Rev. Cwirla's Blogosphere
"For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:25)
Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 09th, 2005 at 11:38 am
We haven’t had a Logical Fallacies Friday in a long time, due mostly to distractions. Here’s a fun one with a twist at the end: Affirming the Consequent. This one runs a little long, but stay with it. You won’t be sorry.
Affirming the Consequent is the logical equivalent of throwing your car’s stick shift into reverse while going forward at 55 mph. (Don’t try this!) A sudden reversal of logic that strips the gears of the mind. Here’s a simple example:
If it’s raining, the streets will be wet.
The streets are wet today,
Therefore it must be raining.
Can you hear the gears clash? Do you feel that nagging little pebble of illogic grinding in the cylinders of your brain? Of course, there are a variety of reasons why the street might be wet. One of them could be rain. Others are melting snow, the neighbor’s sprinkler system, a leaky fire hydrant, a burst water main, etc. While the sentence works in one direction, it doesn’t necessarily work in reverse.
People guilty of a crime always lie under oath.
Harry lied under oath,
Therefore Harry must be guilty of a crime.
(Or maybe he’s trying to cover up for someone else.)
Guns are involved in murder.
Murders increased last year,
Therefore there must have been more guns.
(Baseball bats and kitchen knives also do a good job at killing people, though you don’t see attempts to regulate these.)
God’s Word is inerrant.
The Bible is inerrant;
Therefore the Bible is God’s Word.
(Or it just might be a very, very, very accurate book.)
Confessional Lutherans unconditionally subscribe the Book of Concord
Pastor X unconditionally subscribed the Book of Concord,
Therefore, Pastor X is a confessional Lutheran.
(Maybe yes, maybe no. Pastor X may not have even read the Book of Concord, or understood what was in it. What X says and does would be stronger corroborating evidence.)
Affirming the Consequent is the way of circumstantial evidence in court. Circumstantial evidence speaks indirectly to the case. It isn’t necessarily wrong, but it isn’t necessarily right, either.
The victim’s feet were encased in concrete.
The defendant had concrete in his garage;
Therefore the defendant killed the victim.
(Or maybe he was just pouring a patio. However, the million dollar insurance policy he took out on the victim does make us a tad bit suspicious.)
Affirming the Consequent is a useful slingshot for tossing political mud at your opponent.
Tax and spend liberals love to increase taxes.
Taxes increased under my opponent’s watch;
Therefore, my opponent is a tax and spend liberal.
(Or maybe taxes just went up.)
Here’s one you hear all the time around the creationist water cooler:
Atheists believe in evolution.
Sam believes in evolution;
Therefore, Sam is an atheist.
(There are well-intentioned Christians who also believe evolution is true. One doesn’t necessarily correlate with the other. In fact, people tend to be wonderfully inconsistent in the stuff they believe. Francis Pieper called it “felicitous inconsistency.”)
From the worship wars. Perhaps you’ve said it yourself, or had someone say it about you.
Church growth types love contemporary music.
Pastor Y uses contemporary music;
Therefore Pastor Y is a church growthist.
(Or maybe he’s just an old Baby Boomer Deadhead who thinks a Fender Stratocaster is closer to heaven than a squeaky old pipe organ.)
The twin sister of “Affirming the Consequent” is called “Denying the Antecedent.” It works like: If A then B; not A therefore not B. If the positive is true, the negative must also be true. Right? Well...not exactly.
If I eat a lot, I will get sick.
I don’t eat a lot,
Therefore I won’t get sick.
(Unless someone with the flu coughs in your face.)
If the glove fits on OJ’s hand, then OJ killed Nicole and Ron.
The glove doesn’t fit,
therefore you must acquit.
(The trouble is the victims were killed with a knife, not a glove. Small, but significant detail.)
Denying the antecedent is a great way to defend the status quo. It’s a common conservative ploy to say, “We’ll stick with the old, and things will always be good.” Or maybe things will just be old.
New hymnals always bring disruption and heresy into the church.
We’ll stay with the old hymnal,
Therefore, we’ll never have a problem with heresies.
(Yeah, ask the Episcopal Church about that one.)
Double predestination rests on a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Think about it:
If you are saved, you are elect to salvation.
Some are not saved,
Therefore some are not elect to salvation.
(That’ll teach you to play logical games with God!)
So far, so good. One big problem, however. Affirming the Consequent is a formal fallacy only in “deductive” reasoning, which is the safest, but least interesting, way of thinking, going from rule to conclusion by way of definition.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
All very true, and quite boring. Mathematicians work this way. That’s why they’re generally as interesting as accountants and statisticians. One thing follows another by definition. Scientists, historians, and detectives think in a different direction, called “retroductive reasoning.” Connecting the dots. Here’s an example:
Rule: All men are mortal.
