ex-apologist: On a Common Apologetic Fallacy

The fallacy sketched above occurs so frequently in the apologetics literature that I hereby label it the Apologetics Fallacy. The Apologetics Fallacy is the dialectical fallacy of assuming, in contexts of the sort sketched above, that because one has shown that D isn’t a rebutting defeater for P, one has thereby shown that D isn’t an undercutting defeater for P. A paradigm case of the Apologetics Fallacy can be found on pp. 291-292 of this article. And a paradigm case of the appropriate response to the Apologetics Fallacy can be found on the same pages of the same article.

ex-apologist: On a Common Apologetic Fallacy

"It's very different for 'value' to be a mere approximation, than for it to be ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Tx. What you say above about Thomism is consistent with what I understand it to ..."

The Laws of Physics and the ..."
"There are syllogisms and there are sillygisms, No. 12 is the latter. This is the ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"I'm no spring chicken when it comes to modal logic, but does Stump (or you) ..."

The Laws of Physics and the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment