Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Two: Ad Hominem

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery, Part Two: Ad Hominem


“How ‘confident’ could a person be if they are wearing ten pounds of makeup?”

Ad Hominem: a fallacy that occurs when an arguer is guilty “of attacking his opponent rather than his opponent’s evidence and arguments.”1

An ad hominem attack is a way for one debater to discredit another debater’s attempt to argue for a position. It attacks the person’s character and motivation, rather than attacking the actual argument itself. The expected outcome is that the hearers will no longer give an ear to the discredited debater’s position due to their ill-will against him/her personally. Since this argument fails to address the actual issue(s) being debated, it is an error in reasoning.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “According to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst [1992], an instance of ad hominem is a violation of the first rule for critical discussion, which maintains that ‘Parties [to a dispute] must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubts on arguments.’ Different kinds of ad hominem (abusive, tu quoque, and circumstantial ad hominem) are different violations of this rule. In this case, it suffices to say that the debater’s attack on his opponent can be seen as an illegitimate attempt to deny him his right to make a case for his position.”2

A personal example: A couple years ago, a person posting in one of my forums commented on my use of makeup. His comment was something like, “How ‘confident’ could a person be if they are wearing ten pounds of makeup?” So the goal was to discredit my arguments by commenting on my personality or character. The reader was supposed to think that because I wore make-up in my picture, my arguments were not valid. This is a clear example of ad hominem; attacking the person instead of addressing their arguments. (I did break down his ad hominem argument…”Exactly how much make-up, would you say, constitutes a person’s lack of evidence for an argument? I suppose if you are addressing my grooming habits instead of the evidence presented for the resurrection, you must not have anything to say against my arguments.”)

A political campaign version: It is not my intention here to promote one candidate over another in this use of an example from the last senatorial race. However, the example was so evidently ad hominem that I thought it would be another good real-life illustration.

Jack Conway ran a commercial against Rand Paul that started with these words, “Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible a hoax; that was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ [the image shows this as during his college years]? Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up, tell her to bow down before a false idol, and say his god was Aqua Buddha? Why does Rand Paul now want to end faith based initiatives and deductions for charities? Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?”3 The viewer was supposed to react with a strong distrust concerning Rand Paul’s character and consequently pay no attention to his arguments for his platform. They were also supposed to insinuate Paul’s motivation for his proposal with regard to faith-based initiatives and deductions for charities as based in a suggested dislike of Christianity. This was a clear-cut example of attacking the man rather than his stated arguments or position.

Throughout the presidential campaigns, look for instances of ad hominem and notice how campaign marketers hope to manipulate voters through emotions rather than to earn votes through their candidate’s position on the actual issues.

MJ

__________________________________________________
[1] “Informal Logic.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One. Accessed on May 13, 2011.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8wYJv0WmHI.

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus on the Presidential Campaigns

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus on the Presidential Campaigns

The campaigning and debating for the 2012 presidential election is already underway; as are loads of advertisements seeking to persuade voters to vote for one candidate or another. During this time, I am concurrently teaching on recognizing logical fallacies. While I cannot say that I actually planned the parallel between the two, I am, however, quite pleased with the timing. So I will utilize this next year (and a half) to emphasize not just the need for critical thinking, but to introduce some errors in reasoning. It seems like a “match made in heaven” for an educational opportunity! The campaigns in our current culture are largely focused on presentation and perception (imagery), rather than on actually making good arguments for their political platform (rationality). As Christian philosopher, J.P. Moreland stated, “In the political process, the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites.”[1] The American public is likely to see lots of negative and positive imagery utilizing many logical fallacies to “trick” the voter into favoring a candidate. These fallacies could include (but are not limited to): transfer, ad hominem, hasty generalization, red herrings, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, straw man, loaded questions, and faulty appeal to authority. These fallacies are not just a problem of the presidential campaigns. Rather, it is a safe generalization to say various fallacies are committed on a regular basis by nearly all of us.[2] This is due to the difficulty in avoiding such fallacies, even when we train ourselves to think critically about our reasons for believing something is true. Since we all are in need of the “renewing our minds,” the presidential campaigns can provide good training material for the Christian wanting to improve their own reasoning abilities. I will post some of the errors in reasoning over the next month. As you watch the presidential campaigns, take some time to dissect the messages you are receiving. What fallacies are being utilized? What are the actual issues and how has each candidate supported their view? Has the candidate given sound reasons and evidence for their position? Analyzing the presidential candidates’ platforms and campaigning methods are a great way to utilize the gift of rationality with which God has endowed human beings. You will grow in your critical thinking abilities and you will be better informed on the candidates for whom you will be voting. Let’s begin with the first fallacy mentioned above, transfer. Transfer: A propaganda technique in which someone tries to make us transfer our good or bad feelings about one thing to another unrelated thing.[3] A prime example of transfer is found in commercials for a fitness center or for fitness equipment. The commercial almost always shows a man or woman who is representative of the ideal body either working out at a specific gym or utilizing a certain product. The viewer is supposed to transfer the good feelings about the ideal body to the product offered. A presidential campaign version of transfer: A commercial shows one candidate either frowning or upset while utilizing a darker color scheme or even a black and white scheme while dark and ominous music plays in the background. The commercial then shifts to a second candidate; the candidate is smiling, the colors are bright, and the music is happy. The purpose is to make the viewer uncomfortable when they think about the first candidate so they will carry that emotion with them to the voting booth and not vote for him/her. Conversely, the idea is to carry the happy emotion with them and vote for the second candidate. See if you can find some examples of transfer as the presidential campaigning gets underway! Next post: Ad hominem.

