We interact, we converse, we discuss, we disagree, we argue, and we debate.
We’re humans …. that’s what we do. But there are productive and unproductive
ways to engage in these exchanges, whether in a public forum or in private
conversation. One may be absolutely right in a position he holds, but with a
mean-spirited and abrasive disposition he weakens his case and drives people
further away. One’s views might be completely erroneous, yet he wins folks over
with a more alluring approach. Assuming disputants are both rational
and civil, how can the correctness or the wrongness of a case be determined,
particularly in a religious discussion? Here are some logical and interpretive
fallacies to recognize and avoid.
1.
“Cherry picking” occurs when selected data are highlighted that appear
to confirm a particular viewpoint while ignoring related information that
suggests otherwise. How many have sought justification for something by instinctively reciting:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged”? I would venture to guess that for many,
this is one of the few biblical texts they have bothered to memorize, even if
they can’t locate where the words are recorded in scripture. To “judge” is to
make a judgment or assessment about whether something is right or wrong, true
or false. If one cannot judge an idea or behavior to be wrong, neither can another judge it to be right. The fact of the matter is, the context of Matt.
7:1-5 (only a brief portion of which is quoted above from the KJV) merely
denounces hypocritical judging. Righteous judgment, on the other hand, using
God’s word as the standard, is biblically enjoined (John
7:24; cf. 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5).1 All
information must be gathered and evaluated before valid conclusions can be
drawn.
2.
Quoting references out of context is a logical fallacy in which
statements are excerpted from the qualifying information surrounding them so
that their intended meaning is distorted. A man once told me that he would
never go to church because Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. When I asked
him to justify his allegation, he replied, “Christians don’t drink, but the
Bible says, ‘Eat, drink, and be merry’!” He was confident in his biblical
assertion, yet he refused to examine the text to verify his position. By
reading the immediate context of Luke 12:13-21, it is clear that Jesus, in
addressing the problems of greed and materialism, tells a story in which the
words of v. 19 (“take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry”) are attributed to a
misguided rich man. The Bible does record this expression, but the context
determines its meaning.
3.
A “straw man” argument involves misrepresenting facts to make something
seem more extreme or simplistic than it really is so that it can be more easily
refuted. John Shelby Spong, in his Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,2
challenges the integrity of Genesis by accusing its author of being “quite
confused” about the nationality of those to whom Joseph was sold into slavery. In
one reference they are identified as “Ishmaelites” (Gen. 37:25), while a few
verses later they are called “Midianites” (v. 28). The fallacy of this charge
is that of twisting a “both-and” situation into an “either-or” predicament. The
caravan was comprised of Ishamael’s descendants who lived in the land of Midian
(cf. Gen. 25:12, 18; Ex. 2:15; Judg. 8:1, 22-28). According to ethnic descent
they were Ishmaelites and according to their place of residence they were
Midianites (cp. Deut. 26:5). A fair-minded person sees no dilemma here, and
upon closer examination Spong’s belittling accusation is not as compelling as
it might have first appeared.
4.
Emotional appeal is an underhanded maneuver that seeks to manipulate
emotions in an attempt to strengthen one’s case rather than employing logical
reasoning with factual evidence. Citing Matt. 7:17-18 in
his God and the Gay Christian,3 Matthew Vines maintains that condemning same-sex
relationships has historically been destructive to gay Christians, producing
the “bad fruit” of guilt, depression, and suicide; whereas loving, committed,
same-sex relationships produce the “good fruit” of joy and companionship.
Objectively evaluated, this is not a reasoned argument drawn from careful
exegesis of the Bible but a subjective emotional appeal. Contextually the “bad fruit” of Matt. 7:17-18 is
applicable to false prophets and their corrupt teachings and sinful living.
Vines’ emotive analysis is based on his own biased perception and a shrewdly
misappropriated proof-text. Compassion, kindness, and upholding biblical
morality are not mutually exclusive.
5.
A “red herring” is something irrelevant and
diversionary thrown into a discussion that distracts from the issue at hand.
Renowned atheist David Silverman has argued against the Bible as an objective
moral standard because Hitler’s Nazis murdered Jews in the name of the God of
the Bible.4 Similar arguments have included the Catholic inquisition
and crusades, sexual perversion of priests, immorality of televangelists,
hypocrisy of professing Christians, ad infinitum. But surely we understand that
violating and misconstruing biblical teachings have nothing to do with the
validity of the Christian faith or the integrity of the scriptures. Legitimate
evaluative criteria of any philosophy or moral standard cannot to be sought in
its abuse.
-- Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV. The Bible addresses two types of human judging; one is
denounced, while the other is enjoined. (1) Wrongful judgment or unfair
criticism (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3; 14:4; 1 Cor. 4:3-5; Col. 2:16) involves
hypocritical assessments, or trying to discern another’s intentions and
motives, or drawing conclusions without having all the facts, or making judgments
based on misinformation, or using oneself as the standard (cf. Jas. 2:13;
4:11-12). (2) Righteous judgment (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5)
relies on God’s word as the standard, evaluates observable actions and
substantiated facts, and sincerely has the person’s best interests at heart (cf.
Gal. 1:9; 1 John 4:1; 2 John 10-11). While
making judgments (decisions) and condemning error is necessary and expected
(Matt. 7:6, 15-20; 18:15-17), one’s attitude and behavior must be in line with
the divine will (Matt. 6:14-15; 18:23-35; Rom. 2:21-23; Jas. 4:11-12).
2 John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (San
Francisco: Harper, 1992): 107.
3 Matthew Vines, God and the Gay
Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships (New
York: Convergent Books, 2014): 5-20. For a brief response to his main
arguments, see Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 2.
4 “Examine Reality” was a debate between David Silverman (president
of American Atheists) and Christian apologist Frank Turek on 18 April 2013 in
Shreveport, LA, <Link>.
Related
posts: Relativism Vs Objective Truth, Religious Dialogue Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Related
articles: Forest Antemesaris' Christianity that Appeals to Atheists, and Bad Reasons to Reject Christianity
No comments:
Post a Comment