Objecting Amiss

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

When I taught at a state college in Las Vegas, my students sometimes rejected the truth of the Bible because it was written by “uneducated shepherds.” What should we make of their objection?

First, as a matter of straight logic, in rejecting the Bible because of the standing of its authors, my students committed what’s called an ad hominem. “Ad hominem” literally means “to the body” or “to the man.” An ad hominem is a fallacy in which someone rejects a claim by attacking the person making the claim, instead of responding to the claim itself. Ad hominems are always fallacious since an attack on a person is irrelevant to the truth status of the person’s claim.

Ad Hominem: Two Types

This fallacy comes in two types: ad hominem abusive and ad hominem circumstantial. With the first type, someone rejects a claim by criticizing the moral character of the person making the claim. For example, suppose Peter claims that the earth is round. Suppose Paul rejects Peter’s claim because Peter cheats on his taxes. Paul would be guilty of ad hominem abusive. Clearly, the truth of the claim “the earth is round”depends on the shape of the earth, not on whether Peter is honest with the IRS.

The second type occurs when someone rejects a claim based on the circumstances of the person making the claim. For example, while working as a patent clerk, Albert Einstein published important scientific papers. Anyone rejecting Einstein’s theories simply because he didn’t hold a university position at the time would be committing the ad hominem circumstantial.

Regarding my students, they seemed to reject the Bible (or its claims) due to the personal circumstances of its authors. But regardless of whether the authors were uneducated shepherds or Roman emperors, their claims might still be true. The station of the authors is irrelevant to the truth status of the Bible’s claims. Thus, when considering any claim of Scripture, it’s the quality of the claim that matters in determining its truth status.

Responding to the Rejection

In addition to being fallacious, my students’ reasoning is based on a faulty assumption. While some of the Bible’s authors may have lacked social standing or a formal education, others were educated and well-positioned. For example, Moses was educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” David and Solomon were kings, Luke was a doctor, and Paul was a Roman citizen educated under Gamaliel the Elder.

Second, if the Bible traces its source to a divine origin, then whether or not its human authors were educated and well-positioned is inconsequential. God can relay His message through the humblest of means. In fact, 1 Corinthians 1:27–29 indicates that God intentionally works through the lowly: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.”

While my students clearly missed the mark on this one, they can teach us a more general lesson: when analyzing the truth of a person’s claim, the truth of the message stands or falls independent from the particularities of the messenger.