It's Logical Fallacies Friday here on Blogosphere. Class is in session. I hope you enjoyed last week's reading assignments; I appreciated all the comments.
The Logical Fallacy for the week is called argumentum ad hominem, or the "argument to the person." Forget the point, go for the person. Irrelevant information. Static. Stink bombs. The stuff of mud slinging and politics as usual. You hear it all the time in political campaigns and on convention floors, usually when people are unreasonably passionate about something.
I call it the "stick & stones fallacy" because it throws stones at the person rather than shooting arrows at the target. Ad hominems are a sure sign that the debate has taken a turn for the stupid. They usually precede tempers flaring and fists flying.
An ad hominem attacks the person's character or challenges his or her circumstances. Name calling would be an example. Suggesting that a person doesn't practice what he preaches and therefore his argument isn't worth considering is another.
Here are some examples of ad hominems:
"Only a Bible-thumping religious fanatic would fail to see that Evolution is the only possible scientific explanation for the diversity of life."
"Anyone who believes in Evolution is an atheist."
"If they don't have the guts...I call them girlie-men." (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2004 reference to the Democratic legislators of California.)
"The only reason pastors preach about giving is because their paycheck depends on it."
"The war in Iraq is immoral; Bush is only in it for the oil."
"Church growth is a theology of glory; they just want to build empires."
"That's certainly a legitimate point, and I can see how someone who doesn't know all the facts might easily come to that conclusion." (Called "Damning with Faint Praise" - a favorite among smooth-talking, manipulative, weasel types.)
"One can certainly admire church growth's fervent, albeit misguided, zeal for missions." (more Damning with Faint Praise)
"That congregation is liberal; they use guitars." (Guilt by Association)
"Pastor C. can't be truly confessional; he went to St. Louis."
"Traditional Lutheran worship is irrelevent for today's worshipper; it's too Germanic."
"Christians have no right to speak about sin; they are some of the biggest sinners around." ("Tu quoque" or "you're another one" meaning "Look who's talking!")
"The Bible can't be trusted; it's full of errors and contradictions." (Called "Poisoning the Well")
"You have no idea what it's like to be a teenager!" (Called "Special Pleading" - sound familiar?)
"A man can't possibly comprehend the issue of abortion."
Ad hominem's are pretty easy to deal with. Just show that the person's character or circumstances have nothing to do with the point of the argument. Test the connection. What does the morality of the Iraq war have to do with the morality of George W. Bush? Nada. E still equals MC2 even if Albert Einstein was a womanizer and a drunk. And Jesus Christ is still risen from the dead, even if all Christians and their clergy are hypocrites, scoundrels, and Oakland Raiders fans.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but ad hominems can never hurt me. Or prove a point. Happy fallacy hunting!
Posted On: August 19th, 2005 at 12:18pm by FemLem1
"What is a non believer who comes across these blogs on the internet going to think when they read a bunch of silly stuff that has nothing religious in it. Y'all are about Daring to be Lutheran: how are you Daring to be Lutheran on your blogs when you just have a bunch of non-religious nonsence?"
I realize the fallicy in this argument i was having last night
Ohh! and i know this one (i feel smart):
"Church growth is a theology of glory; they just want to build empires"
The theology of glory is not "glory" in the sence the world sees it: Fame, power, popularity, notability... like an empire. the theology of glory is Christ on the cross. " The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified... Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour?' No, It was for this very reason I came to this hour. 'Father, glorify your name.'" (John 12:23, 27-28 NIV). Why would Jesus be trouble about being glorified in the world's sense. no, he is troubled about the cross, about taking on the sins of the world, about the pain and suffering he is about to endure in 1 weeks time. so to say "Church growth is a theology of glory; they just want to build empires" is false, is a fallacy because it is untrue; that is not the Theology of the Cross (aside from being ad hominem).
Thanks, Padre! (we talked about this wednesday night :))
Posted On: August 19th, 2005 at 12:45pm by revcwirla
[The prior comment in this slot was deleted by the author.]
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
I failed to see the quotation marks at the beginning of your post, FemLem1. My sincere apologies to you! I went over to The Brain and noticed that you too have lots of great non-religious nonsense going on, in true Bloghardt fashion.
Yes, you are correct. The statement you quoted is a big, hairy, audacious ad hominem. It never really addresses the content of the blogs, many of which are anything but "non-religious nonsense."
We at Higher Things worship, work, and play under the cross of Jesus, and the blogs on this site do just that: Worship, work, and play! Sermons, satire, logic, Bloghardt. Where else can you get all that under one roof?
What will an unbeliever say to all this "non-religious nonsense"? I don't know, maybe, "Hey, these guys are totally non-religious believers in Jesus! What's that about?"