MJ
[1] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. (Colorado Springs: Nav Press, 1997), 21.
[2] I cannot say “by everyone” or I will have committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. I also do not have the knowledge of whether or not everyone in the world is actually committing fallacies, but I do have the general knowledge of human nature (including the effects of sin), which allows for an extrapolation out to the human community. It is safe to say none of us is perfect in our reasoning.
[3] Hans and Nathaniel Bluedorn. The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. (Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 183. I am utilizing this book for preteens through adults as an introductory level book on fallacies. For a higher level reading on critical reasoning, see Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley.
New Resource: Accessible Apologetics Training by The Apologetics Guy

New Resource: Accessible Apologetics Training by The Apologetics Guy

Over the years of speaking at conferences, one request I have heard numerous times is for an accessible study to introduce apologetics to the average lay person. The request is not usually for just a book, but is more specifically for a well-laid out study that can be purchased and readily taught. I have found one. Mikel Del Rosario, The Apologetics Guy, has a great product available from his website that fits this request perfectly: Accessible Apologetics Training. This study is available for purchase and immediate download. It is a visually pleasing and easy-to-follow study guide that includes two timeframe options in each lesson; a 45 to 60 minute version and a 60 to 90 minute version. The study includes five sessions that can be taught straight from the notes or enriched with Mikel’s interactive illustrations. Though the material covers the basics, the students will come away with a good comprehension of each point and an ample start in apologetics. Mikel is a great communicator of even difficult concepts, using humor and light-heartedness to enhance the learning experience. The five lessons that can be broken into five or ten sessions: #1. Introduction to Apologetics
– What is Christian Apologetics?
– Why Defend My Faith? #2. Faith and Reason
– Do Faith and Reason Mix?
– How Do I Know Christianity is True? #3. Evidence for God
– Is God Real?
– Why Does God Allow Evil? #4. Fact or Fiction
– Did God Speak to Us?
– Can I Trust My Bible? #5. Dead or Alive
– Making History?
– Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Each lesson includes a leader and student file of the notes to be copied and put in a notebook. The study also includes a Power Point for each lesson as well as a Power Point absentee handout in pdf format. What a great idea! Another excellent inclusion is the “before and after ideas” document with well-thought out email and text messages, tweets, and church bulletin announcements. I recommend Accessible Apologetics Training for any group who wants a solid introduction to apologetics for their church. This would also be a great study for a general apologetics introduction in youth or women’s ministries. Thanks, Mikel, for a job well done! MJ

Responsibility with Beliefs

Responsibility with Beliefs

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity wrote “If you have once accepted Christianity, then some of its main doctrines shall be deliberately held before your mind for some time everyday. That is why daily praying and religious reading and churchgoing are necessary parts of the Christian life. We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief, nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed. As a matter of fact, if you examine a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have been reasoned out of it by honest argument? Do not most people simply drift away?”

