22 Fallacies Regarding Evangelicals
Via: JJ, Bore Me To Tears
…And I’m reducing it to 22 by combining several which are related. Sigh.
Let’s have a look, then, at the “dog-whistles” of anti-evangelicalism, which is a part of my background. Here’s a fine example of the pop-media rallying cry to reject Christian truth claims without the inconvenience of resorting to reasoned examination. Mr. Schaeffer, please proceed to dance on a table:
Funny, I just located a nice list of fallacies to study with my junior-high-year-olds this year. This video, due to its blatant presentation of many such things, has now become our first project. Here’s our list of the fallacies in Frank Schaeffer’s diatribe of silliness à la Monty Python Camelot Can-Can:
1. Straw Man
The straw man is nicely set up by Ms. Maddow in opening the interview with the rather curious poll data. Likewise, I am not sure either what possessed the polling firm to ask that question. It has no basis in pre-millenial, pre-tribulational doctrine, with which I’m reasonably well-acquainted.
Just checked. Nope. Obama’s name is not in the Bible. Neither is America’s. Sorry. This is not about Bible believers.
Mr. Schaeffer continues the straw man effect with his characterization of this doctrinal vein as “standing on a hilltop waiting for the end,” “good is bad and bad is good,” and other mischaracterizations. While clearly there are people out there whose religious culture is that far off kilter (I assume somebody answered this poll), let’s consider the reality of the “fifth column of insanity.” (If I’d only known I got to act crazy, and build a bunker and stuff…where’s my standard-issue illegal weaponry?? How did I miss that verse?)
2. Leaping to a Conclusion
The population sample by which evangelical Christianity the world over is so vituperatively contemned was apparently (a segment of) “New Jersey Conservatives.” As a Canadian evangelical with several international relationships, I find it kind of irrelevant to be judged by American notions.
Doctrinal Americocentrism just doesn’t play outside a small subset of people. If Mr. Schaeffer is busily shedding his American fundamentalist roots, he might want to shed that one also.
3. Questionable Cause/Ignoring a Common Cause
Christianity and stupidity are regularly connected: therefore Christianity must be stupid. Really? The kids corrected it this way: humanity and stupidity are regularly connected; let’s look at human stupidity.
4. Ad Hominem/Ad Hominem Abusive/Poisoning the Well
A list too long to number. You count. I suggest starting at “village idiot” and proceeding both forwards and backwards from there. “Fifth column of insanity” and “dangerous people” also come to mind. (Commenters, run away. The killer bunny of Scienda will come for you.)
I just cannot take anyone seriously when they talk this way, and I sure have trouble maintaining intellectual respect for those who do take it seriously.
5. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Mr. Schaeffer opens by discussing his mother’s belief that Kennedy could have been the Antichrist, and talking about a rotating cast of villains proposed among Americans in his lifetime. This is no doctrinal evaluation of Christian theology; merely a cultural commentary on the misapplication of a particular system of theology. While we’re at it:
6. Misleading Vividness
Kennedy; standing on a hilltop waiting for the end; resentful that the world has left them behind; some of these people bring guns into public (see Appeal to Fear). (And I still want to know where my tactical weaponry is. Ahem. Waiting.)
7. Spotlight Fallacy
Those polled have now and hereby received media attention; therefore, all Christian conservatives must be like them. Quote from Nizkor’s page on this fallacy: “Since the media typically covers people or events that are unusual or exceptional, it is somewhat odd for people to believe that such people or events are representative.”
Mr. Schaeffer appears to have fallen prey to this himself in applying this poll data in the manner he does. *cough* But hopefully his media profile will woo his listeners in spite of that.
8. Appeal to Belief
Most people in America (e.g. “the rest of us get on with our lives”) allegedly believe conservative evangelical doctrines are insane; therefore, they must be insane.
9. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Fits neatly with the straw men here. Supposedly (and this itself is a straw man in its basis not on correct systematic theology, but some misapplication or distortion of it), the consequences of conservative evangelical Christian belief are violence, war and oppression.
Or going off and standing on a hill to wait for Jesus while using homeschooling to isolate our children and teach them to reject facts. (Which was it we were doing again? Don’t let me show up at the wrong address for the party.)
