tore his garments in reply
                to what Jesus said, “The law forbade the High Priest to rend his garment
                in private troubles (Lev. 10:6; 21:10), but when acting as a judge, he
                was required by custom to express in this way his horror of any
                blasphemy uttered in his presence.  The relief of the embarrassed judge
                is manifest.  If trustworthy evidence was not forthcoming, the necessity
                for it had now been superceded: the Prisoner had incriminated Himself.”
                (Swete, GASM, 339).
            4) Hilarin Felder, “This inspection of the trial of Jesus should be sufficient
                to give us the invincible conviction that the Savior confessed His true
                divinity before His judges.” (Felder, CAC, 299-300).
            5) Craig Blombreg notes, “ Jesus may even be indicting his interrogators
                by this way of phrasing things.  But he does not stop here.  He goes on
                 to add, “and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of
                 Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”.  This reply combines
                 allusions to Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1.  In this context, “Son of
                 man” means far more than a simple human being.  Jesus is describing
                 Himself as the “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of
                 heaven” who “approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his
                 presence” and given authority and power over all humanity, leading
                 to universal worship and everlasting dominion (Dan 7:13-14).  This
                 claim to be far more than a mere mortal is probably what elicited the
                 verdict of blasphemy from the Jewish high court. (Blomberg, JG, 341-
                 43).  It is implied, if not expressly stated, that in Daniels vision this
                 being was enthroned, Jesus linked these two scriptures when the high
                 priest challenged Him to declare His identity.
            6) We can see that this was the testimony that Jesus wanted to bear of
                 Himself.  We can also see that the Jews must have understood exactly
                 what Jesus was implying by their actions.  It was either Jesus was
                 claiming divinity for Himself, which would have been blasphemy,
                 or He was, in fact, God.  His accusers seen this so perfectly that they
                 had Him crucified.
            7) We need to remember that the Jews were not a sect of ignorant
                 people.  They were highly cultured and an intensely religious people.
                 Jesus laid claim to Deity and it was because of this that His death was
                 decreed by the Sanhedrin.

II) Other Claims
    1) Equality with the Father
        A) John 10:25-33
            1) In this account the Jews clearly understood what Jesus’ was claiming.
            2) Their response, just as with the trial, shows us that they fully understood
                 His words.
            3) Of interest, the word ‘one’ comes from the Greek word hen which is
                 neuter and speaks of one essence, not one person.  The Father and the
                 Son share a oneness of divine essence and yet remain two separate and
                 distinct Persons within the Godhead.
            4) From all this it is evident that in the minds of those that heard the
                 statement, there was no doubt that Jesus was claiming before them
                 that He was God. 
            5) Lev. 24:16; states that the punishment for blasphemy was to be stoned.
                 They were prepared to stone Him for His claim.
        B) John 5:17-18
            1) The Jews were angry because of His violation of the Sabbath, but they
                 were furious when He made the claim to equality with the Father.
            2) The Jews did not refer to God as “My Father” If they did, they would
                 qualify the statement with “in heaven”.  However, this Jesus did not do.
                 He made a claim that the Jews could not mistake when He called God
                 “My Father.”  His claim was to a unique relationship.  Just as a human
                 father’s son is fully human, God’s Son must be fully God.
        C) John 8:58
            1) The expression of “Verily, verily” is a double amen.  It is the strongest
                 oath that one can give. 
            2) “I Am” refers to the name of God Himself, (Ex. 3:14).  It is clear that
                 this is no new idea that Jesus is presenting.  The Jews were quite
                 familiar with this concept of God.  Here we find Jesus using this
                 label to identify Himself. 
            3) We can see from the reaction of the Jews that were gathered, verse
                 59 indicates that they took up stones.  This again was in accord with
                 the Old Law (Lev. 24:13-16). In which one found to blaspheme was
                 to be stoned.
            4) Another thought is in the fact that Jesus did not try to clarify His
                 statement in an attempt to make sure that they understood what He
                 was stating.  There was no need to do such, they understood that He
                 was claiming to be God.
        D) John 5:23-24
            1) In the last part of this verse Jesus thrusts a warning at those who
                 accuse Him of blasphemy.  He tells them that by hurling abuse at Him,
                 they are actually hurling it at God, and that it is God who is outraged
                 by their treatment of Jesus.
            2) We also see that Jesus claims the right to be worshiped as God.  From
                 this it follows that to dishonor Jesus is to dishonor God.
        E) Sermon on the mount
            1) Matt. 5:20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 44
            2) In these scriptures, Jesus teaches and speaks in His own name.  By
                 doing so, He elevated the authority of His words directly to heaven.
            3) Instead of repeating the prophets by saying “Thus saith the Lord’,
                 Jesus repeated, “but I say unto you,”.  This puts His words as equal
                 to God’s word (Mark 13:31).
    2) Worshiped as God
        A) Worship is reserved for God alone
            1) To fall down in homage is the greatest act of adoration and worship
                 that can be performed for God (John 4:20-22; Acts 8:27)
            2) John 8:24 states that people must worship God in spirit and truth
            3) Matt. 4:10; God is the only one to whom we can give worship to.
        B) Jesus received worship as God and accepted it.
            1) Matt. 8:2
            2) John 9:35-39
            3) Matt. 14:33
            4) John 20:27-29
        C) Others would not accept worship
            1) Acts 10:25-26
            2) Rev. 19:10
        D) As we can see, Jesus was and accepted worship from others as if He were
             God. 
    3) Comparison of titles given
    Of Jehovah God        Mutual Title        Of Jesus
    Is. 40:28                   Creator               John 1:3
    Is. 45:22; 43:11        Savior                 John 4:42
    I Sam. 2:6                 Raise dead         John 5:21
    Joel 3:12                   Judge                 John 5:27
    Is. 60:19-20              Light                  John 8:12
    Ex. 3:14                    I Am                  John 8:58
    Ps. 23:1                    Shepherd           John 10:11
    Is. 42:8                     Glory of God     John 17:1,5
    Is. 41:4; 44:6            First and last       Rev. 1:17; 2:8
    Hosea 13:14             Redeemer          Rev. 5:9
    Is. 62:5                     Bridegroom       Matt. 25:1
    Ps. 18:2                    Rock                 I Cor. 10:4
    Jer. 31:34                 Forgiver of sins    Mark 2:7,10
    Ps. 148:2                 Worshiped by Angels    Heb. 1:6
    Throughout OT        Addressed in prayer    Acts 7:59
    Ps. 148:5                 Creator of angels    Col. 1:16
    Is. 45:23                  Confessed as God    Phil 2:11