Several years into my life as a Christian, I began to doubt what I believed about God. I wondered how I knew that God was real and why I thought the Bible was the Word of God. Fueling my doubts were experiences with Christians who did not demonstrate much love, grace, and mercy, nor seemingly any concern for the unity of the believers in Christ. I thought “if I don’t see God through the lives of the people who believe in God, how do I even know that God exists?” At the time, I was teaching band in the public schools, which did not leave much time or energy for studying what I believed. I also had never been confronted with the need for reasoning my beliefs. This mix of hurt and lack of knowledge came together to create “the perfect storm” for my Christian beliefs. Rather than turning only to the arguments that would support my doubt, I went looking for answers to the doubt I harbored. If God is real, I figured I should find really good answers in support of his existence. As I read arguments for and against his existence, the reliability of the New Testament texts, and the evidence for the resurrection, I found that the best answers pointed towards the reality of God. These findings brought me to a place where I could no longer say “I have no good reason or evidence to believe in God.” I still had questions, but I could not get around God as part of reality. Now let me be clear. I realized I couldn’t just believe in God because I wanted God to be true. Actually, I did not know if I even wanted God to be true, because of my painful experiences with members of the church. I wanted answers. I wanted to know what was actually true so I could live my life better in accordance with reality; no matter what I found.
It was certainly possible for me to turn away from my former beliefs and focus on building a case against God. There is a lot of material available for doing as much. However, I did not see that as a responsible reaction to my situation. I had to be careful that my doubt was not simply fueled by hurt or anger with people. So I read the arguments on both sides of the issue. I then read the refutations of those arguments and the refutations of the refutations. This may seem like overkill, but for me it was necessary so that I could honestly look people in the eye and say, “I believe in God, because….” It took a few years to come back to trust that God is real. It also took a lot of study. Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if 1) I was originally committed to learning about my beliefs, and 2) the Church was committed to rigorously train congregants about their beliefs and doctrines. Here we return to C.S. Lewis’ quote that once we have individually grappled with why we believe God is real and our reasoning for the faith we have in God, we must continue to think on these matters, as well as on our doctrines. Part of faith in God includes a lifelong commitment to learning about him (Proverbs 4:6-7, Romans 12:2, Eph. 4:11-15). Notice also how Lewis points out the reason we must think on these matters is that neither belief in God, nor any other belief, will remain alive in our minds if we do not think on these matters. That was the aspect of my Christianity that I had almost completely neglected: thinking on the doctrines of God. I guess I figured, “I’m saved. So I’m okay.” Yet, this was just not true. I wasn’t okay and I didn’t even realize it. I was not being responsible with what I professed to believe. I had not spent adequate time learning my beliefs to gain an understanding of why I believed. If we, as Christians, are going to say we have the truth, then to be responsible with that belief we need to actively pursue an understanding of our profession. We must be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks us for a reason for the hope that is in us.[1] MJ

This post can also be read on The Point Radio blog. I will be blogging over there now as well as here at Confident Christianity. Some other bloggers include Brett Kunkle, Sean McDowell, Jonathan Morrow, Randall Niles, and more!

A little about ThePoint: In association with BreakPoint.org and the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, The Point’s primary mission is to “engage real life in real time from a Christian worldview.”

[1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. 1 Pe 3:15

ETS/EPS Annual Meeting and Apologetics Conference

ETS/EPS Annual Meeting and Apologetics Conference

I just returned from the annual Evangelical Theological Society and Evangelical Philosophical Society conference in Atlanta. I attended papers by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, JP Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, and Angus Menuge. I heard arguments against naturalism and materialism, saw the latest research on the Shroud of Turin, and heard a response to Graham Oppy on the argument from consciousness. I also attended a session at the Society of Biblical Literature on “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” This discussion was outstanding. It included New Zealander, Matthew Flannagan, Canadian, Randal Rauser, also, Paul Copan and Richard Hess. Paul’s new book, “Is God a Moral Monster?” on this subject will be released December 1, 2010, but can be pre-ordered at Amazon.com.

While I was attending the annual meeting for ETS/EPS, I also gave a presentation at the 9th annual EPS apologetics conference,

“Set Forth Your Case,” at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church. Johnson Ferry’s pastor, Bryant Wright, is the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is so exciting to see the new president of the SBC hosting an apologetics conference!

This event was well-attended with at least 1000 to 1100 participants. My session, “The Redefining of ‘Faith’ and How Christians Can Respond,” was also very well-attended. The chapel was packed full of people who were ready to interact with the material! One very interesting comment came when I asked “Who cares if our society redefines faith as a lack of critical thinking or as opposed to evidence and reason? And why does it matter?”

Several folks responded with answers, but a lady in the front row said something I had not heard from an audience member before: it was offensive to her as a medical doctor–as a professional–for people to denigrate her reasoning skills in this manner. Usually, the audience members discuss how it can stifle conversations before they even get started or they discuss the impact on the Church. I responded, in agreement with the doctor’s statement, that this is ad hominem. I further discussed how ad hominem attacks seek to divide rather than to thoughtfully consider the issue.
One sweet moment came after my session when a gentleman brought his family back to meet my husband and me. He wanted his son to ask me some particular questions he’d been struggling through. Roger and I talked with the family for a while and interacted with both of their sons’ questions. It was a great reminder of why we do these conferences: to touch lives.
Finally, after all the ETS/EPS activities had wrapped up, I had the privilege of speaking at Roswell Street Baptist Church to their youth and college group on “Asking the Right Questions.” They asked me some hard questions on the problem of evil, on science and religion, on talking to people who believe in “fate,” and on talking to people

who don’t seem to care about the question of God.
After our session, Roger and I worshiped with their “Connections” service. They had a phone number on the big screen during worship that congregates could use to text questions concerning the sermon. At the end of the service, about four text questions were answered and then the rest were answered in the Q&A room. What a great idea! Our thanks go out to Roswell Street for hosting us on Sunday. We had a great experience there.
It was a wonderful week of learning, seeing old friends, making new friends, and encouraging the life of the mind! I hope to see even more of you in San Francisco at the annual conference next year.
MJ
Should We Use Evidence in Witnessing?