10. Genetic Fallacy
Christians are crazy and stupid; therefore, all doctrine flowing from the fount of verbal plenary inspiration must be invalid.
Yawn. Getting tired of it already. The kids: “This guy’s a b#ll$h*tter.” I’ve never heard them cuss before (that they intended me to, that is). They’re 13 and 11 and pretty disgusted with what passes for informational content in this clip.
11. Biased Sample
As a non-American, non-Republican, non-believer in mixing politics and religion, my first reaction to the poll quoted was that this represents a very biased sample of evangelical Christianity. See “Leaping to a Conclusion.”
12. Slippery Slope
“They’ll say President Obama’s the Antichrist, and who knows what next?” Implied and directly stated inevitable danger in conjunction with bringing guns to public meetings, exalting world war due to Armageddon doctrines, etc. (See, again, Appeal to Fear.)
I kind of want to roll my eyes in exasperation. We had a jolly discussion going here last week about different systematic theologies and religious ideas about the future. Some of my friends–okay, probably a lot of my friends–believe quite different things than I do. Are they all to be lumped into this heading?
13. Appeal to Fear
Long list here. This is values-based at best, not logic-based, and some of it purely abusive (see Ad Hominem). Again, I’ll let you count. Don’t worry, take your time; my armoured tank still hasn’t arrived.
14. Appeal to Ridicule
Several times. Great use of logic here, American-pop-media-style, that is. Don’t get me started on village idiots again, let alone rearranging life according to their point of view. The media’s too easy a target.
Oops, I sure hope nobody’s arranging their lives according to this point of view. Last I heard, Christianity was supposed to be rejected because that’s the logical thing to do.
15. Appeal to Spite
Mr. Schaeffer’s comments regarding Republicanism and evangelicalism fall into this category, as well as some more straw man tactics, it appears. I couldn’t care less about American political parties, myself.
However, the claim that an entire party is devoted to a given lobby, and therefore should be torn down because it will not properly represent non-evangelical interests, is an argument from spite–the idea that the Republican party doesn’t represent the interests Mr. Schaeffer thinks it should.
Implied:
16. Guilt by Association: Anyone labelled as a conservative evangelical is supposedly guilty of the same beliefs as highlighted by the poll.
17. Appeal to Questionable/Biased Authority: Mr. Schaeffer draws his authority from his upbringing. Given the very doctrinal confusion this entire piece plays off, and the doctrinal confusion he alleges existed in his own home, one questions this basis.
In terms of bias, Mr. Schaeffer is aligned with the Huffington Post, an outlet whose political slant and tendency to punditry speaks to this case without my help.
18. Special Pleading: while accusing evangelicalism of rejecting facts and rational bases, Mr. Schaeffer’s entire system of presentation pleads exemption from obligation to consideration of facts and rational basis.
19. Two wrongs make a right: because these people purportedly reject facts, so should Mr. Schaeffer and Ms. Maddow? Okay, well, it’s your public presentation of yourself. Have fun with that.
20. Appeal to emotion: one can feel unashamed and sane if one is not a conservative evangelical; therefore, one should not be a conservative evangelical. Likewise the inverse: one cannot feel unashamed and sane if one is a conservative evangelical; therefore one should not be a conservative evangelical.
21. Peer pressure: One doesn’t want to be left standing on a hill waiting for the end while the world gets on with its life, therefore one should disassociate from the beliefs cariacatured in this presentation, and join in the ridicule of anyone to whom one might be able to apply these straw men.
I always love a good mature discussion like that. The heady scent of great intellects at work just bowls me over. Suh-woon.
22. Appeal to Pity: Beneath all this is a subtle appeal to sympathy for this man, who has been raised in such an atrocious and insane background and lived to expose it in such brave and uncompromising fashion. Therefore, his claims to rational basis, however unsupportable upon analysis, must be accepted.
Conclusion
This guy has a lot to answer for. He’s built his platform on exposing how he neglected to use his Bible and sound reasoning for guidance in past activism; and he continues that trend of behaviour in his shifted worldview. No idea what he was like before, but if he was everything he claims, I have to conclude not much has changed with him except his politics.
...Get Sc>Sc articles as RSS
RSS - Comments
Hi Cat, thanks for the link. That’s how I knew to come see your latest intellectual exercise with the kids.