III) Support of Deity: The Great Proposition
    1) If God became a man, what would we expect from Him?
        A) He would have an utterly unique entrance into the world
        B) He would be without sin
        C) He would manifest His supernatural presence in the form of supernatural
             acts: miracles
        D) He would speak the greatest words ever spoken
        E) He would have a lasting and universal influence
        F) He would satisfy the spiritual hunger in humanity                                                                     
    2) It is only in Jesus that we can find all 8 of these propositions clearly in His person.
    3) Examination of propositions
        A) Entrance into the world
            1) Every man woman and child have been conceived through natural
                 processes.  That is the union of the male sperm and the female egg.
                 This is not so of Jesus.  He was conceived while His mother was yet
                 a virgin.  He had no earthly biological father.
            2) The Bible gives the testimony of the virgin birth.  The main body
                 of evidence is in the accounts of Matt. And Luke.  However, the OT
                 did predict the Messiah’s unique conception hundreds of years before
                 the event.  Is. 7:14 and Gen 3:15.
            3) Gen 3:14
                a) This is the first prophecy of the coming Messiah that is recorded
                     in the scriptures.  Here God promises that it would be the
                     seed of WOMAN that would bruise the head of the serpent.
                b) It is clear from the text that the Savior would come from a
                     virgin.  It is stated from the seed of woman and not of man.
                       The distinction seems to be purposeful in nature.  If He were
                     to be conceived in a purely natural way the term man would
                     have been used.  Yet the seed of woman eliminates this
                     possibility.
            4) Is. 7:14
                a) This is a much clearer prophecy of the Saviors entrance into the
                     world.  It states that a virgin will conceive and bear a child.
                     That child was to be the Messiah, Immanuel, God with us.
                b) There has been much confusion as to the correct meaning of
                     Almah, which is the word that is translated virgin.
                c) I believe that this is really a none issue for our study.  We can
                     return to it in the future.  I can say this that the word is correctly
                     translated virgin.
            5) It is obvious that Jesus is the only one in history that has had such a
                 unique entrance into the world.  No other person has come in such a
                 fashion.
        B) Without sin
            1) It is admitted by all that God cannot sin.  It goes against His divine
                 nature.  This is the only reason that people will be in the eternal
                 Gehenna. 
            2) Therefore, if Jesus is God, we would expect for Him to be without
                 sin.
            3) Jesus view of Himself
                a) John 8:46; “Which of you convinceth me of sin?”  When He
                     asked this question, He got no answer.  He invited them to
                     accuse Him and was found innocent.  Jesus was the only one
                     who could encourage such public examination since He was
                     without sin.
                b) John 8:29; “And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath
                     not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.”
                     Jesus lived in unbroken communion with God.
                c) We are told of the temptation of Jesus in Matt. 4 and Luke 4 but
                     we are never informed of His sin.  We never hear Him
                     confessing or asking for forgiveness, yet He tells His disciples
                     to do so.  He had no sense of quilt that accompanies a sin
                     nature as with us.
            4) Views of others
                a) 1 Peter 1:19
                b) 1 Peter 2:22
                c) 1 John 3:5
                d) Luke 23:41
                e) Luke 23:14
                f) Luke 23:22
                g) Luke 23:47
        C) Supernatural acts-miracles
            1) If Jesus were God, He would have control over all of the physical
                 elements.  We would expect for Him to be able to do miracles.
            2) Recorded miracles of physical healing
                a) Matt. 8:2-4 lepers
                b) Matt. 9:2-8; paralytic
                c) Matt. 8:14-17; Peters mother-in-law
                d) John 4:46-53; a son
                e) John 5:1-9; physical infirmity
            3) Miracles in the natural realm
                a) John 2:1-11; water into wine
                b) Matt. 8:23-27; stilling of a storm
                c) Luke 5:1-11; catching of fish
                d) Matt. 14:22,23; walking on water
                e) Matt. 21:18-22; withering of the fig tree
            4) Miracles of raising the dead
                a) Matt. 9:18-26; Jairus’s daughter
                b) Luke 7:11-15; widow’s son
                c) John 11:38-44; Lazarus
        D) Greatest and most important words
            1) If Jesus was God we would expect for His words to be true, forceful,
                 and everlasting. 
            2) True
                a) John 8:31-32; Jesus proclaims that His word is truth.  This claim
                     of Jesus can be supported in many ways.
                b) The sermon on the mount is a great example of this.  Here He
                     shows how man is to live his life.  It has been said that if all of
                     mankind were to live by His words, we would have peace of
                     earth.  This can be said of no other person.  Neither Plato,
                     Socrates, Aristotle, Buda, Confucius, or Mohamed has
                     spoken in such a way.
                c) Jesus spoke of the true intents of the hearts of those to who he
                     came.  John 4:6-29; Matt. 23:13-36; Matt. 15:1-9
                d) In Matt. 24 Jesus speaks the truth as to the destruction of the
                     temple and warns those who would listen to Him to leave
                     as quickly as possible.  We learn from history that this happened
                     and those who understood His words fled from the city just
                     before it happened.
            3) Forceful
                a) Heb. 4:12
                    1) The writer states that it is the Word of God that has
                         these attributes.
                    2) It is powerful
                    3) It can divide the soul and spirit
                    4) It can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart
                b) James 1:19-27
                    1) It is the Word of God that is able to save the soul
                    2) The Word of God is the perfect law of liberty
                    3) It is through God’s word that we are able to see who
                         we really are in the sight of God.
                c) John 16:7-11
                    1) Jesus here makes the claim that the Comforter (which
                         is the Holy Spirit) will reprove the world of sin.  Just
                         how will this be accomplished?
                    2) Verses 13-15 show us the process of transmission from
                         the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit to the apostles
                         In this way we see that it is through the apostles
                         teachings that this would be accomplished.  It was
                         through the words of the apostles that this happens
                         (Acts 2:14-47)
                d) With this we can make the claim that the Word of God is
                     indeed powerful.  It is the most powerful force on earth.
                e) It has the power and force to transform the lives of those who
                     hear and accept it.
                f) Does the words of Jesus have the same effect?
                    1) The disciples
                    2) Women at the well (John 4:1-29)
                    3) Samaritans (John 4:39-42)
                    4) Woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-9)
        E) Lasting and universal influence
            1) No new ethical teachings have been given in spite of all the progress
                 of thought.
            2) He never wrote a book, yet there are volumes of books that have been
                 written about Him.
            3) He never founded a college, yet if we put all the students of all the
                 schools together, it cannot boast as having as many students.
            4) He never amassed an army, drafted a soldier, yet no other leader
                 in history has had more volunteers.
            5) He was not a psychiatrist, yet He has healed more hearts than all
                 combined.
            6) Today, His word is still the best selling book.
            7) Medical institutions have been established in His name all over the
                 world.
        F) Satisfy the spiritual hunger of humanity
            1) It is inescapable, man has a desire to worship something
            2) This is well documented throughout history.
                a) Roman gods
                b) Greek gods
                c) Norse gods
                d) Mother nature
                e) Satan
                   f) Pyramids of Mexico
                g) Shrines in India
                h) Animals
            3) It seems to be hard wired into man to worship something that is
                 greater than himself.
            4) We would expect for God to satisfy this desire.  If so then does Jesus
                 accomplish this?
            5) Of course He does.  It can be shown inquiring anyone who worships
                 Him.
            6) The difference is in the fact that He fills this void in mankind unlike
                 any other.
                a) He gives us peace of mind and heart in this life which no
                    other source can.  In all other types of worship, this cannot
                                           be said.  In the list above, we see that most of these gods
                     never could impart this to the people.
                b) Look to your own selves.
        G) In all of these items, we find that it is Christ and Christ alone that fits. 
             Therefore we can make the claim that He is God.

