The “obvious fallacy” occurs when “words like absolutely, undoubtedly, certainly, it is only reasonable to conclude and so forth are substituted for logical reasons.”[1]
Using such words or phrases isn’t always wrong, but we need to be careful to examine whether they are being used as a substitute for evidence and logic.
Here are three examples from Watchtower literature. Continue reading
The error of ignoring alternative explanations means that “a specific interpretation is given to a biblical text or set of texts which could well be, and often have been, interpreted in quite a different fashion, but these alternatives are not considered.”[1]
Here are three examples from Watchtower publications: Continue reading
“Confused definition” means, “A biblical term is misunderstood in such a way that an essential biblical doctrine is distorted or rejected.”[1]
Let’s look at several Watchtower examples.
I won’t go into detail refuting each one. Rather, my goal will be to identify them so you will know the sort of thing to look out for. Continue reading
The error of inadequate evidence is defined this way: “A hasty generalization is drawn from too little evidence.” [1]
In his book, Scripture Twisting, James W. Sire gives this example: “[T[he Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that blood transfusion is nonbiblical, but the biblical data which they cite fails either to speak directly to the issue or to adequately substantiate their teaching.”[2]
Let’s look at this example in some detail. Continue reading
The Watchtower uses a relative handful of scriptures as proof texts for its teaching that when you’re dead you’re dead—that is, that there’s no part of human beings (soul or spirit) that survives physical death:
For them, this is the end of the discussion. Any other scriptures have to conform to the teaching that these verses appear to support. This error is called “selective citing”. Continue reading
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