To me your conclusion is supported by your analysis, although maybe not seen through the same cultural filters. Heck, kaleidoscope! It’s all about politics, not religion. His evangelicalism growing up was really politics, not theology or morality itself. And you’re right — now his politics have changed and so of course he sees that evangelicalism from the opposite view now.
And you can see that for him, the “family business” was riding a bastardized version of conservative religion almost like a criminal conspiracy. Schaeffer is like oh, a Sicilian-American who came up through his Family buying off policemen and inspectors and district attorneys, planting mobsters in high political positions, intimidating and threatening, using union muscle and maybe even whacking competitors and traitors now and then — all while being Roman Catholic. And then has a moral epiphany, sees that life as an abomination and vows to redeem himself by exposing it for what it really is. It’s all very evangelical still, and he is still a believer of the religion, just not of its corrupted politics.
And of course their are the fundamentalist middle eastern terrorists who share the Muslim religion. A certain perverted form of it, apparently, one used as a cover for their abominable acts and that might indeed further their political extremism in some ways, yet still should be clearly understood as a political conspiracy not truly reflecting the moral teachings of their ancient religion.
So Cat and the kids are quite right that it’s fallacious, on every count, to argue against any criminal conspiracy’s common Christianity, as if that were the criminality itself and all fellow believers were guilty by um, congregation.
AND it’s just as fallacious to defend the vice of politics with the virtue of religion, to claim the mafia (or evangelicals or Muslim terrorists) have religious freedom and you will fight for their right to destroy us all as long as it’s in the name of God.
Wow, careful when we change sentences on the fly and don’t proofread one last time. This is that kind of error, not ignornance of which form to use!
“of course their are the fundamentalist middle eastern terrorists”
So THERE!
Hey, JJ! Hope things are well at the Snook. I like popping by there from time to time…enjoyed the school movie post.
THERE, THERE. 
No need to worry about a little word. We don’t spell-check the comments around here, and anyone found doing so to pick at someone else’s words will be mocked hilariously.
I’ve never read Francis, but I recall my mother-in-law sort of grimacing and talking about him being rather political.
“To me your conclusion is supported by your analysis, although maybe not seen through the same cultural filters. Heck, kaleidoscope!”
Thanks! And, no kidding. I like kaleidoscopes. They’re an interesting phenomenon. Someone’s got to turn the wheel.
“His evangelicalism growing up was really politics”
So why is he arguing eschatology and theology then?
“not theology or morality itself. ”
An atheist, amoral politics, then?
“he sees that evangelicalism from the opposite view now.”
Actually, he’s extrapolating quite a bit beyond “that” evangelicalism to include all evangelical Christians who vote Republican by the end of his presentation, and that’s the point; it doesn’t follow, as you’ve agreed.
Not to say I had any appreciation for the schoolbus revival baptisms; that was just silly. If a trusted leader, an intense mood and some water administered in the right building got us all into heaven, then Christ died needlessly.
“he is still a believer of the religion”
I’d tend to disagree on that, given this. Most of us evanjellyfish are pretty certain that late-term abortion is not the problem; that legalizing abortion was not a solution in any form. I wrote about societal transformation in support of the full spectrum of womanhood–to include motherhood–over here.
I believe it’s an absolute lie and sham, a manipulation of women, to so narrowly define their rights as “you have the right to terminate the most powerful and unique aspects of your womanhood in order to conform with our standards for societal integration.” That can and has been defined under secular feminist terms as a male dominance strategy, as I cited in the post.
And I’m not really stating a “Christian” agenda. I have a lot of pagan birther friends who feel the same about the power and uniqueness of womanhood, from their own place in the kaleidoscope.
Bad on Mr. Schaeffer for not actually thinking about it. Bandwagoneering is no substitute for real authoritative reasoning.
“…will fight for their right to destroy us all…”
Straw man, leaping to a conclusion, questionable cause, appeal to fear, argument from spite. This needs to be parsed with cited facts to stand up. Go for it, girl, nobody’ll get down your neck. We do this stuff for fun around here.
Straw man: Show me a consistent correlation between evangelicalism and terrorism other than the outsider-applied ad-hominem “fundamentalist” label.
Questionable cause: using the fundy label as an indicator of cause in terrorist/criminal thinking ( a claim which needs to be shown in the first place)? Citations and support please.
