There is a logical fallacy called, "ad hominem" ... "to the man." It's an attack on the person, not the logic. Not the argument. One kind attacks the person directly. Another bases the attack on hypocrisy or inconsistency. Or maybe it's based on a perceived bias. Very popular is the "poisoning the well" version where they convince you not to listen because of other perceived errors in advance. Or there's the "tu quoque" variety where, for instance, a person is caught in a lie and accuses the other of a lie to discredit them. "Oh, yeah? Well, you lied, too!" All in the same category of ad hominem. The problem is they're an attack on the speaker and don't address the argument. So, for instance, when some Christians hear that C.S. Lewis had some bad theology, they refuse to read anything he wrote. Was what he wrote wrong? They'll never know.
I've found it interesting to read some of that "bad stuff." A guy I worked for gave me a book titled, The Lost Books of the Bible. He assured me I'd see how our Bibles are unreliable. The introduction said they accumulated the book so you could read this apocryphal stuff and see for yourself that it's not Scripture. And it really did. I saw, when I read it, how it clearly wasn't inspired. The result? My faith was bolstered. I think we are shorting ourselves if we don't examine the claims of the opposition to see where they miss the mark. Obviously it has to be done carefully. Clearly a reliance on the Holy Spirit is necessary. But I've found that it can be encouraging to actually see the error, and I don't think we can address the error of other views if we don't know what they are.
It's not for everyone. It is work. But Paul said, "Examine all things; hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). So some of us ought to do that. Avoid the obvious error. We don't need to be dwelling on it. I still think that we can gain from seeing the error and answering it. Consider the source. Sometimes God can use a donkey to tell the truth (Num 22:27-31). He can use even me.
I have appreciated learning about the ad hominem fallacy at this blog, and while I see the error in the blatant practice of it, I think there is another important consideration here, beyond a logical, intellectual exercise--and that is spiritual discernment and diligence. Especially for less mature, more impressionable believers, it is imperative to ingest teaching that is reliable and trustworthy--preferably from sources that do not entail vigilant vetting and tedious evaluation. The average Christian is not always able to discern right from almost right. Warnings about dangerous influencers abound in the New Testament, of course, and James 3:1 cautions that teachers (which I consider those who write about theology to be) will be judged more strictly.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “So, for instance, when some Christians hear that C.S. Lewis had some bad theology, they refuse to read anything he wrote. Was what he wrote wrong? They'll never know.” My feeling is that if C.S. Lewis, for instance, had bad theology, his works will reflect that fact, even if in only subtle ways; therefore, if I know up front that his theology is flawed to a discernable degree, I would not deem him worthy of my time and attention, when there are better resources at my disposal.
Your “poisoning the well” reference, “where they convince you not to listen because of other perceived errors in advance,” makes me think of Jesus’ words that “a bad tree will produce bad fruit and a good tree will produce good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). Would you mind sharing how you would interpret this warning as it relates to questionable influencers--i.e. those who might mix truth with error? Are things not as black and white as Jesus makes it sound?
I think that your choice of Lewis as an example was interesting. While he was clearly not perfect, he was very good. I'd agree that even reading his mistakes could be very valuable. I always come back to the study the real thing so well that the counterfeits are obvious as a general rule, but can absolutely see the value in studying other things, as long as we're well grounded in the Truth.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate those who engage in apologetics on our behalf so that we don't necessarily need to wade into everything.
For some reason this brings to mind something that happened the last time I was in SLC. We drove past a Mormon bookstore, and my youngest drops "I bet their religious fiction section is huge.".
The problem I run into is not understanding the opposing argument, and I simply don't take the time to try to find reading material to answer it and don't know anyone that believes it.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, this ad hominem needs another set of words, because there is bad ad hominem as you point out here where it is against the man, not the idea, but then there's good ad hominem that is taking an argument to it's logical conclusion.
I agree that our "need" for this type of information is proportional to how often we are confronted by it. If I was in an area where Mormons and JWs stopped by, I'd do a deep dive into the problems with both to be prepared. On the off chance I do get confronted, I've got a few questions for both that would get things started. At this point, in the US/Western Europe, I'd argue that knowledge of Islam and progressive christianity would be the most valuable as those are probably our two biggest "threats".
DeleteYeah, the use of the one term to convey a broad range of meanings is a problem.