When is personal criticism not an Ad Hominem Fallacy during debate?

2PhiloVoid said:

For instance, I can read something like a Richard Carrier essay, and in the midst of that reading, my mind will currently think of two things: He exaggerates some of the points of 'truth' he makes as he floats along in his descriptive articulations, churning out what I think are acerbic commentaries about the Christian faith. At the same time, I also know from other sources something about his character. So....all the while I can hear and listen to his assertions, some of which may be true to some extent, this means a few things for me, things that I think can be said ABOUT HIM without me committing an ad hominem fallacy: Carrier exaggerates AND Carrier isn't the most moral guy around; he makes excuses for his behavior rather than facing it and repenting of it, AND because of these existing complications in his own point of view, these 'things' make it difficult for me to assess his interior motivations which drive his acts of critical assertion against Christianity.

Click to expand...

I had to look Carrier up. So, I agree, this is a more relevant example than the ones I brought up from the article. Whatever moral failings he may have, I would argue the only ones that count in assessing his work are ones that can be related to his ability to speak on the subject matter of Christianity. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he not only exaggerates the subject matter, in general, but he also is known to tell lies and whopper stories in everyday life (i.e. he has a moral failing of exaggerating, in general). Then that particular moral failing should be taken into account in assessing what he says on the subject matter. If, for the sake of argument, he also likes to down copious amounts of alcohol every day or speaks badly to his wife, these things also speak to character, but I am not sure how relevant they are in assessing his treatment of Christianity.

In general, both sides of the discussion (atheists and theists) are to be taken with a grain of salt, due to the fact they each have a stake in the argument. I can't say to the atheist, "Your assessment of Christianity is not valid because you already reject it." That same critique applies to me, self-referentially. It seems to me, if a conversation is going to happen, both sides come to the table admitting a certain amount of bias.

Carrier, it seems, is already labeled "fringe" (per wiki). When Ehrman points you out as an anomaly, that is saying something. In-house critiques stick better. So, it appears that maybe he has already shown himself unreliable, not just because he is an atheist, but because he isn't arguing in good faith, e.g. not given the opposition the best reading of their position, not willing to admit weaknesses in his own, etc.

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

2PhiloVoid said:

Of course, for the sake of fairness, I'd then take the shoe off and put it on the foot of someone like Jimmy Swaggart and see if it fits. (And by golly, it's a pretty close fit, in my estimation!) And I at times will put the shoe on my own foot---and I've found that my foot undergoes various mutations when doing so. Sometimes it fits; sometimes it doesn't. [In fact, it's Incredible for me to see what happens when I put the shoe on my own foot ... ]

Click to expand...

That's a lot of shoes! Yeah, I agree with all you're saying here.

2PhiloVoid said:

It might be that what we're getting is a half-truth when a hypocrite speaks. If so, then we're going to have to more fully engage not just the message offered up to us from another party for our consideration, but the quality of that person's moral life and his or her motivations that drive it all.

Click to expand...

I agree. Hypocrisy has to be a factor because it relates to truth-telling. And, it's not about making mistakes in reasoning, or missing some data, or interpreting it wrong. Hypocrisy points to a conscious willingness to misrepresent.

Great thread!

2PhiloVoid said:

When is personal criticism not an ad hominem fallacy during debate?

Click to expand...

It is never not fallacious.

All posters are supposedly discussing topics, not the posters authoring or initiating discussion of those topics. Posts, not posters. It's a very simple concept. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
Many discussion board have statements in their tou specifically stating prohibitions about discussing any poster.

Logically speaking, I could be the most depraved reprehensible person on the planet and still post a factual statement. I could be eating live baby brains in a warm bath of bear droppings and horse vomit with my orifices filled with.......... (you get the idea?) and still post a rational case for my position. This is inherently implicit in the adage, "even a broken clock is correct twice each day.

You being a stupid cretin who doesn't understand the basics of logic doesn't mean you can't form cogent discourse .

Are you starting to understand now?

So..... if you practice this simple rule you won't ever have occasion for someone to attempt dismissing your position due to ad hominem.

There are much better websites for understanding logical fallacies, but I keep this one: Your Logical Fallacies, open sometimes to check both what I'm reading and what I'm writing.



The author of the book upon which the Raley article is written states, ad hominems are "perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments." If that is true then form the argument without the perversion or corruption.

