Monthly Archives: April 2019

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 8)

Posted on by

These are arguments that every Christian should avoid but are too often paraded around as if they’re effective. This is a continuation of a list that begins here.

Stupid Argument #26: Deconstruct the atheist worldview.

If you atheists were consistent, you’d say: “Follow any morality that pleases you. Those pangs of conscience in your brain are just chemicals.” And what are wonder, love, courage, and other positive traits if they’re also nothing but chemicals?

Sure, we can explain much of how the brain works, but how does that dismiss morality, wonder, and so on? This is the genetic fallacy—discounting something because of where it came from.

It’s like seeing an answer of 849 on a calculator and thinking, “Oh, just ignore that value. Those digits are simply an illusion of numbers caused by electrons turning bits of liquid crystal dark or light.” It’s true that at a low level it’s all physics and semiconductors, but that’s just one way to explain it. At a higher level, it’s a math problem.

Another example: when you meet someone new and they say, “Tell me about yourself,” you don’t list your body parts.

Similarly, at a low level, the brain is just chemicals, synapses, and neurons, but at the high level, it’s morality or wonder or consciousness or emotions or whatever. Neither level denies the truth of the other, and we can explore the issue at whatever level makes sense.

Consider the wonder we get from Christianity. Its cramped and flawed view of reality is nothing compared to what science gives us. Science tells us of atoms and quarks, living cells and DNA, and black holes and the Big Bang, and it backs up its claims with evidence!

About the universe, the Bible tells us, “[God] also made the stars” (Genesis 1:16). In the original Hebrew, it’s a single word.

Richard Dawkins said this about the world that we see through science:

The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living.

Stupid Argument #27: Flawed claim to Argument from Authority fallacy.

Wait—did you just base your claim that evolution is correct on the scientific consensus? Gotcha—Argument from Authority fallacy! Just because smart people say it’s true doesn’t make it so.

Let’s first understand how to apply the Argument from Authority fallacy. Statements such as the following may fail because of this fallacy: “Dr. Jones says I’m right” or “PZ Myers, a biology professor, says I’m right” or even “many biologists say I’m right.” The Argument from Authority fallacy rejects an argument based on the statement of someone who is either not an expert in the relevant field or who should be ignored in favor of the consensus view of that discipline.

To avoid the fallacy, replace “PZ Myers says that evolution is correct, so therefore it is” with “The consensus within biology is that evolution is correct, so that’s the best explanation we have at the moment.” (More on the irresistibility of the scientific consensus here.)

Stupid Argument #28: Don’t be a hypocrite! You take stuff on faith, too!

Here is the view stated by a Christian commenter (slightly tweaked): “Until you can tell me that you were there from the beginning until now, you don’t really have facts of your own, do you? Neither do I; I just don’t proclaim it like you do.

“Faith boys, we all have faith; faith in what is up to you. I think I will stick with the gospel on this one.”

The Christian goal here is to insist that the positions of the atheist and Christian are symmetric—say what you will about faith; we’re all in the same boat. This fails for several reasons.

  • The Christian antagonist denigrates faith with this argument. A crude paraphrase might be, “You say I’m stupid for having faith? Well, you have faith too, so who’s stupid now??” Faith is no longer an honorable and valid route to truth but a crutch that atheists as well as Christians lean on. Ask yourself why the Christian response is never, “Good for you—now you’re getting it! You’re taking things on faith, just like you should.”
  • The definition of “faith” is curiously slippery, but in this context it’s used to mean belief based on insufficient or poor evidence. The Christian here charges the atheist with faith in science, but I have no use for that kind of faith. Instead, I trust science. That is, my belief is well supported by evidence and (here is the bit too often overlooked) if the evidence changes, my belief will change accordingly.
  • To go beyond a layman’s trust in science, science can explain the reasons why any particular claim is made. And explain the reasons behind those reasons, and so on. At some point, we get down to facts (results of experiments, say) or axioms (1 + 1 = 2, say). Even with axioms, there is no faith. Axioms are tested continually.