Appeal to fear: Islamic extremist terrorism and the Mafia.
Argument from spite: These people are terrorists, therefore we should consider them fallacious. People, not that I mean JJ’s being spiteful; she’s passionate, not mean. I’m just reiterating the terminology used to describe the type of argument.
As a final semantic note, I think that in order to classify the Schaeffer phenomenon as “criminal,” it must be in violation of the laws of the land. I think America has that “innocent till proven guilty” clause, same as we do, no?
Did they violate the law in some way? I’m sure Frank and others would have documentation, if so.
Always love it when you drop by, JJ. Your spunky style is a breath of fresh air.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you hadn’t read his autobiographical version of the religious right movement and its players as led by his father. He and his whole family and their in-circle, in his telling, very similar to a crime syndicate plotting takeover and it does read like the Godfather.
I’m not making that argument myself, just trying to explain how I analyze his.
Although I will personally take the rap for arguing that abortion-doctor shootings, for example, are political and criminal even when religion is used (yes, as it is by the Muslim fundamentalists) to justify it. I also agree it is inflammatory and the cause of much fear. Hence the word and idea of “terrorism” as politics in the first place.
“very similar to a crime syndicate plotting takeover and it does read like the Godfather.”
As in qualifying for prosecution under law? Again, supporting evidence and laid-out, reasoned claims are the usual around here on this sort of topic. Definitely go for it, I’d like that.
Alternatively, we also accept Monty Python jokes.
“Although I will personally take the rap for arguing that abortion-doctor shootings, for example, are political and criminal even when religion is used”
Not sure how legality of shootings derives from “pro-abortion is not a valid argument,” (any thoughts on that?) or how this supports the leap to Islamic terrorism. I, like most I know, am for the rule of law for all, not special pleading.
“Is he not still Christian though? I thought I’d seen him make that point a couple of times but maybe not.”
It depends on whether “Christian” is a self-identification term or something defined by objective standards in the Bible. To the former, yes he is; to the latter, I really have to wonder, on the evidence.
“I also agree it is inflammatory and the cause of much fear. ”
Hm, sorry, which–shooting people? Frank Schaeffer?
“Hence the word and idea of “terrorism” as politics in the first place.”
Well, let’s define terms immediately upon using them, or far better, stick to dictionary definitions. A good argument needs no redefinitions, right?
Is he not still Christian though? I thought I’d seen him make that point a couple of times but maybe not.
Hmm. I hadn’t read his (Frank’s) books, but I have watched a video series by Francis, and have followed (at a long distance) some of the younger Schaeffer’s journey. Based on the video clip above and what (little) I know, it almost sounds as if he’s bitter. If this is so, I’m not sure what made him so.
“it almost sounds as if he’s bitter. If this is so, I’m not sure what made him so.”
Well, it’s a career move.
My own pet theory, which I would hardly call informed or definitive is that Frank just never lived up to the rep of his late father. Francis was an evangelical darling because he could take on the ‘liberal intellectual elite’ using their own weapons (I second the nomination of the book The God Who is There), and I’m thinking that Frank was expected to follow in his father’s footsteps, but just couldn’t rise to his level. so he settled for being controversial. I recall back in the oooh, I guess it was late 80’s or early 90’s where he came out and essentially trashed evangelical pop culture as being ‘derivative’ and not original, and certainly not where Christian art should be in his opinion based on art history. I remember the incident, but I’m not sure many others do. And thus, bitterness following his frustrations at his own (perceived perhaps) irrelevance.
But again, I have no hard evidence for this.
The silver lining behind all this is that only about three people watch MSNBC, and all three already believe this stuff. Nevertheless, it’s difficult to identify with the term “evangelical” these days, as it has been defined out of any real meaning, and used interchangably to mean different things. Perhaps, then, we can add equivocation and ambiguity to the list of fallacies.
I highly recommend The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer, Cat.
“Nevertheless, it’s difficult to identify with the term “evangelical” these days, as it has been defined out of any real meaning, and used interchangably to mean different things.”
Ain’t that the truth! It has become a byword to both sides of the coin these days.
“only about three people watch MSNBC, and all three already believe this stuff.”
