Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

He notes that fallacy lists online often portray “creationists” or “right-wing Americans” as the ones saying “something stupid,” and says that framing is “in itself…a fallacy”; how does that observation challenge the way you evaluate sources that already agree with your politics or theology?

Another way to ask: If a source makes one side look dumb from the start, how should that affect how much you trust it? How does this challenge the way you judge sources that already match your politics or theology?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s observation, even sources that sound academic or “logical” may be biased in how they choose examples, using opponents as straw targets and presenting them as foolish. That should make Christians cautious about trusting a source simply because it aligns with our side or flatters our assumptions.

Support from Transcript:

He observes most fallacy websites are tied to “a university” or “some kind of rational thinking group,” and “most…are not done by Christians.”
He says you “almost can never go through the list…without seeing…fallacies…attributed to creationists.”
He gives an example of “begging the question” presented as a creationist argument and comments, “no apologist for creationism would ever use that argument.”
He notes the pattern also targets “right-wing Americans,” since many sites are “usually from left-wing thinkers.”
He concludes, “that in itself is a fallacy…they’re being…very dishonest.”

Discussion Follow-ups When a source mocks “the other side,” do you automatically assume it must be right? What would a fair-minded example list look like?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10