Continued in part 9.

Don’t have anything to do
with foolish and stupid arguments,
because you know they produce quarrels.
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome
but must be kind to everyone,
able to teach, not resentful.
— 2 Timothy 2:23–4

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/23/15.)

Image from Wikimedia, CC license

.

Gay Marriage: a Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment?

Posted on by

Larry Tomczak of the “Here’s the Deal” blog is mightily concerned about this whole gay thing. In a post from 2015, “Church Is Facing a Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment,” he says it’s the church’s great test.

Here’s what the church faces:

Opposition to Christianity is becoming more aggressive and hostile. Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of natural marriage and sexual purity.

I’ll grant that opposition to Christian stupidity can be aggressive, but where Christians expect no more than the U.S. Constitution grants them, I support their rights as strongly as I do mine. That attitude is widespread in the atheist community.

As for “natural marriage” and sexual purity, it’s an odd world where the sky is falling on Christians and yet they aren’t being forced to do anything.

Same-sex marriage

Tomczak works himself into a frenzy as he imagines modern Christians in the same position as Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

After 5,000 years of Western civilization defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, we are on the precipice (barring miraculous intervention) of the Supreme Court imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states.

Allowing someone else to have consensual sex in a way that’s not your cup of tea is not an “imposition.” Same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide, and no thoughtful person is surprised that the sky hasn’t fallen.

You want an imposition? Remember Bonhoeffer, the man you reference in your post. He was hanged in Flossenbürg concentration camp in Germany just weeks before the end of the war for working with the Resistance. That’s an imposition.

As for your anxiety about marriage being redefined, it’s redefined all the time. Just in my lifetime, laws forbidding interracial marriage have been struck down, divorce is much easier, adultery has been redefined, and marital rape is illegal. Don’t pretend that it’s been unchanged since God invented it.

Recently the largest Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church USA, changed the wording of its constitution to fully embrace sodomy-based “marriage.”

So what kind of marriage do you have, Larry? A screwing-based “marriage”? I guess I’m old fashioned, because I thought love was a major part of it. Marriage vows say nothing about making either whoopee or babies. Instead they have a promise “to have and to hold, from this day forward; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; until death do us part.” But perhaps Larry has no use for traditional interpretations of marriage.

I think I’ll stick with my version of marriage. It’s based on reality instead of hysteria.

Scary times ahead

Apparently it’s time to circle the wagons, because he tells us we’re in the “perilous” end times foretold by the Bible.

We are facing a “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment.” You recall that he chose civil disobedience and disobeyed Nazi law that stated that protecting Jewish people was against the law. He was hung for his stand. He also said prior to his death, “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

It’s hard to believe that he’s doing it even as he’s doing it, but Tomczak is equating these two things:

  1. Christians speaking out against same-sex marriage in the West, which is not especially perilous, given that Tomczak has freely done it, and
  2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s standing up to the Nazis, protecting Jews, returning to Germany in 1939 when he had been safe in America, working to overthrow Hitler, and getting executed.

Our host next translates this into examples of biblical heroes obeying God at the risk of their lives: Daniel and his three friends, Esther, the disciples of Jesus.

Take deep breaths, Larry. Maybe a cold compress on the forehead. Tell yourself that it’s just the vapours. You’re back in America, where you can avoid getting gay married all you want.

You’re confusing (1) being imposed upon with (2) being allowed to impose your views on the rest of the country by law. No, you can’t do that. Don’t expect an apology.

Two things stand out here. First, of course, is the arrogance of equating the difficulties of anti-gay Christians today with those of Bonhoeffer in the 1940s. It’s his own example, and it demolishes his position. Unlike Bonhoeffer, Tomczak can say or write or hand out on the street corner just about anything he likes.

And that brings up the second point. He has the freedom to say these things because of the U.S. Constitution. The secular U.S. Constitution, the one that tells Congress not to make laws based on how they would please God. But the same secular public square that protects me from Christian excesses acts the other way as well. How about a little appreciation for that?