(chuckle) Yeah. Marc, if it hadn’t been vaunted at Bore Me To Tears, to commentator acclaim, it’d be entirely beneath Scienda’s notice. I’m for real argumentation, myself. Give me a place like The Warfare is Mental and I’m happy as a clam.
Speaking of which, I never did hear the rest of your thought on Sung Jun’s math as a trinitarian expression. Did I understand you right?
“It has become a byword to both sides of the coin these days.”
Mr. Sweetie-Darling, very well put.
Hey, I have to come up with something intelligent to say every once in a while, or I wouldn’t be allowed to post….
Ain’t that right, Darlin’?
You can post whatever you like, Mr. Sweetie-Darling.
Ah, que je suis fatigue. I keep realizing I left half my sentences behind, or misworded them.
They were interviewing Quebecois children about their music tastes on Radio-Canada this evening. The kids really like that program. And it’s much easier for me to translate for them than the current-events stuff. Not to mention more fun.
You, deary, should put the cute behind of yours to bed. I know you won’t listen, but it couldn’t hurt to mention it. Besides, I kinda like it.
…Except comments regarding my patootie. My dignity; where is it?!?
Seriously, man. Save that for email. (Salacious eyebrow wiggle)
*ahem* And we have now successfully shut down all conversation, having made everyone turn away red-faced.
High five!
[Obama’s name is not in the Bible.] Just 2 days ago I received an email claiming his name is in the Bible! In Luke 10:18, Heaven like lightening. If you check your concordance in the Greek, no conspiracy. But, looking into Hebrew the word for heaven is bamah and the word for lightening is baraq. Now that bit of wisdom is only available to those who really love God and are committed to studying Scripture in the original language and can smoothly and accurately translate the Greek New Testament into Hebrew. But, I digress…
I read somewhere that Frank Schaeffer converted to Orthodoxy. I suspect that his beliefs and mine are quite similar. I too look to ancient church history to define my spirituality. But, I hope I do it with less bitterness and pride the Schaeffer does in this interview. I generally describe myself as a happy enough evangelical or even a post evangelical. I attend an evangelical church because we live in a medium-small town in West Central Minnesota. There are only a handful of denominations that are within a reasonable driving distance. I chose one of them. But, my misgivings with my church is very much linked with its politics. I am libertarian in my thoughts and just don’t believe the church should invest as much of its time, talents and treasures into political activism. We should be making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey.
Schaeffer said in this interview that he didn’t think there should be a Republican party if it was going to cater to the village idiot. Well, I don’t think there should be a Republican party if it isn’t going to support the ideals of a republic… you know a government whose power isn’t centralized in a few elite and people are free from the burden of government. I will not give my vote to a big government politician just because he/she is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and goes to church. The Christian Right has. In that way, I have to agree and I have bemoaned the fact that the Republican party has been weakened by “values voters.”
Instead of concentrating on the more than 1 in 3 conservatives who think that Obama is the anti-Christ. Why not talk about the almost 2 in 3 don’t think that he is? Well, that wouldn’t make good “news” fodder, Schaeffer wouldn’t be able to sell his book… and someone, somewhere might have to admit that Evangelicals are not cookie-cutter Christians who all think, believe, act and vote alike. We aren’t even dangerous to society.
Oh, and I think the argument that anyone who doesn’t like Obama’s politics is a racist is getting quite, quite old. Even if he were white, I wouldn’t like his politics. The idea of a democracy in which the will of the majority crushes the freedom of the minority is distasteful to me. And, I especially don’t like how much money he is spending. I would like to be free to pursue happiness with the money I have earned. Instead, inflation will mean my dollars don’t buy very much and high taxes will mean I don’t have very many.
Well, let’s define terms immediately upon using them, or far better, stick to dictionary definitions. A good argument needs no redefinitions, right?
Or a good argument is almost entirely redefinitions. Need we first argue to define good argument?
To that point, I’m surprised you missed this Python definition of argument!
I laughed at that because it was really absurd in the 70s while Bill Buckley was doing Firing Line on PBS for real, breathing life into intellect and intellect into argument and argument into television.
But it’s not so funny when television and real life become one big intellectually bankrupt contradiction clinic 24-7.
I think of “good argumentation” much, like ahem, other forms of healthy human intercourse.