And if we are talking about Christian interaction then we can acknowledge the use of rhetoric in scripture but not at the expense of very plain and clear non-rhetorical direction pertaining to how we are to conduct ourselves. Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3, Romans 12:9-21, and even Colossians 4:5-6 come to mind. There are a host of Proverbs directions and admonitions that go ignored every day in this and other Christian forums.

So I'm not sure why any Christian would want to justify the use of ad hominem if the objective is to persuade.

public hermit said:

Does it always have to be an unrelated topic? If I say, "That doctor is fat, therefore he doesn't know anything about healthy eating," wouldn't that also be an instance of the fallacy?

On the other hand, criticism would be something like, "That fat doctor is a hypocrite for not taking his own advice."

Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. In fact in my earlier 20s I had a friend of a friend who was obese, yet he knew almost everything about lifting and fitness. Several times people would comment on the irony, but his addiction to Tastykakes and beer didn’t stop his advice from matching up with a very fit personal trainer that I also knew. My muscles didn’t see a difference either lol.

2PhiloVoid said:

I think there's a bit more to the nature of truth of any sort than mere "objectivity."

Click to expand...

I don't believe we're at odds here, but rather our terms are not in sync. Terms can change meaning subjectively depending upon where one is standing, which is why objectivity gives us the eyes to understand that. This is not a forum for debate, but it is reasonable to come to terms so that our sentiments are not misunderstood.

The term God is an axiom when defined as the source of the energy that formed all things. There is nothing that we would deem as true that was not a manifestation of this power to create. As pertains to any moral/immoral application, Truth is ultimately Spirit, and subsequently "knowing" is a personal term in regards to knowledge and ignorance of God's Spirit.

In this context, if we reason upon a true dichotomy we are reasoning in binary terminology. So by definition, the nature of Truth that defines the terms right and wrong, would be the expression of the Personal Character of the Eternal that created the temporal, since Truth is what is, and is not what is not concerning His Spirit and purpose. So objectively speaking, the term "faith" can only mean in it's most basic understanding that the Eternal is "trustworthy", as opposed to a subjective view that would contend there exist many "faiths" meaning different "beliefs", which pertains to differing subjective images of God with nuances whether true or untrue (sometimes even implying untrustworthy). This is how obscurity is subtly introduced through semantics, wherein people find something wrong with anyone who claims the Truth is known or even suggests the Truth can be known. Nonetheless any lie (anything untrue), would exist only to undermine that faith that pertains only to the goodness of God as trustworthy.

It's therefore not coincidence that in scripture, the first lie ever told or even imagined is an ad hominem attack on the Character of God. It's actually the lie, that when inductive reasoning is applied, will reveal the end course as fallacious from the beginning. And when deductive reasoning is applied, reveals a vanity that manifests a desire to be worshipped as God is, or in God's place. It's always the same spirit of darkness that compels the ad hominem attack which is why it can be proven that it is based on vanity because it undermines the true meaning of faith. Truth is therefore authoritative objectively speaking because it is illogical to consider the Maker of ourselves as untrustworthy. Not only is it the same theme played over and over throughout scripture, it is demonstrable in the semantics of words and therefore in thought, that our imagery of God defines our terms.

An epistemologist walks into a bar and sits down next to a professor of linguistics and casually says, "Did you know we don't actually know anything?" The linguistics professor replied, "How do you know that?".

Sometimes a point in a debate cannot be assessed without considering the source, and in those cases it seems that ad hominem attacks would be appropriate.

For example, how can we assess the claims of Bob Lazar about secret research on UFO technology in Area 51 without assessing Bob Lazar? (not wanting to trash Bob Lazar - I am sure he is a decent person)

I've always been interested in this topic and had planned on making a thread on it if the philosophy forum reopened.

public hermit said:

So, what's the difference between the "fat doctor" and Jimmy Swaggart with a prostitute? If a justified ad hominem obtains when the critique and the character failing coincide, then either the fat doctor is being hypocritical for suggesting dieting, or Swaggart's statements about Christian character and morality stand regardless of his own failings. In other words, the doctor's guidance may be good regardless of the doctor not adhering to it, and the same goes for Jimmy. Does that make sense? What am I missing? I'm not seeing the difference between the two.

Click to expand...

The article says, "Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn." It goes on to claim that Swaggart's "behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model." I think it is obvious that it undercuts his status as a role model, but I agree with you that the aspect of preaching really does run parallel to the obese doctor giving advice on weight loss.