In one final failure of this argument, according to a 2015 biography, Bonhoeffer was likely gay.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
— Martin Niemöller (1892–1984),
who spent the last seven years of the war
in German concentration camps

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 4/1/15.)

Image from Wikimedia, CC license

 

.

Christian Cowardice and the Suicide Tactic

Posted on by

A popular tactic within the Christian apologetics community is to identify and reject self-refuting arguments that are used against them. There is some wisdom here, but dig into this advice and you’ll find that it betrays a fear to confront the actual arguments.

What is a self-refuting statement?

A self-refuting statement is one that defeats itself. You can reject it without additional evidence or argument. Here are a few examples.

  • “This sentence is false.” If we assume that it’s true, the statement itself tells us it’s false.
  • “I will not respond to that.” Uh . . . you just did.
  • “Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded” (Yogi Berra). The place can’t be both empty and crowded.

Popularity of this approach with Christian apologists 

Identifying a self-refuting argument is a quick way to parry an attack. You needn’t bother with a rebuttal if there’s no argument to rebut.

This is called the “Road Runner tactic” in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (2004) by Geisler and Turek. The atheist whose argument has self-destructed is like the coyote in the cartoon who suddenly looks down to discover he has run off a cliff.

The approach is called the “Suicide Tactic” in Tactics (2009) by Greg Koukl. He wants the Christian debater to point out that the argument has committed suicide.

Here are some examples from Koukl’s book that are more relevant to apologetics.

  1. To someone who says, “There are no absolutes,” the Christian could point out that that sentence gives no exceptions and so claims to be an absolute. It defeats itself. Or to “There is no truth,” the Christian shows that the sentence claims to be true, thus defeating the claim.
  2. “The Bible must be flawed because people make mistakes.” But if people make mistakes, that sentence is itself subject to error. And if the atheist wants to salvage his position by arguing that people don’t always make mistakes (and that his sentence was correct), then the Bible might also be correct by the same loophole.
  3. “Only science gives reliable truth.” But why is that statement trustworthy? Where is the science behind it?

And that’s that! (Or is it?)

Koukl says, “When a view commits suicide, it cannot be revived, because there is no way to repair it. Even God cannot give life to a contradictory notion.”

Not necessarily. Only through a strict and uncharitable interpretation can we dismiss these statements as meaningless. They might be clumsily worded, but they’re not meaningless. In fact, each of these examples is easily salvageable.

  1. Instead of “There are no absolutes,” say, “I see no evidence for moral absolutes” or “If you claim that there is absolute truth, provide evidence to back up that claim.”
  2. Instead of “The Bible must be flawed because people make mistakes,” say, “The Bible can’t be declared flawless if it was written by flawed people” or “Bible manuscripts disagree, so we can’t be certain what the originals said.”
  3. Instead of “Only science gives reliable truth,” say, “Science delivers—consider the computer you’re typing on” or “If religion gives reliable new insights about reality, like science, I want to see examples.”

If the point were that clarity matters and that we should be careful how we construct arguments, that’s valid, but Koukl is not interested in careful wording. He wants to use this as a caltrop or rhetorical trick, an excuse to avoid dealing with the argument. This is what a debater does; this is not what someone interested in exploring the evidence does.

Christian cowardice and avoiding the burden of proof

The honest Christian would want to find any truth behind a claim. Is it poorly worded? Then fix the wording. Watch out for games like this where the Christian looks for the easy out rather than actually confronting any issue that’s there.

Used this way, the Suicide Tactic is just a dishonest gimmick to avoid the issue. The larger goal of apologists like Koukl—and they’ll often admit this—is to avoid the burden of proof. Making a claim and defending it is difficult, so he looks for opportunities to dupe the other person into doing that. He wants to attack, not defend.