It is meant as a creative force to uplift, connect and sustain virtues rather than do harm to anyone directly or indirectly through vice and self-indulgence. It is “good” intercourse and fun to share with the right person for the right reasons, when it’s neither deceptive, regressive or retrogressive, iow more than masturbatory; never when it breeds violence, degradation of people, ideas or the planet, thus no, not argument is not good as “mental warfare” except if CLEARLY defined and understood by all as healthy consensual sport, not actual war.)
So, not blaming the Pythons but “good argument” is in a sorry state, at least here in the States. In the new American dictionary any “politics” is venal and mostly vice, not good argument. Politics purposely exploiting faith traditions and doing harm in a quest for power, may indeed meet various legal definitions of crime including conspiracy to defraud. In my dictionary, through my kaleidoscope. Maybe our kaleidoscopes are so different now that common English dictionary definitions aren’t common enough to serve us well in argument anymore? — and/or working definitions of even common words are too specialized for clear thought/
And the point of making points well through argumentation was to help illuminate the question from all angles for the thinking audience, to use different facets of it to bounce the light around. Bill Buckley, not Bill O’Reilly. To use our dictionaries and kaleidoscopes for good and not evil. By definition, not to bludgeon each other into numbness, concussion and serial loss of consciousness with deception, sophistry and contradiction.
By that definition maybe there are no good arguments anymore.
I looked up dictionary definitions of “argument” and another element often listed is defining the question. Subsequent comments this morning seem to suggest that here the central question wasn’t actually argument analysis of Frank Schaeffer but more counterpoint or rebuttal to Lynn’s post, sort of FOX and MSNBC slugging it out rather than mutually delighting in the intercourse? Not how I framed my argument nor indeed, how I understood the defining of this question.
Cat’s always a gracious host but I’m prepared to argue that even here and even for smart folks, it’s a dying art to share a good joke across definitions and contentious world views, much less a good argument. I’ve unintentionally spoiled this sketch by taking it seriously but in my book, as good argument that parrot is, by anybody’s definition, DEAD.
re: Barack in the Bible
So was George “Burning” Bush, John (McCain), Sarah (Palin) and so it goes. Reminds me of the pastor who showed me Henry Kissinger was the antichrist using English Scripture to make his name add up to 666.
I will always cherish getting to hear Francis Schaeffer in person only months before his death from cancer in the early 80s. I think it was God’s grace to take him before he had to see the path his only son took. I visited L’Abri in 2007, where Frank’s sister and brother-in-law still run the ministry. Let’s say they’re not on speaking terms and offer rather contradicting accounts of life with Francis & Edith as that which Frank presented. He’s Antiochian Orthodox, by the way.
@Julie
LOL!
And, glad to see the libertarian voice weighing in, particularly with more US political knowledge than I care to cultivate.
Well, that argument gets saved for debunking biblical inerrancy. In politics, we’re all cookie-cutter zombie attack clones; in terms of having any authoritative voice, we’re all so splintered that obviously Christianity can’t be taken seriously.
I will say that values voting is really not a big issue in Canada. I mean, it gets buffeted about in political bombast, but it doesn’t really happen in the sense that it does down there. Our abortion laws are not up for negotiation at this point; gay marriage is a closed debate at the federal level. However, being a smaller country, I do think minority voices get heard a bit more easily, and the way policy is distributed to regional authority can sometimes help with this–I’m thinking of homeschooling, for instance.
@JJ
As I mentioned at your place, the Argument Clinic ran at Life-Led Learning.
“Or a good argument is almost entirely redefinitions. Need we first argue to define good argument?”
“But it’s not so funny when television and real life become one big intellectually bankrupt contradiction clinic 24-7.”
That’s what I aim to prevent by asking for supporting evidence beyond a set of opinions and adjectives of tonal colour. As the philosophers in the bunch here will tell you, there are ways to make arguments stand up and ways to knock ‘em down if they’re not presented solidly. I think that’s an important skill to retain as the culture is founded on propaganda so much.
“counterpoint or rebuttal to Lynn’s post”
When I see someone founding a post or a discussion on a false basis, it behooves me to show the false basis, and hopefully better the other side by encouraging them to seek the most solid case possible. No reason that can’t be in good tone and temper too, with enjoyment of the ensuing discussion. To use our kaleidoscopes for good and not evil, as you yourself have said; I would add, for the building of integrity and mutual growth in rhetoric.