IV) Conclusion
    1) Jesus made the claim that He is God
    2) Others also made the claim
    3) The evidence from scripture supports this claim without contradiction.
    4) The things that we would expect of God have been shown in Christ   
    5) We have no remaining conclusion to make except to conclude that He is God.

Monday, December 19, 2011

The Historical Christ, An Examination

I) Introduction
    1) There have been many in history that have expressed the idea that Jesus did
         not actually exist. 
    2) They try to make Him a myth, and therefore, make all of Christianity a myth.
    3) It seems odd that this would be the case.  Yet, in my experience, I have had
        many a conversation with those who express this idea.
    4) The only way to examine this subject is to go to the ones whole lived at that
         time.  There is evidence for His existence.  It is in the writings of that time.

II) Secular Evidence (Documentary)
    1) Cornelius Tactitus (55-120)
        A) He was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the
             reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors.  Considered one of the
             greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tactitus verifies the Biblical
             account of Jesus’ execution at the hands of Pontius Pilot who governed
             Judea from 26-36 AD during the reign of Tiberius.
        B) In his Annals XV, 44 he writes the following:
             “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilot,
             procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.  But the pernicious
             superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea
             where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”
    2) What this passage reveals
        A) Jesus did exist
        B) Jesus was the founder of Christianity
        C) Jesus was put to death by Pilate
        D) Christianity originated in Judea (with Jesus)
        E) Christianity later spread to Rome
    3) Skeptic Interjections
        A) Could Tactitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
            1) No
            2) Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a
                 commentator, it is more likely Tactitus referenced government records
                 over Christian testimony.
            3) It is also possible that he received some of his info from his friend
                 and fellow historian, Pliny the Younger.
            4) However, even if Tactitus referenced some of Pliny’s sources, it
                 would be out of his character to have done so without critical
                 investigation.  An example of such in AnnalsXV, 55
            5) Tactitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts
                 almost 70 times in his History.  If he felt this account of Jesus
                 was only a rumor, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this
                 account was unverified.
        B) Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
            1) No
            2) Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely.
            3) Tactitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and insuppressible
                 mischief.
            4) Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Annals that does not
                 contain this passage. 
            5) There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage
        C) Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of perfect negate his reliability
            1) No
            2) Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to
                 Pilot as a procurator
                a) Antiquities XVIII, 3:1; “But now Pilate, the procurator of
                     Judea...”
                b) The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2; “Now Pilot, who was sent as
                      procurator into Judea by Tiberius...”
                c) First apology XII; “Pontius Pilot, procurator of Judea, in the
                     time of Tiberius Caesar...”
            3) It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that
                 Tactitu was either using and anachronism for the sake of clarity or
                 since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province,
                 Pilate might have held both positions.

    4) Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (69-130 AD)
        A) He was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman
             Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns.
        B) He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the
             Imperial House.
        C) He records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome and confirms the
             Christian faith being founded by Christ.
        D) In life of Claudius 25:4; he writes:
             “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of
             Chrestus.  Claudius expelled them from Rome.”
    5) Skeptical interjections
        A) Because he misspells Christus as Chrestus, is it possible he was referring to
             someone else?
            1) Because Chestus was an actual Greek name, critics speculate he may
                 have been referring to a specific civil agitator.
            2) This cannot be the case for the following:
                a) In the original Latin, the passage looks like this:
                     “Iudaeos (The Jews) impulsore (the instigation) Chresto
                     (Chrestus) assidue (upon) tumultuantis (making a disturbance)
                     Roma (Rome) expulit (were expelled).”
                b) He seems to imply the word Chrestus as a title-not as a
                     reference to a particular rebel.  Critics sometimes site this
                     passage as “a certain/one Chrestus”.  We can see that this is
                     incorrect by the lack of the word quodam in the original.
                c) He uses the word instigation and not instigator
                d) It was common for both pagan and Christian authors to spell the
                     name using an e or an I.  Of course we know to whom Christian
                     authors were referring to.
                e) Tertullian criticizes pagan disdain for Christianity and points
                     out the fact they can’t even spell the name correctly.  He implies
                     the common misspelling of Chrestus by their use of the term
                     Chrestians: “Most people so blindly knock their heads against
                     the hatred of the Christian name...It is wrongly pronounced by
                     you as “Chrestians” (for you do not even know accurately the
                     name you hate)...But the special ground of dislike to the sect is,
                     that it bears the name of its founder.” Apology, chapter III.
                f) We also see Justin Martyr using the incorrect spelling
        B) How could this passage refer to Jesus.  He was never said to have traveled
             to Rome.
            1) If Chrestus does refer to a title and not a specific person, there is no
                 need for Him to be in Rome.
            2) A leader can still be an instigator for a cause without being in the
                 vicinity.
            3) There are many causes that have survived long after the lives of those
                 who initiated the movements.

    6) Thallus (-52 AD)
        A) His works now only exist in fragments.
        B) Yet we know of his thoughts because Julius Africanus takes issue with him
             over his explanation of the midday darkness which occurred during the
             Passover of Jesus crucifixion.
        C) Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence (solar eclipse)
             but Africanus argues (and any astronomer can confirm) a solar eclipse cannot
             physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets.
        D) He also states that the event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
        E) In Chronography XVIII, 47;
            “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness.  The rocks
            were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts
            were thrown down.  This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his history,
            calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.  For the
            Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and
            the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover.  But an
            eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun.
            And it cannot happen at any other time...Phlegon records that, in the time
            of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from
            the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak.
        F) Skeptic interjection
            1) Why doesn’t Pliny the Elder or Seneca mention this event?
                a) Pliny focused his writings on natural events that had
                     scientific explanations.  It is doubtful he would have
                     mentioned an event of supernatural origin.
                b) There is no evidence that he was in or around Judea at
                     that time so it is doubtful he would have mentioned it if
                     he had not witnessed it for himself.
                c) Seneca focused his writings on dramas, dialogue, and tragedies
                     but also wrote a meteorological essay.  Natural Questions which
                     is composed of theories pertaining to ancient cosmology.  However this was by no                    means complete record, it is a literary work                                                        
        G) Because Thallus works exist only in fragments, can his testimony be reliable?
            1) That is the problem with ancient texts.
            2) We do know, however, that Africanus was an honest, qualified author
                 who did not alter the quotes to serve his purpose.
            3) His methods were highly respected by his peers and was often quoted
                 by other authors.
            4) It must also be noted that Thallus did not deny that this eclipse did not
                 happen.  He was trying to actually come up with a scientific explanation for the eclipse.
    7) Pliny the Younger (63-113 AD)
        A) In his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny admits to torturing and executing
             Christians who refused to deny Christ.
        B) Those who denied charges were spared and ordered to exalt Roman gods
             and curse the name of Christ.
        C) Pliny addresses his concerns to the Emperor that too many citizens were
             being killed for their refusal to deny their faith.
        D) Here is the letter
         Pliny to Emperor Trajan