Your defense of the theology of the cross as the true glory of Christ is smack on target, as is your reason for why the "theology of glory" is false.
One little correction to your last sentence: A fallacy is not necessarily false, just unproven.
I noticed something as I was reading through that... This particular logical fallacy seems to tie in with the 8th Commandment particularly well, especially if you read Luther's Large Catechism explanation to it.
Posted On: August 19th, 2005 at 3:56pm by john pawlitz
So is it a fallacious argument ad hominem (or ad deum) to say that we believe the Word of God because it comes from the Godhead? At what point does the authority of a speaker become substantial?
Posted On: August 19th, 2005 at 5:38pm by revcwirla
No - the statement: " We believe the Word of God because it comes from the Godhead" is not an ad hominem. It's a statement of belief. As such, it is non-falsifiable, and therefore not subject to debate. You will note that a Muslim, Mormon, or Hindu could say the same of their holy books. More on this later.
The authority of the speaker becomes "substantial" to the argument when it is relevent to the point.
Example: "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." (Matthew 5)
Posted On: August 19th, 2005 at 8:51pm by john pawlitz
Then, my next question is quite simple, but I guess I would have to ask. What kinds of statements are allowed to qualify as belief and therefore be unchallengable? Why can't "girlie men" be considered parcel to belief?
Posted On: August 19th, 2005 at 10:29pm by revcwirla
Excellent questions!
Statements of opinion or belief are always unchallengable and therefore cannot be used to prove any point except that a person or group holds those beliefs or opinions.
Our Gov. might truly believe that his opponents are "girlie men," (and they might very well be, whatever "girlie men" might entail), but that does not prove or disprove that they have the "guts" to do what the Gov. says to do. (Lots of manly men might also not want to do what the Gov. says to do!) Girly girls might also be insulted by this ad hominem, since it implies that girls don't have guts, and I know better than that.
The only thing the Apostles' Creed "proves" is that Christians believe and confess it. You can't say, "God is Triune because the Apostles' Creed says so." But you can say: The Apostles' Creed confesses that God is triune; Christians confess the Apostles' Creed; therefore, Christians believe that God is triune.
Posted On: August 20th, 2005 at 10:37am by john pawlitz
Rev. Cwirla,
Thanks...just taking in all this in has been beneficial. Before I start, I apologize in advance to anyone who finds me excessively academic or seemingly pretentious in speech. It is not because I find what is less academic wrong, or impermissible, but because I think this could benefit.
I guess it is an happy illustration of the delimitation of the domain of thought between church and state. Anything strictly logical and orderly seems appropriate in the state, whereas anything that is a correct belief is appropriate in the church. There are not any (dare I say) metaphysical organons by which to connect the two (other than undesirable terms, such as Islam or hubris).
But if I could wager a guess, the church does have an inductive reason for belief in the Word of God. Whereas all logic proceedeth formally, the inductive "form" of reasoning proceeds from presumably distinct evidence. This is difficult because there seems to be no calculating hermeneutic for interpreting evidence. Accordingly, men like David Hume are born...saying to us: How can you know that the Bible is the Word of God--and presenting other such scandals as if they were real.
But if, in faith, we do not "agree" to the content, but rather "receive" the dicta of the speaker, then we are only making a decision based on the speaker rather than the Word. To adopt such a rhetoric would not imply that we participate in effecting our salvation, because our salvation comes from the Word, NOT our ability to agree to the Word. However, our salvation DOES come from our ability (i.e. faith) to HEAR whatever materially comes from the mouth of God. (cf. "faith comes from hearing.") Faith is the connection between God and man, but the Word is the difference between man's death and man's redemption.
The "response" a man must make towards God is inevitable, if God exists. An atheist, even though he makes no conscious response to the reality of a God, nevertheless subconsciously is responding with ignorance and contemptuous afterthoughts. (He does not have the spirit of God in his heart, therefore the fool says, "In my heart there is no God.") A believer ought to respond that belief in the Word of God (as what comes from the mouth of the Lord) is an absolute priority. Hence, he never comprehends systematically (that is, thoroughly) the content of that elocution, but he does systematically grasp the significance, which is itself faith and works--faith in God and works towards "neighbor."
So I apologize if this has grown over-bulky, it is just a curiosity for me if the broad boundary between church and state might be overcome by something other than radicalism or (if we might take a fair look at our own separation) isolationism...or if the current estrangement between reason and faith might become less pressing on American souls, which no doubt tire of the controveries.
Posted On: August 21st, 2005 at 3:42pm by Madre[ + ]
The FemLems call me their Queen. I never sought or applied the title to myself but was honored by it, until I (recently) learned that it apparently means that they're really Bloghardtettes. We may have been taught some half-decent theology from Bloghardt, but do you REALLY want to emulate that other strange stuff else he does?
.jpg)