“It is “good” intercourse and fun to share with the right person for the right reasons, when it’s neither deceptive, regressive or retrogressive, iow more than masturbatory…”
I despise a circle jerk. Supported, well-founded reasoning of all perspectives is welcome here.
“argument is not good as “mental warfare” except if CLEARLY defined and understood by all as healthy consensual sport”
Exactly, glad we see eye to eye on that. That’s the beauty of TWIM. cl’s got quite the diverse and brilliant crowd over there, and they maintain a good deal of respect and camaraderie.
“Cat’s always a gracious host but I’m prepared to argue that even here and even for smart folks, it’s a dying art to share a good joke across definitions and contentious world views, much less a good argument.”
Well, I thank you for the first, and I hope you’ll continue to return to test out the second. Pretty much everyone in this thread has joked and merrily jostled their way through a variety of differences of opinion, and I’d love for you to be among them. Randy, Hank, Marc, Julie and I all have strong and differing convictions, and that’s no issue in the end–it’s a chance to learn and grow.
@Randy
“Let’s say they’re not on speaking terms and offer rather contradicting accounts of life with Francis & Edith as that which Frank presented.”
That’s essentially what I mean about presenting evidence to Schaeffer’s case for his own authority. What are the grounds? What are the objections? What can be shown and what do we have to discard as a bag full of weasel words? We talked a small bit on Friday about social argumentation. I think it’s important to be careful that it doesn’t get used in lieu of a good underlying logic structure and a supportable, defensible case.
That’s why this OP.
Rachel Maddow is a hack poorly copying a hack (Olbermann) poorly copying a hack (O’Reilly). Her talking points are a lot of talk and not much point…
(chuckle) CW, I’d almost get the impression you don’t care much for Rachel Maddow. But what do you really think?
And, yeah, I do think that we can laugh at this sort of clip, ultimately. It’s just not something to be taken seriously. Though I am still waiting on my armaments delivery.
However, in acknowledgement of the greater context with JJ and Lynn, there are those who do feel strongly that “Bible-believism,” if you will, is somehow a natural corollary of a conspiracist, dominating, power-mongering stance.
In my own family, for instance, there’s a definite emotional repugnance toward that type of spiritual stance, and I have no quarrel with that repugnance. I have no use for religious politics or political religion.
And I think it deserves acknowledging, as cl and Marc discussed over at The Areopagus, that this is not a fun, joke-around feeling; that it can quickly rise to the fore in trying to learn and grow and discuss these things. To quote cl:
Having moved *away* from the secular humanist position, yes, it’s easy to feel–not only that your former worldview has disappointed and failed you, but perhaps that in some way you’re a reject to those who remain in it.
Folks, I’d like to stomp a boot on all interpersonal rejectionism at this point, as I think all here would also do. People are and must always be more important than ideas.
Folks, I’d like to stomp a boot on all interpersonal rejectionism at this point, as I think all here would also do.
Translation please, in the context of “here” — because it seemed just dandy throughout to trash Frank Schaeffer (and lionize his father) with all sorts of emotionally laden weasel words, and then to throw in Olbermann and Maddow too. I didn’t notice the logical support for pickin’ and choosin’ based on jersey color rather than facts. And to CW with whom I regularly match wits, Dr. Maddow surely impressed Oxford beyond anything Bill O’Reilly has ever been capable of, including logic.
Cat, if you were to phrase the theme of this post as a debate question, what would it be? RESOLVED . . . what?
I’d love to know because one sees that done well (or at all!) so seldom, which is almost always to the detriment of understanding or as you say, our efforts to “learn and grow and discuss these things.”
At this time, let’s be careful to note that I’ve asked you repeatedly to support your case, JJ. Give a quote, provide a link or two, etc. But in response, you’ve moved laterally to abortionist shootings and general commentary on the nature of rhetoric today, rather than simply going forward and presenting good rhetoric for your position. This has now been followed by your charges toward those who are citing references and case material regarding the Schaeffer family situation. Quite frankly, as of now, you’re getting a tremendous amount of slack on Scienda’s comments policy.
