13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:13-19).So, Paul accepted their argument and took it to its logical conclusion. "If you're right," he said (and, trust me, there are those who are "in the church" who make the same claim.), "then Christ didn't rise, all we believe is false, we are without hope, and we're all lost."
Now, you can imagine the response of those who originally made the argument. "No, wait! That's not what we were thinking. That's not where we were going." No, you weren't. But it's where you end up if you start down that path.
The argument Paul uses is called reductio ad absurdum -- reduce to absurdity. Thinking it through, he points how the conclusions are unavoidable ... and absurd.
This happens more times than you would care to imagine. Take, for instance, the classic, "If it feels good, do it." Really? Are you really going to hold that argument? So if it feels good ... to slash someone's tires, do it? If it feels good to consume more alcohol than your body can manage, do it? If it feels good to slash someone's throat, do it? Are you sure you want to go down that path?
Or there is the quite common argument for the contradictory "same-sex marriage" concept. "What's the question? Clearly committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships are a good thing. That's marriage!" Okay, so let's try this same approach. Where does this argument take us? We'll assume the premise. "Committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships are a good thing." So, what about committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships between a male and several women? What about committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships between multiple people of multiple genders? If "committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships" is the basis for "good" in this scenario, on what basis would those be excluded? You see, it takes you places that those who hold the argument never intended to go. And it's unavoidable.
Oh, this one is pretty common. "There is no God. There can't be, because if there was a God, there would be no evil." Now, wait a minute. I'm pretty sure you do not want to go down that road. Because, you see, if there is no God, there is no definition of evil (or good). Good and evil become arbitrary and relative. What you classify as "evil" won't be what someone else does, and there is no valid basis to determine which is or isn't. So, proving the non-existence of God by the existence of evil is predicated on the theistic definition of good and evil. Delete that definition and you have no place to stand.
You'll find the same thing in biblical arguments. For instance, "God is not willing that any should perish." Okay, pursuing your line of reasoning, then, what can we conclude. Either no one perishes or God is not sovereign. You are certainly free to take your pick, but what you cannot conclude is that any perish and God is sovereign. If it is God's will that no one perishes, then no one will perish or God's will does not occur. Feel free to pick one or the other. I'm pretty sure, however, that when you made that original argument, that was not where you planned to end up. (Note: Since the original premise was a quote from Scripture and the conclusion is untenable, it might be a good idea to reexamine what was meant by the original quote than making it a blanket statement of God's divine will.)
I've heard that human beings have the remarkable capacity to think logically, step by step, to the wrong conclusion. I think it's easy to see. Thinking an argument through to its inevitable conclusion is a good thing. Maybe not easy to do, but good.
8 comments:
If "committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships" is the basis for "good" in this scenario, on what basis would those be excluded?
On the basis that monogamy is believed to be a good, healthy ideal. Polygamy has tended to be patriarchal and oppressive towards women (look at the radical Mormons and Muslims for support for that contention).
On the other hand, faithful, loving, adult, consensual monogamous marriage relationships... what is the world is anything but POSITIVE about them?
Can you offer a single negative associated with this arrangement that is not based on religious biases/that is observable in the real world?
The "reductio ad absurdum" doesn't hold up in this case.
Or, flip it around: IF endorsing faithful, loving marriages between straight folk is a good thing, then why isn't faithful, loving polygamous marriages good? The RAA argument doesn't invalidate marriage as an institution, whether gay or straight.
Dan Trabue: "monogamy is believed to be a good"
Now who is impressing their religious hunches on people? Ask most polygamists and they'll tell you it's good. Ask most polygamist wives and they will tell you it's not oppressive. Ultimately, what is necessarily oppressive about polygamy ... or polyandry ... or polyamory? Are you telling us that you would be opposed to committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships because they simply violate your arbitrary "monogamy" rule? Are you arguing that committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships are only good if they are singular?
Dan Trabue: "Can you offer a single negative associated with this arrangement that is not based on religious biases/that is observable in the real world?"
Just for the sake of explanation, you missed an important principle here. Saying "X is good" does not require that "Y is not." Taking the rational argument derived from your principle of the goodness of "committed, loving, faithful, respectful relationships" to conclude that polygamy or other forms would be acceptable in no way requires that monogamy would not. You're trying to expand the definition, not keep it narrow, remember? The same thing is true for your very convoluted "Or flip it around" line of reasoning. That, of course, is another logical fallacy, but what's the point of pursuing those?
(Please note, by the way, that the common view in the homosexual community is to hold "monogamy" as good ... while redefining it. Even for those who would define it the same as you do, most would not feel the need to prescribe "monogamy" on homosexual relationships to make them "good". You might be out there arguing by yourself at this point.)
Dan, you write, "Polygamy has tended to be patriarchal and oppressive towards women."
(Should we be glad that you distinguish between patriarchy and oppression? Or should we conclude that you think patriarchy is still an intrinsic evil?)