In the first place, the Christian is the one making the remarkable claim—“God exists” or “Jesus resurrected,” perhaps—and so is obliged to gives reasons to accept the claim. But more important, the Christian can never win the argument if they shirk their burden of proof. Sure, they sidestep being embarrassed by not being able to defend their position well, but they also sidestep the opportunity to convince someone that they’re right.

Apparently they find that shouldering the burden of proof for defending the Jesus story is actually a burden.

Religion is a byproduct of fear.
For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil,
but why was it more evil than necessary?
Isn’t killing people in the name of God
a pretty good definition of insanity?
— Arthur C. Clarke

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/30/15.)

Image from Miroslaav Vajdic, CC license

.

Two Sizes Too Small: For What Social Errors Will History Condemn Us?

Posted on by

Social conventions change. Think of examples where we look back on Western society past and shake our heads at how morally wrong they were. Slavery. Chopping off hands for stealing. Debtor’s prison. Workhouses. Slow public executions. Voting rights given to landowners only.

But does it end there?

A group of freethinking friends saw the James Randi biopic “Honest Liar,” and we were chatting afterwards. One person raised this question about how morality has changed and continues to do so. Let’s not imagine that we’ve got it all figured out. Though we’d like to think otherwise, our descendants will look back on our society and find their own examples of moral error.

So here’s the question (feel free to participate in the comments): What social attitude changes will happen this century such that future Americans will look back on us with bemusement or horror?

Prediction 1: sex!

Let me get you started with examples from our conversation. Paul had raised the question, and he predicted the widespread acceptance of both polyamory (having multiple romantic or sexual partners at a time) and polygamy (marriage with more than two partners) and that today’s views will seem prudish and backwards.

Yes, he’s saying that the conservatives’ prediction is right: from mixed-race marriage comes same-sex marriage, and that opens the floodgates to even more redefinition. (What they forget is that this isn’t new, since marriage has always been in flux.)

It’s interesting to imagine this evolution. In the past, we had one man and one woman, same race, the bride is treated like property and comes with a dowry, and with few restrictions on the bride. We’ve gotten past the racial restriction and are moving past the gender restriction, and Paul imagined loosening up the number restriction.

But note that this isn’t a Sexual Revolution free-for-all. There are new rules, and now the bride must be old enough, must consent, and must not be a close relative. Divorce is now allowed, marital rape is forbidden, both parties are legally equal, and so on.

Prediction 2: climate change

Scot anticipated that both policy makers and ordinary voters will universally accept human-caused climate change. People will be shocked and outraged that we had the evidence for climate change but fiddled while Rome burned. He illustrated it by imagining members of our future society shocked that someone would drive a 3000-pound car for fifteen minutes, spewing out carbon dioxide all the way, just to deliver a pizza.

Prediction 3: animal rights

My proposal was that synthetic meat will be widely available, and future society will look back on us with horror that we raised animals solely to be killed, butchered, and eaten. Today, we are outraged at the idea of clubbing baby seals for fur and at bays red with blood from Japanese dolphin kills, and our future selves will have the same revulsion at our killing cows for cheeseburgers.

Given the enormous environmental impact of livestock, they will also wonder why the financial argument wasn’t enough of a driver even if the moral one wasn’t.

Your turn

Which practice or attitude, customary today, will our descendants look back on with surprise or shock? Maybe they will be outraged that we had capital punishment or that euthanasia was illegal. Maybe they will shake their heads thinking back on when abortion was legal. Maybe they will laugh at our prudishness about sex on television but be disgusted at our appetite for violence. Maybe they will marvel that we let every bonehead vote for no better reason than that they were a citizen, with complete disregard to understanding of the issues and mental capability.

It doesn’t have to be a positive prediction—you might hate it but see it as inevitable anyway.

What do you think?

I think hedonism is one of the most
morally defensible philosophies.
If the purpose of life is pleasure,
it becomes hard to justify suffering.
— commenter smrnda

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/26/15.)

Image from Marlon Cureg, CC license

.