The trouble with charting out a definitive stance on ad hominems is that there are so many different views and theories as to how one's character and one's assertions are related. Some seem to think they are very tightly knit, whereas others seem to think that they are only loosely related or not really related at all. I tend to think they are tightly knit, so I am often comfortable dismissing arguments on the grounds of poor character--especially intellectual character. Yet the converse also applies: I give someone with a good character a hearing even if their argument sounds strange on its face.

A big part of this is the subjective intention that goes into defining the words one utters. Someone who thinks arguments and character are unrelated would seem to also be required to say that words (and arguments) have a very strong objective character, such that the intended meaning is identical regardless of the speaker. I don't actually find that to be true. Words do have objectivity, but they also need to be interpreted in light of the speaker.

public hermit said:

Does it always have to be an unrelated topic? If I say, "That doctor is fat, therefore he doesn't know anything about healthy eating," wouldn't that also be an instance of the fallacy?

On the other hand, criticism would be something like, "That fat doctor is a hypocrite for not taking his own advice."

Click to expand...

No, it does not have to be and I should have used a qualifier of "usually a different topic".

2PhiloVoid said:

I don't think the truth always wins out, brother Halbhh. Although, I'd be willing to say that God always wins out, which is a different concept about truth than just asserting that truth, as a human assertion, wins out.

See the difference?

Click to expand...

I was trying to say the 'truth' in the ideal or perfect reality, not merely individuals' understandings, which might occasionally align to greater or lesser extents. And not only just a current best known solution, but instead the ideal. Of course, we know a source of perfect truths. Not just in mathematics.

Another wording: "reality will win out", but....I wanted to also include the more ultimate.

Josheb said:

It is never not fallacious.

All posters are supposedly discussing topics, not the posters authoring or initiating discussion of those topics. Posts, not posters. It's a very simple concept. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
Many discussion board have statements in their tou specifically stating prohibitions about discussing any poster.

Logically speaking, I could be the most depraved reprehensible person on the planet and still post a factual statement. I could be eating live baby brains in a warm bath of bear droppings and horse vomit with my orifices filled with.......... (you get the idea?) and still post a rational case for my position. This is inherently implicit in the adage, "even a broken clock is correct twice each day.

You being a stupid cretin who doesn't understand the basics of logic doesn't mean you can't form cogent discourse .

Are you starting to understand now?

So..... if you practice this simple rule you won't ever have occasion for someone to attempt dismissing your position due to ad hominem.

There are much better websites for understanding logical fallacies, but I keep this one: Your Logical Fallacies, open sometimes to check both what I'm reading and what I'm writing.



The author of the book upon which the Raley article is written states, ad hominems are "perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments." If that is true then form the argument without the perversion or corruption.

And if we are talking about Christian interaction then we can acknowledge the use of rhetoric in scripture but not at the expense of very plain and clear non-rhetorical direction pertaining to how we are to conduct ourselves. Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3, Romans 12:9-21, and even Colossians 4:5-6 come to mind. There are a host of Proverbs directions and admonitions that go ignored every day in this and other Christian forums.

So I'm not sure why any Christian would want to justify the use of ad hominem if the objective is to persuade.

Click to expand...

In one sense I agree with you, in another I disagree.

When it comes to the Christian faith sometimes the objections are based in personal experience. Getting to the heart of the matter is essential.

My husband absolutely will not engage in online religious debate for this reason, and he will only speak on matters of faith if he's approached.

If your not face to face with someone you can't adequatedly gauge if your explanation is understood, whether the question itself was sincere or just poking for an argument, and it's easier in person to get to the heart of the issue where concerns the individual your speaking to.

If you know the questioner has had seriously bad experiences in their youth with certain aspects of Christianity - you can more quickly get to the heart of their objections or concerns.

In Christian apologetics your doing far more than debating points - your trying to bring in God's lost sheep. To do so, you need to understand what's behind the question, and be able to speak to it.

Yes, online it's different because that's more difficult, but I think online is still little different, because getting to the heart is just as important, and just as important to be able to point out to those who may read your responses.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'd instead offer that our willingness to interact with, trust, listen to, and take 'the truth' from another individual should be accepted only AFTER we know their intentions, their motivations, and their social bent. It's not enough to merely offer up something we might say is 'the truth' and expect people to just 'take it in.' Besides, one single human sentence which we we offer up as 'a truth' never exhausts the descriptions that can be made about the Reality from which we've drawn the points for our truth statement, and I think we forget this.