     It is customary for me, sir, to refer to you in all matters wherein I have a doubt. Who truly is better able to rule my hesitancy, or to instruct my ignorance? I was never present at examinations of Christians, therefore I do not know what is customarily punished, nor to what extent, nor how far to take the investigation. I was quite undecided; should there be any consideration given to age; are those who are however delicate no different from the stronger? Should penitence obtain pardon; or, as has been the case particularly with Christians, to desist makes no difference? Should the name itself be punished (even if crimes are absent), or the crimes that go with the name?
     Meanwhile, this is the method I have followed with those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them directly if they were Christians. The ones who answered affirmatively I questioned again with a warning, and yet a third time: those who persisted I ordered led [away]. For I have no doubt, whatever else they confessed to, certainly [this] pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There were others alike of madness, whom I noted down to be sent to the City, because they were Roman citizens. Soon in consequence of this policy itself, as it was made standard, many kinds of criminal charges occurred and spread themselves abroad. A pamphlet was published anonymously, containing the names of many.
     Those who denied that they were or ever had been Christians, when they swore before me, called on the gods and offered incense and wine to your image (which I had ordered brought in for this [purpose], along with images of the gods), and also cursed Christ (which, it is said, it is impossible to force those who are real Christians to do) I thought worthy to be acquitted. Others named by an informer, said they had been Christians, but now denied [it]; certainly they had been, but had lapsed, some three years ago, some more; and more than one [lit. not nobody] over twenty years ago. These all worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.
     They stated that the sum of their guilt or error amounted to this, that they used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god, and that they took an oath not to involve themselves in villainy, but rather to commit no theft, no fraud, no adultery; not to break faith, nor to deny money placed with them in trust. Once these things were done, it was their custom to part and return later to eat a meal together, innocently, although they stopped this after my edict, in which I, following your mandate, forbade all secret societies.
     All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition.
     Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you. For it appears to me a proper matter for counsel, most greatly on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger, and shall be [in future]. And not only the cities; the contagion of this superstition is spread throughout the villages and the countryside; but it appears to me possible to stop it and put it right. Certainly the temples which were once deserted are beginning to be crowded, and the long interrupted sacred rites are being revived, while food from the sacrifices is selling, for which up to now a buyer was hardly to be found. From which it may easily be supposed, that what disturbs men can be mended, if a place is allowed for repentance.
        E) Skeptical interjection
            1) How does dying for one’s belief verify the actual existence of Jesus?
                The sincerity of a belief does not necessarily make the belief true.
                 How does this letter specifically confirm a historical Jesus and not
                 just the existence of Christians in Rome?
                a) Pliny states the Christians worshiped Christ as if he were a god.
                     This indicates one who would not normally be considered a
                     god, such as a human who was exalted to divine status.
                b) The early Christians would have been in the position to know
                     if Jesus was a historical figure or not.
                c) There would have been a lot more evidence available to them
                     then we have today.
                d) According to early historians, Jesus’ great-nephews and other
                       relatives were still alive as well as the associates of the apostles.
                     Such individuals could easily verify His existence.
                e) Documents which have been lost to us were still in existence
                     and were even referenced by early authors who wrote about
                     Jesus.
            2) Pliny also states some recanted their testimony.  Perhaps they did so
                 because they knew Jesus was a myth?
                a) He readily admits to torturing some of the accused.
                b) The accused knew if they did not recant they would be put to
                     death.  Fallible human reasoning, confess and go home and
                     work it out later.
                c) The correspondence implies many of the accused were being
                     turned in falsely by their enemies.  Some were never Christians
                     to begin with while some had already left the faith.
                d) Just because some who may have recanted out of fear or poor
                     judgement does not dismiss the deaths of the others who were
                     certain of Jesus’ existence and died because of their knowledge.
    8) Celsus (-178 AD)
        A) He was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity.
             He went to great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus yet never denied
             His actual existence.  There are two important facts regarding Celsus which
             make him one of the most important witnesses in the discussion.
            1) Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian
                 interpolations, we can accept with certainty that this is not the case
                 with Celsus.  The sheer volumes of his writings coupled with the
                 hostile accusations presented in his work dismiss this chance.
            2) The idea of Celsus getting his info entirely from Christian sources
                 is wholly absurd.  Though he is obviously aware of his opponents’
                 beliefs, he wrote his exposition in the form of a dialogue between
                 a “Jewish Critic” and himself.  This gives us cause to believe he
                 used non-Christian sources.
        B) Some excerpts from his writings
1) On Jesus' Miracles: "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt.
While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at
possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was
by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a
few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of
certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."
    a) Not only does Celsus confirm His existence, he also tries to
         debate the source of the miracles.
    b) Celsus tries to dismiss the miracles as demonic possession and
         cheap parlor tricks
2)On the Virgin Birth: "Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor
Jewess who gained her living by the work of her hands. His mother had been turned out
by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a Roman soldier named Panthera]. Being thus driven away by her husband,
and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard."
    a) Celsus acknowledges the birth and existence of Jesus but does
         not accept the concept of the virgin birth.
    b) He tries to dismiss Mary’s premarital pregnancy as the result
         of an affair with a Roman soldier.
3)On the Apostles: "Jesus gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious
character... tax-collectors, sailors, and fishermen... [He was] deserted and delivered up by
those who had been his associates, who had him for their teacher, and who believed he
was the savior and son of the greatest God... Those who were his associates while alive, who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him
subjected to punishment and death, neither died with nor for him... but denied that they
were even his disciples, lest they die along with Him."
    a) Celsus’ intentions were to argue that if the disciples really
         believed Jesus, they would not have forsaken Him.
    b) Instead, he only confirms the Biblical accounts
    c) The Bible tells us that they did forsake Him, yet after His
         resurrection, they understood the spiritual nature of His
         teachings and bodily went and preached the Gospel.
4)On the Crucifixion: "Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of
wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been."
    a) In this statement, Celsus confirms Jesus’ death by crucifixion
         although he claims the only wounds He received were those
         inflicted by the crucifixion.
        C) Skeptical interjection
            1)Celsus also states, "It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well enough constructed to conceal this                                                           
                monstrous fiction." How do we know Celsus is referring to a historical Jesus and not just debating myth?                                                                                                                        
                a) Celsus says of Jesus that He was only a man-not a myth.
                b) Instead of denying the events, he offers alternative theories to
                     the early Christian claims.
                c) If he were discussing a mythical person, he would never have
                     gone to such great lengths to discredit the events in His life.
                d) It would have been much easier to just say He was a myth and
                     leave it at that.
                e) The fables he refers to is his belief that the claims such as the
                     virgin birth were myths created by the early Christians, not that
                     Jesus was a myth.  He was debating the claim of divinity and
                      not His actual existence.
    9) Lucian of Samosata (120-180 AD)
        A) A noted satirist of the second century, spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. Samosata referred to Jesus as a man who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced a new cult into the world, forcing his adherents to deny the Greek gods and worship Himself, once He was killed.
        B)“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was  impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from  the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property." (The Passing Peregrinus)
        C) This passage confirms the following
            1) Jesus did exist
            2) Jesus was the founder of Christianity
            3) Jesus was worshiped by His followers
            4) Jesus suffered death by crucifixion
        D) Skeptical interjection
            1) Can we consider this testimony reliable?
                a) His commentary revolved around historical events.
                b) In his work “The Way to Write History”, he openly
                     criticizes others who distort history to latter their
                     masters or those who fill in the historical gaps with personal
                     conjecture           
            "The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened... He may nurse
              some private dislikes, but he will attach far more importance to the public
              good, and set the truth high above his hate... For history, I say again, has this and only this for its own. If a man will start upon it, he must sacrifice    to no God but Truth. He must neglect all else."

