C.S. Lewis coined the term "Bulverism" back in 1941 in an essay published in The Socratic Digest. It was his method of explaining a particularly egregious logical fallacy that he was seeing at the time. Turns out, of course, it is a favorite in today's world.
Lewis used a fictional character named Ezekiel Bulver to illustrate this fallacy. Ostensibly, at an early age Bulver overheard an argument between his mother and his father. His father claimed that the sum of two sides of a triangle were greater than the third. His mother retorted, "Oh, you only say that because you are a man." And Bulver learned an important lesson. You don't need to prove an argument. You simply need to assume that your opponent is wrong and explain his error. Using proof -- logic, arguments, evidence, that sort of thing -- isn't helpful in Bulverism. It's a distraction (at best). All you need to do is explain the error.
The way that works today is so common that I'm sure every one of us has heard it. "You only say that because you're a man" or "because you're white" or "because you're a Christian." Please feel free to apply that wherever you see it. It certainly includes "because you're a woman," "a person of color," or "an atheist" and then on to economics, social conditions, educational levels, denominations ... on and on and on. And perhaps it is those endless possibilities that makes it so popular. It certainly seems to be the approach of choice today. The problem, of course, is that it is a fallacy.
I've already written about the problem of lumping people together. Of course, the problem continues. An example. "If you're a white male Christian you're a Trump lover." Really? So why is it that I didn't vote for the man, warned others not to, and won't vote for him this time? Because people are individuals, not groups. Because generalizations and stereotypes are only generally true and can't be applied to individuals without further examination. Because Bulverisms are a logical fallacy that refuses to address the question and slaps the opponent with an irrelevant stereotype instead.
We are not doing people favors when we label them and then dismiss what they say because of the label. Liberals do it; conservatives do it. Skeptics do it; Christians do it. Males do it; females do it. Everyone. But failing to address the ideas in favor of a label doesn't answer the ideas. And while I expect nothing more of those who are opposed to Christ, we Christians are commanded to love one another, from our fellow believers to our neighbors. And dismissing someone because of your favorite label is not love.
6 comments:
You're only saying all those things because you're a bird lover.
You got it!
This is something I've been concerned with for a while. Any time that we don't respond to an individual as an individual, but as a caricature based on their group it is a problem. As you pointed out, if one can label his opponent a "racist" than no rational conversation can take place.
As believers, we are each individually created to bear the image of God and I think that choosing to deny someone's individuality, denies our role as image bearers of God.
It seems to have become the default opposing argument. "You're only saying that because you're white" or "You're only saying that because you're an evangelical" or "You're only saying that because you're a Christian." End of discussion. No evaluation. No consideration. And I have to tell you, I'm getting tired of it. "You only say that because you're a white Christian and all white Christians support Trump." "Wait ... what???!" Sigh.
You're right, Craig. Denying individuality is not considerate, reasonable, or kind.
Having said that, there are things that I only say because of my Christian Faith. It’d be wrong if I didn’t.
I’ve thought for a while that it’s simply laziness. If you can attribute to an individual the worst attributes of the worst person in the group you put them in, then it’s easier to dismiss them or anything they might say.
My sadness over George Floyd’s death isn’t because he was part of a subset of humanity, it’s because he was an individual created in the image and likeness of God. That’s where we get our value, as individuals who bear Gods image, not because someone lumped us in a group.
The difference between "You only say that because you're a Christian" and "You only say that because of your Christian faith" is the implied "There are reasons implied in 'faith'" as opposed to "It's just who you are."
And I so very much agree with you on George Floyd as an image-bearer of God. No racist, anti-racist, or whatever will get that because the only reason I say anything is because I'm white to them.
Post a Comment