If we were to judge modern family arrangements by ancient practices, we would have to be cautious in embracing homosexuality; catamites were surely subject to exploitation and abuse. It seems to me that you account for these disreputable ancient practices, NOT as a reason to be wary of modern homosexual relations, but as a reason to dismiss the contemporary scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality.
But set that aside, and let's concede that polygamy has been historically patriarchal and oppressive to women.
That history of oppressing women argues that we, as a society, should be cautious about permitting polygamous unions of one man and many women.
But what about polyandrous unions of one woman, many men, where the men model themselves after worker bees lovingly meeting the needs of their queen?
What about gay male groups where there are no women to oppress?
And what about lesbian polygamy, where there's no man to be the patriarchal oppressor?
What would you tell a group of lesbian wiccans who want their committed family to be recognized as a group marriage?
Why should the dangers of the harem have any impact on whether we recognize the beauty of a coven?
Bubba, indeed, if "oppressive towards women" is the bar that must be met (or avoided), then we ought to be wary of marriage in general given the number of women who have been oppressed in any marriage structure.
Ignoring the troll. Its funny how when you start down the trail of logical conclusions how the person stating the original premise must either start back-peddling or adding addendums to the premise to try to make it work in their favor. Heaven forbid they admit they hadn't thought of the logical ending, and then make corrections. What is so wrong with admitting to being incorrect and then adjusting accordingly. When someone just starts changing the premise without admitting the conclusion seems like they're just being evasive and contrary.
This is an excellent teaching. You put into words I had previously eluded me. I did not know is was called that. I will use arguments that elude to Reductio Ad Absurdum more often. I guess the phrase means reducing an argument to its logical absurdity. It reminds me of circular reasoning or as Hank Hannegraph, “The Bible Answer Man” would say, “Building a Straw Man”
You can turn an argument topsy turvy with this approach by the stating the facts. Does God ever Change. Then why was polygamy insisted upon God in the under the Old Covenant but not the New Covenant? God still supports polygamy and not divorce. The only exception is Bishops and Deacons. They desire to be husbands of one wife to get the job. Mercy me…
What do you expect of a Godless nation like the U.S. They want all nations to vote instead of letting Billy Graham go to Evangelize, before they blew it up. The U.S. has zero population growth. It has 40% male population and 60% female. With the Gay agenda the male population is dropping. Soon the U.S. will have negative population growth. We witnessing the death of a nation.
I have found the study of logical fallacies to be quite helpful. I personally try not to make those mistakes myself. (I'm not perfect, but I try.)
Merely for educational purposes, the circular argument and the strawman argument are two other logical fallacies, each distinct from each other and from this particular one. The circular argument uses the argument to prove the argument. "The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is and, as the Word of God, we know it cannot lie." Circular reasoning. Strawman is very popular. The idea is to build a "strawman", to build a fake figure of an opposing argument and then tear it apart. "Complementarians believe that men and women are different and have different roles. Thus, they believe that men are more valuable than women. Clearly the Bible teaches the opposite -- that men and women are of equal value. Obviously, then, complementarians are wrong." (In truth, the complementarian viewpoint argues that men and women are equal in value but different in role. That example illustrated building a strawman argument.) These types of faulty arguments (and several others) are very popular. Perhaps the most popular is the ad hominem -- "to the man". In that argument you would attack the character of the person making the argument without actually addressing the argument. "Sure, he holds that homosexual behavior in the Bible is a sin, but he dabbled in that behavior itself, so why should we listen to him?" Addresses character, not argument. Very popular. Quite erroneous.
First off I want to thank you guys. It is not often you find Bereans, or someone that believes 2nd Timothy 3:16 is so important.
And, thank you for clearly explaining circular argument, the strawman argument, and the
ad hominem argument.
The ad hominem argument addresses character, not argument. Very popular. Quite erroneous. I don’t remember what the name of the debate rules for college but when you attack someone’s character you lose the debate. I was shocked that college graduates from debate teams through the rule book out when running for policitcal office.
Strawman is very popular. The idea is to build a "strawman", to build a fake figure of an opposing argument and then tear it apart.
In apologetics you have to what a strawman is. There are so many in generated in local congregations that you can’t keep up with them. Yes they are quite popular. The Strawman argument is also started out with the facts and then switching to logical fallacies. The proponents of the “Ye Are Gods” use this verse and many others building Strawman.
“Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”
The argument is, “Ye Are gods.” It is good to be a god. I went to a Christian Retreat? (my Pastor called an advance) where there guys walking around saying, “I am a god, I am a god.” Were they trying to convince themselves? This vere is a proof text for them.
The proponents skipped the next verse(s) as usual and is it easy to tear that strawman down? No. Followers are convinced that their leaders are infallible guardians of their souls and can’t be questioned. They won’t even look up the following verse or previous verses that say it is not good to be a god. Why.
“Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
In fact it is not good to be a god.
Post a Comment