Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 2 of 4)

6. Misuse of comparative analogy. When analogy is used as “proof,” it is taken beyond its intended purpose. Analogy merely illustrates something by way of comparison (e.g. Psa. 1:3; Matt. 13:24); it does not prove it. In an attempt to justify infant baptism, Jordan Bajis argues that in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 baptism is likened to the Israelites crossing the Red Sea; since they took their infants and young children with them (Ex. 12:37), infant baptism is therefore valid.¹ This is a cart-before-the-horse fallacy, where an illustration is used to prove a point rather than illustrating a point already proven. The Red Sea crossing of the ancient Israelites (“baptized into Moses”) was for the saving of their temporal lives, whereas the baptism of Christ’s new covenant is for spiritual salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21) and thus applicable to penitent believers (Acts 2:37-38; 8:12) rather than innocent babies (cf. Mark 10:13-16). See Are Humans Totally Depraved from Birth?.

7. Inductive reasoning via “begging the question” is an attempt to build a case by arguing in reverse from an unproven conclusion with premises that seem to support it.² Jesus is recorded as saying, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12).³ It has been alleged that he (or his followers) plagiarized this golden rule from eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and/or Jewish rabbis, which calls into question the integrity of Christian doctrine.⁴ However, what Jesus says is noticeably different from the popular ethic of reciprocity (“Give to get something in return”) and the negative and passive version, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” While similar sayings have been attributed to Buddha, Confucius, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, multiple Jewish teachers, and others, the first on record to express the positive form of this principle is Jesus the Christ. Moreover, “the Law and the Prophets” he cites (N.B. Lev. 19:18) predate the eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and Jewish rabbis. The fact that just about all civilized peoples and religions throughout history have adopted some form of this moral code is indicative of a maxim of human nature endowed by the Creator. In other words, Jesus articulates an eternal and universal truth.

8. Circular reasoning is a defective ploy wherein the premises of an argument rely on the conclusion for validation; supporting claims cannot stand unless the conclusion is assumed to be true. Although Jesus is clearly identified in the NT as “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 22:12-13, 16) – an obvious reference to deity (Rev. 1:6) – the Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to accept it because the Alpha and the Omega is descriptive of Almighty God. According to their dogma, Jesus is not God, therefore no matter what the Bible says, it cannot mean that Jesus is God, because Jesus is not God.⁵ A Bible believer might affirm that the Bible is God’s word because the Bible says so, and the Bible can be trusted because it is God’s word. Granted, if the biblical record were void of such affirmations, this would be a strong argument against it. Having acknowledged the self-claims of scripture, however, there must be sufficient proof to support the claims (which there is!).⁶

9. “Apples and Oranges” is an idiom describing the false analogy of comparing things when there is no practical or legitimate comparison. Jesus stated in John 10:16, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” According to the Book of Mormon, the “other sheep” are the Nephites who allegedly settled in the ancient Americas, whom Jesus reportedly visited after his resurrection (3 Nephi 15:21). Others claim that denominational sects are in view, comprising the current global flock of Christendom.⁷ These interpretations, however, are sifting the biblical text through the religious environment of modern times rather than considering the statement’s immediate context and its fulfillment shortly thereafter. Contextually Jesus is referring to the inclusion of Gentiles into his Jewish flock (John 11:51-52; 17:20-21; Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6 = the unified church), not to proto-Mormonism or to modern-day denominationalism.

10. Pitting scripture against scripture is an inappropriate attempt to counter one biblical statement with another. If the Bible is divinely inspired and its message is consistent, obviously one or both citations have been misapplied. A classic example is when Luke 9:50 is used to defend ecumenical diversity and the broadening of one’s circle of fellowship: “… for he who is not against us is for us” (par Mark 9:40). To justify narrowing lines of fellowship, Luke 11:23 is cited: “He who is not with Me is against Me …” (par Matt. 12:30). In context, however, the first passage addresses arrogant apostles forbidding the good works of a fellow-disciple simply because he was not in the immediate apostolic circle of the twelve. In the latter text, the Lord is condemning antagonistic Pharisees falsely accusing him of doing the devil’s work. To ignore the respective contexts, making application to unrelated circumstances, is to mishandle the word of truth (see For or Against?).

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

    ¹ Jordan Bajis, “Infant Baptism,” in Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (1990-1996; accessed 2016), <Link>. Does the analogy of Noah's flood (1 Pet. 3:20-21) prove that animals are to be baptized?    