Click to expand...

I did not even want to get into the "truth". When someone uses a logical fallacy it does not necessarily meant that they are wrong. It only means that they are using poor reasoning. These are the sort that try to claim that they have "proved" something when they did not even come close.

It is quite often hard to prove the truth of anything. That is recognized in the sciences where concepts are only taken to be provisionally true once they are well supported by evidence. In the sciences they do know that ideas can be shown to be wrong but it very hard to show that they are correct. That is why the sciences are based upon testable hypotheses. In the sciences the biggest insult one can give an idea is to say that it is "not even wrong".

Halbhh said:

I was trying to say the 'truth' in the ideal or perfect reality, not merely individuals' understandings, which might occasionally align to greater or lesser extents. And not only just a current best known solution, but instead the ideal. Of course, we know a source of perfect truths. Not just in mathematics.

Another wording: "reality will win out", but....I wanted to also include the more ultimate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be reassuring if I told you that I got exactly what you were saying. You actually qualified your sentiments adequately with "gratitude" and "beatitude" which can only denote the Divine.

zippy2006 said:

A big part of this is the subjective intention that goes into defining the words one utters. Someone who thinks arguments and character are unrelated would seem to also be required to say that words (and arguments) have a very strong objective character, such that the intended meaning is identical regardless of the speaker. I don't actually find that to be true. Words do have objectivity, but they also need to be interpreted in light of the speaker.

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about it this way, but I think I agree. Maybe it also has to do with the subject matter. I don't take into consideration the moral status of my mechanic when asking about my vehicle. I'm not basing the truth of his assertions on that. But, when it comes to subjects concerning religion and morality (which are practically inter-related) the moral status (tendencies?) of the speaker take on more weight.

Hazelelponi said:

In one sense I agree with you, in another I disagree.

When it comes to the Christian faith sometimes the objections are based in personal experience. Getting to the heart of the matter is essential.

Click to expand...

Which is an anecdotal report and not the basis for making a logical case for anything other than personal anecdotal experience.

Hazelelponi said:

My husband absolutely will not engage in online religious debate for this reason, and he will only speak on matters of faith if he's approached.

If your not face to face with someone you can't adequatedly gauge if your explanation is understood, whether the question itself was sincere or just poking for an argument, and it's easier in person to get to the heart of the issue where concerns the individual your speaking to.

Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with making an ad hominam argument?

Hazelelponi said:

If you know the questioner has had seriously bad experiences in their youth with certain aspects of Christianity - you can more quickly get to the heart of their objections or concerns.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I can make a logical case for my position no matter what has happened to either of us in the past.

If we're not specifically talking about the past event itself then it is irrelevant as far as ad hominem goes.

Hazelelponi said:

In Christian apologetics you're doing far more than debating points - your trying to bring in God's lost sheep. To do so, you need to understand what's behind the question, and be able to speak to it.

Yes, online it's different because that's more difficult, but I think online is still little different, because getting to the heart is just as important, and just as important to be able to point out to those who may read your responses.

Click to expand...

Nothing in this post has anything to do with ad hominem.


An ad hominem argument occurs when someone attempts to dismiss the argument based on some attribute of the person making the argument. The words "ad hominem" mean "against the man." Examples of ad hominem would look something like this:

Your entire post is worthless because you are female.
Your entire argument is stupid because you are baptist.
Your position is irrational because you're over fifty years old.
You don't know what you're talking about because you're married.

These are not rational arguments. They have no place in rational discourse, especially among Christians.

We see this in some of the boards in more categorical ways:

Your post is foolish because you're a preteriest.
Your post is foolish because you're a dispensationalist.
Your post is foolish because you're a Calvinist.
Your post is foolish because you're Arminian.

The veracity of a post, the case it seeks to establish as part of a larger whole and the entirety of an individual's argument rest on qualities of that argument, not the qualities of the person making the argument.

Yes, we may understand from whence a person asserts his/her position if we know something about them but that has nothing to do with the veracity of the argument itself.

public hermit said:

I hadn't thought about it this way, but I think I agree. Maybe it also has to do with the subject matter. I don't take into consideration the moral status of my mechanic when asking about my vehicle. I'm not basing the truth of his assertions on that. But, when it comes to subjects concerning religion and morality (which are practically inter-related) the moral status (tendencies?) of the speaker take on more weight.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's right, and I think the article is right to say that the character flaw must be relevant to the conclusion being drawn.