Observation: Socrates is mortal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is a man.
Ah hah! you say. That’s “Affirming the Consequent.” Right you are, my deductive friend. Yet without this way of thinking, we’d never be able to come up with reasonable explanations for anything. Here’s a simple example from science:
Water is composed of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.
Substance X is composed of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.
Therefore, X is water.
The fallacy occurs when you make the conclusion an absolute statement. A little healthy skepticism is always in order when reasoning retroductively. Good science knows to be skeptical Socrates might be a man, or he might be a cat, which is also mortal. Substance X might be water or it might be something else with the same ratio of hydrogen to oxygen. The fallacy can be avoided by use of the phrase “might be,” or if you are fairly certain, “probably is.” Socrates might be a man; Substance X probably is water.
Retroductively speaking, you can never be absolutely certain of anything, just “reasonably certain.” It’s the way it works in court: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing that we observe is absolutely certain. A circumstantial evidence case is built on a series of retroductive conclusions. Any one of them may be questionable, but the sum total paints a picture that is difficult to deny beyond a reasonable doubt.
So parents, while it is generally true that kids who stay out late are up to no good, and it is most certainly true that Sally is out late tonight, it is not necessarily true that Sally is up to no good. You’ll have to talk to her when she gets home. You know the drill.
Edited on: December 09th, 2005 4:29 pm
Comments:
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 09th, 2005 at 4:08 pm by Andy Monro
Mathematicians work this way. That's why they're generally as interesting as accountants and statisticians.
How many mathematicians do you know? 
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 09th, 2005 at 4:24 pm by revcwirla
I used to know a lot more than I do today. The word "generally," of course, leaves plenty of room for exceptions, including those I know. I try to hang out with interesting people, regardless of vocation. I even know a few interesting pastors.
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 12th, 2005 at 11:12 am by dtp
Uhh... AM I a church growthist ( Fuller variety) if I like my stratocasteor humming along with my pipe organ? (and maybe a nice baritone sax)
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 12th, 2005 at 5:16 pm by revcwirla
Can't tell by your musical taste, or lack thereof. To deductively conclude that you are a church growthist (by definition), would be a fallacy. On the other hand, it might be circumstantial evidence, retroductively speaking, though not enough to convict, in my opinion.
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 21st, 2005 at 12:54 am by Ryan P.T.
It seems what you've called "retroductive" reasoning here is the same as "inductive" reasoning -- is that right? And wouldn't you say that Reformed doctrine (I'm thinking mainly in regards to the sacraments) is de-ductive, whereas Lutheran doctrine is in-ductive (or retro-ductive, if you prefer), insofar as we take our observations (i.e., the Bible) and work up to establish doctrine. Wow, that sounds convoluted. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying.
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: December 21st, 2005 at 10:19 am by revcwirla
Ryan P.T. -
Great comment, worthy of a somewhat lengthy response, which probably you alone will read. Got the thought juices flowing this morning. (Nice blog site, btw - wretchedoftheearth.blogspot.com)
"Inductive" reasoning goes from a specific case to a general statement:
Socrates is a man,
Socrates is moral,
Therefore, all men are mortal.
This is how scientific hypotheses are formed.
"Retroductive" reasoning applies a specific observation to the general statement by way of explanation:
All men are mortal,
Socrates is moral
Therefore, Socrates is a man.
This is how scientific hypotheses are tested.
For a helpful discussion, see: http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/fallacies_grid.asp
With regard to the Lutheran and Reformed views of the Sacrament, I think both sides are working deductively from the text:
Christ says, "This [bread] is my body."
This is bread,
Therefore, this is the body of Christ.
Lutherans and Reformed would both agree to this line of reasoning. The difference is in their understanding of how "is" is functioning in the sentence "This is my body."
Identity: (Pointing to my dog) "This is my dog."
Relational: (Pointing to a snapshot of my dog) "This is my dog."
Both are valid uses of the word "is." Lutherans understand the word "is" in "This is my body" to be revealing something about the bread in the Supper. This bread "is" the body of the Christ, and the body of Christ (in the Supper) is bread. "Is" as an identity works both ways.
Reformed understand the word "is" to be establishing a relational connection between two different things as sign and thing signified. This bread (sign) is the body of Christ (thing signified). The Reformed would not say that the body of Christ is bread, since the higher thing signified cannot be a sign for something below it.
In the little syllogism above, Lutherans and Reformed disagree on the function of "is" in the major premise "This is my body." Notice also that in the Reformed reading of the syllogism, you have to switch the function of "is" in going from the major to the minor premise:
Relational: "This [bread] is my body."
Literal: This is bread.