    ² This is in contrast to deductive reasoning, which relies on true statements of fact (premises) leading to a logically certain deduction. If every premise in the syllogism is true, and the rules of logic are adhered to with clearly defined terms, then the conclusion is necessarily true. In contrast, the inference of inductive reasoning is unproven and most likely unprovable. Nevertheless, beyond the self-evident laws of logic, inductive reasoning can be helpful and even necessary when determining by observation whether the premises of a given argument are valid. For example, by observing certain effects (induction) we can draw reasonable conclusions (deduction) about how gravity will affect an overturned glass of water, the presence of someone on an island by footprints on the beach, the existence of a Grand Designer, et al. See Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004): 62-66; also Mitch Stokes, How to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016): 40-41.

     ³ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ⁴ Brian de Krester, “Pillars of the Christian Faith Demolished: Part III,” in Investigator (May 2010): 133; Dhungarvn the Grey, From Pulpit to Pagan (New York: iUniverse, 2008): 118; Walter Ernest Bundy, The Psychic Health of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1922): 10.

     ⁵ “So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title ‘Alpha and Omega’ applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son” (Reasoning from the Scriptures [Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1985]: 413). See Questions for My Jehovah's Witness Friends. 

     ⁶ See Divine Origin of the Bible; also Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt, “Reasons to Believe the Bible,” <Link>.

     ⁷ H. R. Reynolds and T. Croskery, “The Gospel of St. John,” Vol. 17 of The Pulpit Commentary, eds. H. D. M. Spence and J. S. Exell (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962): 46, 55.

Related posts: Religious Dialogue Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

Related articles:

Image credit: http://coupledwith.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/rsz_arguingcouple_custom-ddc388d815f1e3dc1343df03078d1041c4927346-s6-c301.jpg

Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 1 of 4)

     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

Image credit: https://thethinkingmuslimdotcom2.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/argue.jpg

Relativism Vs. Objective/Absolute Truth

     It has been estimated that about 70% of Americans do not believe in absolute truth, and as few as 38% of those who attend what is perceived to be conservative Christian churches believe in absolute truth.¹ Only 9% of American adults hold a biblical worldview, whereas less than one half of one percent of those aged 18 to 23 do.² The majority seems to favor an open, tolerant, pluralistic society, where individual choice is more important than absolute standards. Relativism currently reigns as the non-standard standard: “What I consider right and wrong is true for me, and what you consider right and wrong is true for you.”

     The “politically correct” agenda, as advocated by media outlets, politicians, the entertainment industry, and other secular entities, has consistently indoctrinated impressionable minds with ideas such as: (1) the supremacy of individual choice as the ultimate criterion; (2) personal feelings and opinions as the primary basis of morality; (3) truth is subjective and relative to circumstances; (4) diverse viewpoints are equally valid; (5) unconditional acceptance, inclusiveness, and tolerance; and (6) the demonization of making negative judgments about others.³

Relativism in Religion

     Postmodernism is a popular model of thinking that affirms there is no real knowledge or facts or truth in the objective sense (only subjective interpretations); no uniform or universal reality.⁴ And postmodernistic relativism is not limited to atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics. Universalism is the belief that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God. Syncretism is the combining of different religious beliefs, asserting unity and the inclusion of diverse faiths. Pluralism is accepting all religious paths as equally valid and promoting coexistence. It is all too common to hear the adage, “One religion is as good as another.”

     For professing Christians who at least pay lip service to the exclusiveness of the Christian faith (see John 14:6), alternative slogans include, “One church is as good as another,” “Join the church of your choice,” and “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere.” Now that Christianized Relativism is so commonplace in our society, who can be surprised by messages like that of Victoria Olsteen? She announces to the world: “just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God, really, you’re doing it for yourself ...”⁵

Relativism in Churches of Christ⁶

     With the inroads of relativism and the denial of absolute truth, we are witnessing among churches of Christ a rejection or compromise of fundamental tenets such as biblical authority, the restoration plea, the distinctiveness of the church, worship guidelines, doctrinal integrity, and a strict moral code. Teachings regarded as harsh or unpleasant or inconvenient are diluted or changed. Grace and unconditional acceptance take precedence over repentance, accountability, and obedience. Rather than appealing to Bible authority and what we know pleases the Lord, greater emphasis is placed on what interests members (felt needs) and/or what attracts people in the community. Doctrinal and procedural change is hailed as essential to salvaging or transforming what is perceived to be an antiquated and dying church.⁷ Then there are the catchphrases that prematurely end dialogue: “Everyone’s entitled to his/her own opinion.” “That’s just you’re interpretation.” “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” “Who are you to judge?!”