For me, though, moral status is actually related to truth-telling and intellectual integrity. It's interesting that you used a mechanic example, because there is the old stereotype about the mechanic or shop that diagnoses a non-problem to make a buck.

zippy2006 said:

It's interesting that you used a mechanic example, because there is the old stereotype about the mechanic or shop that diagnoses a non-problem to make a buck.

Click to expand...

Hahaha! Well, there is that.

Josheb said:

Which is an anecdotal report and not the basis for making a logical case for anything other than personal anecdotal experience.

What does any of that have to do with making an ad hominam argument?

I disagree. I can make a logical case for my position no matter what has happened to either of us in the past.

If we're not specifically talking about the past event itself then it is irrelevant as far as ad hominem goes.

Nothing in this post has anything to do with ad hominem.


An ad hominem argument occurs when someone attempts to dismiss the argument based on some attribute of the person making the argument. The words "ad hominem" mean "against the man." Examples of ad hominem would look something like this:

Your entire post is worthless because you are female.
Your entire argument is stupid because you are baptist.
Your position is irrational because you're over fifty years old.
You don't know what you're talking about because you're married.

These are not rational arguments. They have no place in rational discourse, especially among Christians.

We see this in some of the boards in more categorical ways:

Your post is foolish because you're a preteriest.
Your post is foolish because you're a dispensationalist.
Your post is foolish because you're a Calvinist.
Your post is foolish because you're Arminian.

The veracity of a post, the case it seeks to establish as part of a larger whole and the entirety of an individual's argument rest on qualities of that argument, not the qualities of the person making the argument.

Yes, we may understand from whence a person asserts his/her position if we know something about them but that has nothing to do with the veracity of the argument itself.

Click to expand...

I speak to people, not to arguments, and sometimes the argument isn't the issue at all... people will concede to points, if you bring them around to their real issue and ease that concern first but it'll never happen if you don't speak to the person.

I understand there is an abusive as hominem, but it simply means to the person...

Are you going to waste time taking your religion from known false preachers? Someone may come on forum with a question based on something they read, by a known false preacher.

You dispel the argument through points and facts, and then advise the person against reading material from said false pastor again, and explain why.

In doing this you avoid a million questions on a million false teachings by giving good and wise advise. You don't simply dispel the single teaching and pretend it's okay to continue listening to x person because a broken clock is right twice a day. Bad company corrupts good morals and all that.

Sometimes you need to speak to the person, because your speaking to real individuals.

But, I concede we are coming at this from very different perspectives, so I'll leave the discussion.

zippy2006 said:

The trouble with charting out a definitive stance on ad hominems is that there are so many different views and theories as to how one's character and one's assertions are related. Some seem to think they are very tightly knit, whereas others seem to think that they are only loosely related or not really related at all. I tend to think they are tightly knit, so I am often comfortable dismissing arguments on the grounds of poor character--especially intellectual character. Yet the converse also applies: I give someone with a good character a hearing even if their argument sounds strange on its face.

Click to expand...

My experience is that the character changes even as information changes the intellect. If in the unknown I fundamentally must perceive between whether others will either sacrifice me to save themselves or sacrifice themselves to save me, then there are two different characters which will emerge according to which one I believe is true by degrees. Our minds reason upon basic binary dichotomies of good/bad, life/death, success/failure, etc. These terms reverse in connotation and denotation from positive to negative depending on one's subjective view. This is why we eventually see polarization rather than a random dispersal in ideology. It becomes slightly more complicated when applying a left/right dichotomy which is formulated to denote an abstract center where equity resides between two opposing views. This dichotomy is sadly oftentimes misunderstood and misappropriated.

Therefore the assertions we believe to be based on what is true are tightly knit with our character. There are those who speak as if it's foolish to believe people will sacrifice themselves for others, and they tend to conform to what's described as a worldly set of principles. To them an idealist carries a negative connotation as opposed to what they would call a realist.

The semantical confusion shows there are two conflicting wills in every created being which have opposing views of good and bad, one objectively speaking and one subjectively speaking. When articulated in scripture, they are described as carnal and spiritual in impetus. Using these terms carnal/spiritual, the same term in a spiritual sense carries a different connotation and denotation in the carnal sense even because bad and good reverse accordingly.