III) Common Skeptical Questions

    1) WHY IS THERE NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR PERSONAL WRITINGS TO      VERIFY JESUS' HISTORICITY?
   
The Bible has been accused on several occasions of committing historical errors but has later
been proven accurate through archaeological finds. For instance, the Old Testament mentions a
tribe of people known as the Hittites. Skeptics pointed out there was no such civilization in
history yet in the 19th century records of the Hittites were discovered within Assyrian ruins.
Today we know a lot about the Hittites such as their language, craftsmanship, geography, and empire chronology. The New Testament mentions the pool of Bethesda as a place
where Jesus healed a paralytic. No such location was known to exist until it was discovered in
Jerusalem as a place where the sick would gather to seek healing. Just because an artifact has not
yet been recovered does not mean none exist. Lastly, though the discovery of an artifact may be
interesting, it would never be enough for the devout skeptic. Even a non-biased archaeologist would have a hard time proving a relic's authenticity.

In regards to personal writings, Socrates, for example, exists only in the writings of his students.
There is not a single document still in existence that contains his original works. If we apply the
same logic with Socrates skeptics use to determine Jesus' historicity, we must assume Socrates
was a figment of the imagination of his students. But if we are to accept Socrates as a historical
figure based on four secondary accounts, we must also accept Jesus as a historical figure whose
life was documented by His disciples, historians, and those who rejected His divine claims. When skeptics claim there is a difference between a man such as Socrates and Jesus, they
would be absolutely correct- Jesus had more accounts written about Him.

AREN'T THE WRITINGS THAT REFER TO JESUS JUST HEARSAY ACCOUNTS?

Critics claim because some accounts were recorded after Jesus' life they cannot be considered
historically reliable. But this skepticism comes from a misunderstanding of antiquity. We need to
place ourselves in a time where 95% of the population was illiterate. If I really wanted to get this
research across to the typical English speaking American, I would not post this website in Latin!
Likewise, documenting the Gospels preserved the accounts for future generations but oral
evangelism was the practical method in making the Gospel available to the current population. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus' ascension or 30 years later, the
fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original
witnesses who could confront heretical accounts.

Jesus also concentrated His ministry in various provinces of Judea- not secular hubs of the
ancient world like Rome or Alexandria. Christianity spread into the surrounding areas after the
life of Jesus. I would be far more suspicious of a Roman historian writing an excerpt about Jesus
in 30 A.D. rather approximately 95 A.D. when Christianity had reached Rome. When critics
argue the only first hand accounts of Jesus' life are found in the Bible, it makes me wonder where
else they think should be. Jesus' ministry only lasted three years and was limited to Judea (considered the ghetto of the Roman Empire). There would have been no reason given the short
time frame and limited area of Jesus' ministry to have been exhaustively recorded in Roman
literature without the accusation of forgery.

WHAT ABOUT THE LACK OF EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING HIS LIFE?

Critics mention two important events that appear not to be recorded in secular history: the
darkness that occurred after Jesus' crucifixion and the slaughter of the innocents by Herod the
Great. As stated previously in this discussion, the midday darkness which occurred after Jesus'
death is mentioned by the secular historian Thallus and Phlegon (though they try to dismiss the
event as a solar eclipse). The event is also mentioned by Christian apologists Origen and Philopon but I only focused on the secular accounts due to their critical origins.

The shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would
have recorded such an event. Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those
he believed had ambitions of attaining his throne. Herod even murdered his two sons of
Maccabean heritage for fear they would overthrow him. History shows Herod was a very
paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his position. If he had ordered the slaughter of all males under two years of age, it would have been well within his
character. We must also realize that Bethlehem was a small village- not a raging metropolis. If
the village only had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the
number of males under the age of two around twenty in number.

But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event. Where is the actual
evidence that this event occurred? If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew
reliable, we can accept his version of the events. But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:

"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the
age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd
rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s son.'" Macrobius

Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking
place in Syria and combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons. Because Palestine was
considered a Syrian province at the time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of
Bethlehem. Due to the difference between Macrobius' and Matthew's account and knowing
Macrobius was a pagan, we can assume Macrobius used an independent source for his writings.


WHY IS THERE NO PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OR DEPICTION OF JESUS ANYWHERE IN ANTIQUITY?

Critics cite the lack of a physical description of Jesus as evidence that He never existed. In fact,
the only reference to His human appearance is a prophecy found in Isaiah! Yet, the fact there is
no known physical depiction of Jesus doesn't mean He never existed. Even if a painting or
sculpture did exist it's authenticity would certainly be disputed. Furthermore, many other figures
of antiquity have no contemporary image depicting their appearance yet we can believe they existed.

Even if there were entire manuscripts dedicated to detailing Jesus' appearance or museums filled
with first century artwork depicting Jesus, it still would not prove He existed. There are paintings
and sculptures of mythological Greek and Egyptian deities, fairy tale creatures, and fictional ,
characters of literature. Aphrodite Paul Bunyan, Dorian Gray, Isis, and Peter Pan all have artwork
depicting their appearances yet they are imaginary figures. A physical depiction or lack of one neither proves nor disproves one's existence.

A very good reason there may be no images of Jesus is to prevent the sin of idolatry. Original
images of Jesus would certainly be considered holy relics by some people. Many believers would
turn their attention away from Jesus as the Son of God to the man-made images of an earthly Jesus.

WHY DON'T ANY AUTHORS SPECIFICALLY ATTEST TO JESUS' HISTORICITY?


If I was to write a biography of a historical figure, Adolph Hitler for example, I would find it
unnecessary to dedicate an entire chapter to quotes, photographs, and sources which confirm his
existence. To us, he is known to be a historical figure. I would have to anticipate 2,000 years
from now there would be those who would doubt he ever existed. We know that only 65 years after the Holocaust there are people who deny its scope (even when faced with mounds of
evidence that verify the tragedy)! The authors of antiquity were discussing a figure known to
exist. The burden of proof revolved around Jesus' divinity- not existence- as we can see in the
above testimony. The authors had no reason to even suspect His actual existence would one day be in question.

I would also like to mention there is no text from this period of antiquity that argues Jesus did not
exist. The easiest way to silence the early Christians would be to prove the focal point of their
beliefs was a lie- but this never happened! Even the secular authors listed on this page do not argue Jesus' existence.

WHAT ABOUT THE AUTHORS WHO DO NOT MENTION JESUS?

This argument leads to the false assumption that any author who was a contemporary of Jesus
would find it necessary to write about Him. We could dissect every single author of Jesus'
lifetime, but because others have already done so, I will simply give a brief synopsis. The three authors commonly mentioned are Pliny the Elder,
Seneca, and Philo Judeaus:

   1. Pliny the Elder's area of expertise was natural phenomena. He dedicated his writings to the
     historical sciences such as botany, geography, and zoology. In essence, he wrote scientific
     almanacs- not religious history.
   2. Philo Judeaus was a Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher- not a historian like many critics claim.
     He was also an Egyptian-born Jew who served as an ambassador to Caligula for Jewish rights       in Alexandria- not Judea.
   3. Seneca was a Roman philosopher and rhetorician who concerned himself with philosophies,
     tragedies, and methodologies. His works were more literary than historical.


        

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Logical Fallacies: The Best Defense Against Error

 When we look at the world in which we live, we see things that just should not be.  One of those items is in the fact that the religious world is full of different beliefs.  The Catholics say one thing, the Protestant says something else, the New Age Movement says no, this is how it is.  With all this going on it is no wonder why Atheism is on the rise in the United States.  This path that our country is on is similar to that which happened not long ago in England.  It is estimated that only 5% of the population consider themselves to be religious.  This figure used to be about 60% a few decades ago.  I am afraid that this is the path that our country is on today.

One of the main issues for this is the fact that we have lost the ability to reason correctly.  Why this is is anyone's guess. Since we have for the most part lost this ability, those who profess to be followers of Christ have gone astray of the path that the Word sets before them.  They are entangled in the thoughts of men.

God is a logical God by His nature (Isaiah 1:18; I Timothy 2:13).  It goes against God's perfect nature to commit logical error.  The doctrines set forth in His inspired Word cannot contain any contradictions, epistemological tensions, conjectures, or fallacies.  Since this is the case, any doctrines that we submit to cannot contain any also.  As we study the scriptures one thing is certain, when God reasoned with man, man could not answer. Our Lord on several occasions put to silence those who questioned Him (Matt. 22:23-34; 41-46).  Jesus is to be our example in all things, not only in how we act, but also in how we think and reason within ourselves and with others.

If we can have a better understanding of this, we can defend the scriptures just as our Lord did.  The following is not a complete list, but it contains the ones that are most readily made.  One thing that I have found is that most errors contain some type of logical fallacy.  If we can expose these for what they are, we stand a better chance at declaring the simple Gospel them.

As I look at the following list, I have discovered that at times I have been guilty of some of these fallacies.  We can all learn something from them. 

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

Explanation
     It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem.
     The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.

Example
     (1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent             designer who created life.
     (2) Dembski would say that because he’s religious.
          Therefore:
     (3) Modern biology doesn’t support intelligent design.

     This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.


Bandwagon Fallacy

Explanation
     The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.
     This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.
     The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.

Example
     (1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our
           true inner being.
     Therefore:
     (2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.

This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.

Fallacist’s Fallacy

Explanation
     The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.
     It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority: “Simon Singh says that 2+2=4?. Or one could argue that taking paracetamol relieves headaches using a post hoc: “I took the paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked!”
     Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty.

Example

“People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can’t accept that when we die that’s it. This is an appeal to consequences; therefore there is no life after death.”

Fallacy of Composition

Explanation
     The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property. This pattern of argument is the reverse of that of the fallacy of division. It is not always fallacious, but we must be cautious in making inferences of this form.

Examples
     A clear case of the fallacy of composition is this:
     (1) Every song on the album lasts less than an hour.
          Therefore:
     (2) The album lasts less than an hour.
     Obviously, an album consisting of many short tracks may itself be very long.

     Not all arguments of this form are fallacious, however. Whether or not they are depends on what property is involved. Some properties, such as lasting less than an hour, may be possessed by every part of something but not by the thing itself. Others, such as being bigger than a bus, must be possessed by the whole if possessed by each part.

   
Fallacy of Division

Explanation
     The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed by inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the whole also has that property. Like the fallacy of composition, this is only a fallacy for some properties; for others, it is a legitimate form of inference.

Example
     An example of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of division is this:

     (1) Water is liquid.
           Therefore:
     (2) H2O molecules are liquid.

     This argument, in attributing a macro-property of water, liquidity, to its constituent parts, commits the fallacy of division. Though water is liquid, individual molecules are not.
     Note, however, that an argument with the same logical form but inferring from the fact that a computer is smaller than a car that every part of the computer is smaller than a car would not be fallacious; arguments with this logical form need not be problematic.

Genetic Fallacy

Explanation
     The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
     Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
     Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.

Examples
     (1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
          Therefore:
     (2) The tooth fairy is real.

     (1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
          Therefore:
     (2) Eugenics is a bad thing.

     Each of these arguments commits the genetic fallacy, because each judges an idea by the goodness or badness of its source, rather than on its own merits.

Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition

Explanation
     An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

Example
     (1) Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent            development).
          Therefore:
     (2) Some form of religion is true.
     This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it offers in favour of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are known to be false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still centre of the solar system. It therefore could be the case that the premise of this argument is true (that religion is older than atheism) but that its conclusion is nevertheless false (that no religion is true). We need a lot more evidence about religion (or any other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified in accepting it as true. Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.

Appeal to Authority

Explanation
     An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
     Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
     However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

Example
     (1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
          Therefore:
     (2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
     This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.

Appeal to Consequences

Explanation
     An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true.

Examples
     Appeal to Good Consequences:
          (1) If you believe in God then you’ll find a kind of fulfilment in life that you’ve never felt                  before.
               Therefore:
          (2) God exists.

     Appeal to Bad Consequences
          (1’) If you don’t believe in God then you’ll be miserable, thinking that life doesn’t have any meaning.
                Therefore:
          (2) God exists.

     Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence for their conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in God. In the case of the first argument, the positive consequences of belief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. In the case of the second argument, the negative consequences of disbelief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. Neither argument, though, provides any evidence for Santa’s existence. The consequences of a belief are rarely a good guide to its truth. Both arguments are therefore fallacious.