The Biblical Perspective

     The Bible addresses two types of human judging; one is condemned, while the other is enjoined. (1) Wrongful judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 4:3-5) 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. (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.⁸

     If the Bible is to be taken seriously, the following affirmations must be conceded:

·      There is an objective body of spiritual truth (John 4:24; 8:32; 17:17; Rom. 1:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 6:7; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 4:21; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 4:12; 11:6; Jas. 1:18).

·      Truth is attainable (Mark 12:32; John 4:23-24; 16:13; 17:20-21; Eph. 5:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).

·      Truth is knowable (John 1:14, 17; 8:32; 14:6; Rom. 2:2; Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; Heb. 10:26; 1 Jn 2:21; 2 Jn 1).

·      Truth is mutually understandable (Matt. 13:10-16, 23; Mark 7:14; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; Col. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:7).

·      One may err from the truth (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25; Gal. 2:14; 3:1; 5:7; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:1-5; Titus 1:14; Jas. 3:14; 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:2; 1 John 1:8; 2:4; cf. Rom. 1:18).

·      Truth is to be believed (John 8:45-46; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:10-13; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:25).

·      Truth is to be obeyed (John 3:21; 8:47; 18:37; Rom. 2:8-9; 6:17-18; Gal. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 1:6; 2:4-5; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4).

·      Truth is to be defended (Gal. 4:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3; cf. Acts 9:22; 18:28).

·      Truth is to be proclaimed (John 5:33; 8:40, 45-46; 18:37; Acts 26:25; Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 5:10-20; 7:14; Eph. 4:15; 1 Tim. 2:7).

Conclusion:

     Moral relativism is the necessary consequence of rejecting God and his word in favor of individual preference (cf. Rom. 1:18-31). But history has proven many times over that fallible human beings are an inadequate standard (cf. Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23). Without divine guidelines, there is no such thing as absolute truth, absolute evil, or absolute good, and everyone does “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). One of the best arguments against relativism is the sad state of our society and world and the turmoil and disunity in religion, including the Lord’s church. An objective standard of truth that is mutually accepted, understood, and obeyed is a logical necessity. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:2-3 NKJV).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “Religious Beliefs of Americans: Does Absolute Truth Exist?,” Religious-Tolerance.org, <Link>.

     ² “Barna Survey Examines Changes,” The Barna Group, <Link>. Alvin Kernan observes that modern education has taken “uncertainty to its nihilistic extremes in the humanities and social sciences, 'demystifying' traditional knowledge, replacing positivism with relativism, substituting interpretation for facts, and discrediting objectivity in the name of subjectivity” (In Plato’s Cave xvi).
     ³ In reality, it would appear that all are exempt from criticism except those who espouse conservative Christian values.

     ⁴ See Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 1.

     ⁵ “Bill Cosby's response to Victoria Olsteen,” YouTube, <Link>. Conversely, see K. L. Moore's “What Are You Getting Out of Worship?” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Phil Sanders, Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2000; and the sequel, A Faith Built on Sand: the Foolishness of Popular Religion in a Postmodern Age. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2011.

     ⁷ See James Norad’s “Why are Churches of Christ Shrinking?” <Link>; and K. L. Moore’s response, “Musicals, American Football, and Folks Leaving the Church,” <Link>.
     ⁸ “The truth of the gospel is uncomfortable precisely because it is true. The truth of the gospel shows us the strength of self-denial rather than the indulgence of self-affirmation. Clearly stating the truth of the gospel, we have a message with substance and relevance for all of life. It is the way of salvation” (Gregory Alan Tidwell, “The Splendor of Truth,” <Link>).

Related Posts: The Inconsistency of Relativism

Related articles: Dave Miller's “Political Correctness and 'Bashing',” <Link>; Steve Higginbotham's “Religious Tolerance,“ <Link>; Eric Metaxas, “The new normless: the toll of relativism on our kids,” <Link>. For an interesting comparison to the history of art, watch this video from Prager University.

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZE6EobrvxFCRbr4nhzIvz-Wi8OyBG0TFLyq5pcdhXC6lYURBSFvgAvp_ikdABeCaRNsVOoDhE4aghODKKKTG25s1iQcjhqhVvdsEOx-RfNCE5Py3Yx3i6kvaFe6OysDDMmuEQu85WtfE/s1600/question_clipart.gif