Relational: This is the body of Christ.
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: September 07th, 2007 at 6:47 pm by Jennifer
Um, okay... so how do we know if Jesus was speaking "identity" or "relational" AND furthermore... If He was speaking "identity" when did it become the body? When the baker baked it or when the minister blessed it? And, if it's when the minister blessed it.. can be bless it wrong? What if the minister was pressured into seminary and the ministry by his family but doesn't really believe in Jesus? Is his blessing null?
ACK!!
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: September 07th, 2007 at 8:16 pm by revcwirla
What if the minister was pressured into seminary and the ministry by his family but doesn't really believe in Jesus? Is his blessing null?
Irrelevency. The Word is Christ's Word not the minister's.
Second, Christ doesn't say "becomes" but "is," so the question "when does the bread become the Body of Christ" has no definitive answer. We know that the bread IS the Body of Christ when we hear the Word that reveals what is hidden to our senses - "This is my Body."
Looking back over this very old post, I think I would disagree with what I wrote in reponse to Ryan's comment. Lutherans proceed deductively from the Words of Christ:
This is bread.
Jesus says, "This bread is my Body."
Therefore, this bread is Jesus' Body.
The Reformed also proceed deductively then retroductively:
This is bread.
Bread is not Body.
Therefore, this bread is not Body.
Jesus says, "This bread is my Body."
Bread is not Body.
Therefore, this Bread represents Body.
In the former, "is" means "is;" in the latter "is" means something other than "is" when Jesus says it.
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: September 07th, 2007 at 10:13 pm by Jennifer
Thanks. That is helpful... I think.
*scratches head*
I guess I still don't follow how we can know for sure exactly what He meant. Not all bread is body, is it?
I'm not trying to make logical arguments for the sake of arguing. I've always had trouble with this. I've been a believer for 19 years. Early on I was taught that communion was a "remembrance" and that it represented his body and blood. (Obviously not at a Lutheran church)
I keep coming back to your dog photo reference.
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: September 08th, 2007 at 7:59 am by revcwirla
Logic won't get you to the Lord's Supper. Only our Lord's words will do that. This is His own testament on the eve of His death; HIs words are plain and simple. "Take, eat, this is my body. Take, drink, this is my blood."
Of course, not all bread is the Body of Christ; the words of Christ tell you which bread is. This is why we refer to the act of speaking our Lord's words as "consecration." He tells us what He is up to with this bread in His Supper.
The apostle Paul understood these words in terms of "is" - "1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? " There is an identity or commonality (koina) between the bread and the Body, the wine and the Blood. Besides, ordinary bread and wine won't make you sick or kill you (1 Cor 11:30).
My little exercise in logic was simply to show that the Lutheran understanding proceeds directly from Jesus' words without any intervening intrusion of outside information or presupposition.
You were taught correctly that the Lord's Supper is a "remembrance." Jesus says, "Do this in (better "for") my remembrance." This is how we remember and proclaim the saving death of Jesus - by eating the bread which is His Body and drinking the wine that is His Blood according to His own mandate and institution. This is how Jesus wishes to be remembered, and how He remembers us. You were taught incorrectly about the bread/wine being a representation of Jesus' body and blood. There are words in Greek to express that - the evangelists do not use them. They say "is."
(Interesting side question - Is "my remembrance" our remembering Him or He remembering us?)
Re: Affirmations and Denials
Posted On: September 08th, 2007 at 11:35 am by dtp
Jennifer,
I too, spent a while in a background that believed it was simpy a remembrance. (Yet we had the Lord's Supper every week - as a measure of obedience)
The issue is not just one of logic, but it is one of shedding preconcieved notions, and letting God's word speak for itself.
Pr. Cwirla brought up 1 Cor 10:16, talking about the fellowship, the community, the partnership/participation (all coming from the same koinonia word in greek) of the Body and Blood we share in, when we take the cup and break the bread.
The problem is that theologians, both from the catholic extreme, and the zwinglian side of protestantism want to argue about when, how, where, and how much happens to it all, rather than taking the word at what it says.
(we can do that too, there was a time where scholars wondered whether it "is" when it is eaten, or whether it is, when it is "consecrated. Another issue, believe it or not, is how far do the words "stretch"- so if you "run out" do you have to say the words all over again? )
All this questioning, while fun, is also silly. Silly because God didn't explain all the details we want. Jesus said - "This is" and I have learned to accept that. Pau says when we take the bread - we commune/fellowship/participate with the Body. I can be fine with that as well.
Important to realize that we do have one answer, the most important. Why.
The body was broken.... for you
The blood was shed, this blood of the new covenant... for you, for the remission of sin.
Now that is something I can rejoice in.
Deo Gloria !
pr. dt p