No special pleading. Pony up on your side. You’ve just added another case to your burden of proof in claiming the use of weasel words on my/others’ part, so you’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
I believe it’s essentially stated in the opening sentences of the OP and reflected throughout by definition, for those who wish to pick up on it, but as a courtesy, here you are, in your choice of phrasing:
Resolved: that dog-whistle rhetoric constitutes a fallacious ground for rejecting the truth claims of any worldview position; in this case, that of the Bible.
And you have had two days and 22 points provided to rebut on behalf of Frank’s honour, plus the bonus option of rebutting my stance on abortion, should you like to settle in to actually presenting a case.
I like you, JJ, I really do. But this dancing around gets old.
To be clear, I don’t believe that question was contested at Lynn’s; however, using those same fallacious grounds to argue against themselves is something that in my experience, many, many atheists would not consider an effective tactic. I believe better can be done. Unless one really, really doesn’t want to, in which case, the discussion is at an end.
Now. If you want to toss pejoratives at my other commenters about their attitudes toward Frank and Francis, I’ll ask you to do it elsewhere. Again, “trash” and “lionize” are tonal terms which hardly fit the situation, in my view. I mean, I know Scienda’s kind of a zoo, but seriously.
Hank, for one, has stated clearly what the grounds of his material are, not vaunting them above what authority he can confirm.
Randy has given a factual statement about Frank’s denominational position.
Both Marc and Randy have suggested reference materials for examination of Frank’s claims against his background.
Julie has presented commentary on the fallaciousness of the “killer clone evangelicalism” argument with nary a reference to Frank, in fact, even while giving a tongue-in-cheek debunking to any who would sink to the hermeneutical levels Frank rightfully decries, as Randy has joined her in doing.
Pardon my *cough* unschooled naivete.
I had no idea that this (or perhaps it’s refusing to take 22 or more fallacies as anything but humorous?) constituted trashing someone. Again: Pony up, kiddo, and play it straight. One thing that does not get to happen here is ad hominem/abusive against other commenters in lieu of sound argumentation.
Be advised that my Easy Button’s just over there. Let’s do an end run on hostile tone right now, and not end up using that button.
JJ, who’s been trashing Frank? Pointing out his fallacies seems fair. Indicating that he sounds bitter isn’t much of a stretch. He was the one doing the trashing with mocking verbiage against anyone remotely affiliated with his parents’ worldview.
I’d be more impressed with Rachel Maddow being a Rhodes Scholar if she hadn’t done one of the easiest majors at Stanford. The public policy undergrad program is an absolute joke. Learning this actually gives me an *AHA* moment about her…
Well, CW, let’s leave Maddow out of it and concentrate on the question of whether Frank’s case has fallacious grounds, and whether there’s other support for his position that’s better than what he gives. Rachel’s pretty beside the point to the question. I’d like to see real discussion of how to properly present this difference of opinion, not a degeneration into personality wars.
That helps a lot. I do not contest it.
“Resolved: that dog-whistle rhetoric constitutes a fallacious ground for rejecting the truth claims of any worldview position; in this case, that of the Bible.”
Thanks for separating that out. I should’ve used a bold or a blockquote on it.
So what is the other side then, and is there anyone advancing it who is willing to supply Cat’s requirements?
I really don’t feel I can present evidence that that side has already put itself out there without essentially being quite rude to a number of people I don’t even know. I’m not willing to be that kind of arguer, unlike some of today’s crossover to Lynn’s thread.
To answer that for oneself, I think the best people can really do is click the link to Bore Me to Tears at the top of the OP and evaluate for themselves whether (A) Schaeffer’s arguments, here acknowledged all round as fallacious on the grounds given in the OP, are being instead taken as valid; and (B) whether the grounds used in the discussion there of evangelicalism and politics are valid, given what Julie’s pointed out about the other 2/3 polled (never mind the greater fabric of whatever qualifies as evangelical culture, under the caveats Marc and Dave have mentioned); (C) and applying the list of fallacies maybe as a sort of elimination criteria for what kind of social argumentation (snark) impoverishes a point rather than elevating it.
Let me be clear that I’m not saying anyone should go over to Lynn’s and pick people apart. As I alluded to briefly to Marc, what I’d hoped for was a bit of pause for thought about presenting our beliefs in a way that’s the example we’d really want to be to our kids, to our friends and to our opposition–something that truly represents the people we really are.
I think we all do that in the end anyway.
And with that, I’m going to declare this thread done.