Real-World Examples

     Each of the arguments above features in real-world discussions of God’s existence. In fact, they have been developed into an argument called Pascal’s Wager, which openly advocates belief in God based on its good consequences, rather than on evidence that it is true
     Another example occurs in the film The Matrix. There Neo is asked whether he believes in fate; he says that he doesn’t. He is then asked why, and replies, “I don’t like the thought that I’m not in control.” This is not an appeal to evidence, but to the unpleasantness of believing in fate: Fate would imply that the world is a way that I don’t want it to be, therefore there is no such thing.

Appeal to Force

Explanation
     An appeal to force is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin name, “argumentum ad baculum”, literally means “argument with a cudgel”. Disbelief, such arguments go, will be met with sanctions, perhaps physical abuse; therefore, you’d better believe.
     Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to consequences, where the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are deliberately inflicted by the arguer.
     Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is only a pragmatic justification of belief; it is not evidence that the resultant belief will be true. Appeals to force are therefore fallacious.

Example
     (1) If you don’t accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around, then you’ll be excommunicated from the Church.
          Therefore:
     (2) The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around.

     This argument, if it can properly be called an argument, makes no attempt to provide evidence for its conclusion; whether or not you’ll be excommunicated for disbelieving the geocentric model has no bearing on whether the geocentric model is true. The argument therefore commits the appeal to force fallacy.


Appeal to Novelty

Explanation
     An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus also related to the bandwagon fallacy.
     That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have no merit whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we now reject as absurd beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are new now will surely go the same way.

Examples
     (1) String theory is the most recent development in physics.
          Therefore:
     (2) String theory is true.

     (1) Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development.
          Therefore:
     (2) Atheism is true.

     Each of these arguments commits the appeal to novelty fallacy. The former takes the newness of string theory to be evidence that string theory is true; the latter takes the newness of atheism to be evidence that atheism is true. Merely being a new idea, of course, is no guarantee of truth. The newness of string theory and atheism alone, then, should not be taken to be evidence of the truth of these two positions.

Appeal to Pity

Explanation
     An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.
     This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.

Examples
     Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.
     A BBC News article, Jurors shown graphic 9/11 images, gives another clear example of an appeal to pity:
     “A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life… Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.”

Appeal to Popularity

Explanation
     Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.

Example
     (1) Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’.
          Therefore:
     (2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist.

     This argument is an appeal to popularity because it suggests that God must exist based solely on the popularity of belief in God. An atheist could, however, accept the premise of this argument (the claim that belief in God is widespread) but reject its conclusion without inconsistency.

Naturalistic Fallacy

Explanation
     There are two fundamentally different types of statement: statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind.
     Arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The argument, “(1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a philosopher” is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises. This is because the conclusion contains an idea—that of being a philosopher—that isn’t contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a philosopher, and so cannot establish a conclusion about being a philosopher.
     Arguments that commit the naturalistic fallacy are arguably flawed in exactly the same way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example. If the premises merely describe the way that the world is then they say nothing about the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot establish any value judgement; you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

Examples
     (1) Feeling envy is only natural.
          Therefore:
     (2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling envy.

     This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy. The argument’s premise simply describes the way that the world is, asserting that it is natural to feel envious. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be. The argument’s conclusion, then, which is value judgement, cannot be supported by its premises.
     It is important to note that much respectable moral argument commits the naturalistic fallacy. Whether arguments of the form described here are fallacious is controversial. If they are, then the vast majority of moral philosophy commits a basic logical error.

Red Herring

Explanation
     The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.
     The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.

Example
     Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand:
     “You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”

Equivocation Fallacy

Explanation
     The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
     For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.

Example
     (1) The church would like to encourage theism.
     (2) Theism is a medical condition resulting from the excessive consumption of tea.
          Therefore:
     (3) The church ought to distribute tea more freely.

     This argument is obviously fallacious because it equivocates on the word theism. The first premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood as belief in a particular kind of god; the second premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood in a medical sense.
Real-World Examples
     (1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.
     (2) Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
          Therefore:
     (3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.

     This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two different meanings of “faith”. The kind of faith that Christianity holds is necessary for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does not matter where the belief and the response come from; someone who accepts the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven, according to Christianity.
     For the kind of faith for which (1) is true, (2) is therefore false. Similarly, for the kind of faith for which (2) is true, (1) is false. There is no one understanding of faith according to which both of the argument’s premises are true, and the argument therefore fails to establish its conclusion.

Another argument relating to Christianity that crops up from time to time goes like this:
     (1) Jesus is the Word of God.
     (2) The Bible is the Word of God.
          Therefore:
     (3) Jesus is the Bible.

      This is usually used to to support some further conclusion about the authority of the Bible or something similar, but there’s no need to go any further to see that there’s a problem here: the phrase “Word of God” means very different things in the two premises, so this argument rests on an equivocation.

Straw Man Fallacy

Explanation
     A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

Example
     (1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
     (2) Three does not equal one.
          Therefore:
     (3) Trinitarianism is false.

     This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its conclusion states that trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that three equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its truth.

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Explanation
     The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”, with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Example
     (1) The Romans kept slaves.
          Therefore:
     (2) We can keep slaves too.
     This argument commits the tu quoque fallacy because it assumes that if someone else does a thing then it’s okay for us to do it too. It does not follow, however, from the simple fact that the Romans kept slaves, that there is nothing wrong with keeping slaves. It is plausible to think that the Romans acted immorally in keeping slaves, and that we would act immorally if we followed their example. The conclusion of the argument therefore does not follow from its premise.
     Examples of the tu quoque fallacy occur all the time. For instance, in an article entitled Man United defend ticket price rise, BBC Sport reported:
     “Manchester United have hit their fans with a 12.3% average rise in season ticket prices for the next campaign. A top-price ticket will cost £38 and the cheapest £23… But United have defended the price rises, saying they compare favourably with the rest of the Premiership. ‘We do not know what most of our rivals will charge next year, buy even a price freeze across the rest of the Premiership would mean that next year only seven clubs will have a cheaper ticket than £23 and nine clubs will have a top price over £39 – in some cases almost double,’ said Humby [Manchester United finance director].”
     The representative of Manchester United’s argument was essentially this: “Other Premiership clubs charge more, therefore our ticket prices are justified.” This commits the tu quoque fallacy because it’s quite possible that all clubs, including Manchester United, overcharge for their tickets.

Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

Explanation
     An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
     Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
Example
     (1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
     (2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
          Therefore:
     (3) The Bible is inerrant.
     This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.

Real-World Examples
     The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular argument. Other examples can be a little more subtle.
     Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed”; “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral”.
     Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove.

Complex Question Fallacy

Explanation
     The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that assumption.

Examples
     “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
     This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.
     “Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?”
     Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the question implies that the accused accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. No room is left to protest one’s innocence. This is therefore a complex question, and a subtle false dilemma.

Cum Hoc Fallacy

Explanation
     The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. This fallacy is closely related to the post hoc fallacy.

Example
     Nestle, the makers of the breakfast cereal Shredded Wheat, once ran an advertising campaign in which the key phrase was this: “People who eat Shredded Wheat tend to have healthy hearts.” This is very carefully phrased. It does not explicitly state that there is any causal connection between eating Shredded Wheat and having a healthy heart, but it invites viewers of the advertisements to make the connection; the implication is there. Whether or not there is any such connection, the mere fact that the two things are correlated does not prove that there is such a connection. In tempting viewers to infer that eating Shredded Wheat is good for your heart, Nestle are tempting viewers to commit a fallacy.

False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy

Explanation
     The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious.

Examples
     (1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
     (2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing).
          Therefore:
     (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.

     The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
     Another example emerged when George W Bush launched the war on terror, insisting that other nations were either for or against America in her campaign, excluding the quite real possibility of neutrality.
     Complex questions are subtle forms of false dilemma. Questions such as “Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?” implicitly restrict the options to either being wrong and admitting it or being wrong or not admitting it, thus excluding the option of not being wrong.

Hasty Generalisation Fallacy

Explanation
     A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.

Example
     (1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.
          Therefore:
     (2) Christians / atheists are grouches.
     This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general rule from it, assuming that all Christians or atheists are like the neighbour.

The conclusion that it reaches hasn’t been demonstrated, because it may well be that the neighbour is not a typical Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.

Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy

Explanation
     A sweeping generalisation applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalisation fallacy. This fallacy is the reverse of a hasty generalisation, which infers a general rule from a specific case.

Example
     (1) Children should be seen and not heard.
     (2) Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child.
          Therefore:
     (3) Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn’t be heard.
     No matter what you think of the general principle that children should be seen and not heard, a child prodigy pianist about to perform is worth listening to; the general principle doesn’t apply.

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

Explanation
     The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example
     The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
     If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

     (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
     (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
          Therefore:
     (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
         Therefore:
     (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples
     An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Post Hoc Fallacy

Explanation
     The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused by it. This fallacy is closely related to the cum hoc fallacy.

Example
     (1) Most people who are read the last rites die shortly afterwards.
          Therefore:
     (2) Priests are going around killing people with magic words!
     This argument commits the post hoc fallacy because it infers a causal connection based solely on temporal order.

Real-World Examples
     One example of the post hoc flaw is the evidence often given for the efficacy of prayer. When someone reasons that as they prayed for something and it then happened, it therefore must have happened because they prayed for it, they commit the post hoc fallacy. The correlation between the prayer and the event could result from coincidence, rather than cause, so does not prove that prayer works.
     Superstitions often arise from people committing the post hoc fallacy. Consider, for example, a sportsman who adopts a pre-match ritual because one time he did something before a game he got a good result. The reasoning here is presumably that on the first occasion the activity preceded the success, so the activity must have contributed to the success, so repeating the activity is likely to lead to a recurrence of the success. This is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy in action.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Explanation
     Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

Example
     (1) If you buy a Green Day album, then next you’ll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before you know it you’ll be a punk with green hair and everything.
     (2) You don’t want to become a punk.
          Therefore:
     (3) You shouldn’t buy a Green Day album.
This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to buy a Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we could buy the album and then stop there. The conclusion therefore hasn’t been proven, because the argument’s first premise is false.

Subjectivist Fallacy

Explanation
     There are two types of claim: objective and subjective.
     Objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone. For example, the claim that the Earth is cuboid is an objective claim; it’s either true for everyone or false for everyone. It isn’t possible for the Earth to be cuboid for me, spherical for you, but flat for everyone else, because whatever shape the Earth is it is only one shape.
     Subjective claims can have different truth-values for different people. For example, the claim that running a marathon takes more than three hours is a subjective claim: for many people it is true, but for a good number of runners it is false.
     The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an argument not by questioning whether the argument’s premises support its conclusion, but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective. Typically this is done by labelling the arguer’s conclusion as just an “opinion”, a “perspective”, a “point of view”, or similar.
     This is one of those cases where the objectionable logic is so underdeveloped that it is difficult to pin down precisely what is wrong with it. Someone who just grunts “that’s just your opinion” is clearly trying to imply something, but their reasoning isn’t explicit.

     They might have in mind something like the following:

     (1) Your argument concludes that p is objectively true.
     (2) P is subjective.
          Therefore:
     (3) Your argument fails.
     This argument is fine as long as its premises are true, but where (2) is false it commits the subjectivist fallacy.

Alternatively, they might mean something like this:

     (1) Your argument concludes that p is true.
     (2) Many people don’t accept that p is true.
         Therefore:
     (3) Your argument fails.
     This argument doesn’t commit the subjectivist fallacy; it has nothing to do with objectivity and subjectivity. Instead it is an example of an appeal to popularity, giving far too much weight to the opinion of those who don’t accept the conclusion of the argument, failing to recognise that even an argument for a conclusion that many people don’t accept can be sound.

Special Pleading
      
Description of Special Pleading
     Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

   1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
   2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
   3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

     The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

   1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
   2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
   3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

     This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.
     From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.
     It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.
     While determing what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.
     There are cases which are similar to instances of Special Pleading in which a person is offering at least some reason why he should be exempt but the reason is not good enough to warrant the exemption. This could be called "Failed Pleading." For example, a professor may claim to be exempt from helping the rest of the faculty move books to the new department office because it would be beneath his dignity. However, this is not a particularly good reason and would hardly justify his exemption. If it turns out that the real "reason" a person is claiming exemption is that they simply take themselves to be exempt, then they would be committing Special Pleading. Such cases will be fairly common. After all, it is fairly rare for adults to simply claim they are exempt without at least some pretense of justifying the exemption.

Examples of Special Pleading
   1. Bill and Jill are married. Both Bill and Jill have put in a full day at the office. Their dog, Rover, has knocked over all the plants in one room and has strewn the dirt all over the carpet. When they return, Bill tells Jill that it is her job to clean up after the dog. When she protests, he says that he has put in a full day at the office and is too tired to clean up after the dog.
   2. Jane and Sue share a dorm room.
      Jane: "Turn of that stupid stereo, I want to take a nap."
      Sue: "Why should I? What are you exhausted or something?"
      Jane: "No, I just feel like taking a nap."
      Sue: "Well, I feel like playing my stereo."
      Jane: "Well, I'm taking my nap. You have to turn your stereo off and that's final."
   3. Mike and Barbara share an apartment.
      Mike: "Barbara, you've tracked in mud again."
      Barbara: "So? It's not my fault."
      Mike: "Sure. I suppose it walked in on its own. You made the mess, so you clean it up."
      Barbara: "Why?"
      Mike: "We agreed that whoever makes a mess has to clean it up. That is fair."
      Barbara: "Well, I'm going to watch TV. If you don't like the mud, then you clean it up."
      Mike: "Barbara..."
      Barbara: "What? I want to watch the show. I don't want to clean up the mud. Like I said, if it           bothers you that much, then you should clean it up."