Should We Use Evidence in Witnessing?

In a recent blog post, Dr. Clay Jones of Biola University gives a biblical perspective on using evidence as testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ.

Here’s a sneak peek:

“In 1993 I started working for Simon Greenleaf University (now Trinity Law School) which offered an M.A. in Christian apologetics (Craig Hazen was the director). Much of my job was to promote the school and although I had studied Christian apologetics since my sophomore year in high school, I decided I needed to see whether an apologetic witness had strong Biblical precedence. It does. As I poured through the Scripture I found that Jesus and the apostles preached the resurrection of Christ as the sign of the truth of Christianity.”
Mary Jo Sharp and Ehteshaam Gulam Debate

Mary Jo Sharp and Ehteshaam Gulam Debate

If you have not seen my debate with Ehteshaam Gulam on the death of Jesus, you can still check it out by clicking below:

NEW: A very gracious blogger, Tilde Prolix, put together a compilation of the Scriptures used during the debate organized by topic. If you would like to read them, click here.

Thanks,
MJ

People Will Live What They Believe – Part One

People Will Live What They Believe – Part One

“People may not always live what they profess, but they will always live what they believe.” Neil T. Anderson, Victory Over the Darkness, pg.124. Anderson’s powerful words hit at the very heart of the Christian’s life. It is one thing to live your life while professing Christianity. It is yet another thing to live your life believing the Christian message to be the truth about reality. To believe that Jesus was actually God entails some transforming factors: 1) God is real; there is more than just the natural world; 2) God has been, is, and will be active in the lives of his creation; and 3) What God says about us is the truth about us. 1) I still think many Christians have a difficult time with this first point. We are so inundated by naturalistic biases that we begin to question why it is that we think there is something other than strictly matter (these biases, related to “plausibility structures,” are aptly covered in the book, “In Search of a Confident Faith” by Moreland and Issler.) Doubt is not the problem here. Many people will have doubts, as can be seen even in the Scriptures; in the case of Thomas questioning Jesus (John20:25-28), and in the case of Paul and the Bereans (Acts 17: 10-12). The problem is the response to doubt. An inappropriate response would be to allow the doubt to continue without a proper investigation into both sides of the concerning issue. Then the doubt can become an emotional commitment without proper reasoning or without being intellectually honest. An appropriate response would be to read arguments on both sides of the issue causing the doubt—in this case in the area of metaphysics (metá = beyond, physiká = physical)—and to grapple with the arguments presented. There are many articles and books at differing levels for a person to begin their investigation; from a very introductory level to a very experienced level. Christians, who doubt, need to be honest with themselves and deal with the reality of God’s existence. Why do they believe God is real? What has brought them to this knowledge? Can they articulate that belief? In order to live like God is real, we first must believe the foundational premise that God is real. When Thomas was presented with reasonable evidence, he professed Jesus as God. When the Bereans were presented with a case for Jesus as God, they went home and checked it out for themselves; with many then professing Jesus as God. Without establishing each argument, a quick list of arguments for God’s existence to check out include: 1. The Cosmological Argument – Kalam Cosmological Argument – Thomist Cosmological Argument – Leibnizian Cosmological Argument 2. The Design Argument – The Anthropic Principle – Information as Design – Irreducible Complexity 3. The Moral Argument – Relativism – Conventionalism – Ethical Subjectivism – Objective Morality – Where Do Morals Come From? 4. The Argument from Consciousness 5. The Argument from Beauty 6. The Argument from Evil A good beginning resource for these arguments is The Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell of www.selflessdefense.com. Most of the arguments listed plus the argument from consciousness (from the mind) and the argument from beauty can be found in Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland; along with many more not mentioned here. I have listed these arguments because it is important that Christians know there are numerous arguments that deal directly with the existence of God; not as a thorough treatment of any argument. I’ll continue with the points two and three later. MJ

Why I am an Apologist

Why I am an Apologist

I suppose if you were to close your eyes and imagine a Christian apologist, a young woman would not be the first picture to pop up. In choosing a job where my main concern is defending, clarifying and preaching the truth I’ve found that I will not always feel “at home.” As a woman it would be easier to settle down and let my husband shoulder the work of defending the faith. It would certainly fit the status quo better and then I might have time to be a full-time mother. But the fires of California this week offer a good picture of how I see my job of “defending the faith.” Just as all hands are needed to defend us against the fire’s destruction, so are all hands needed to defend us from the false ideas ravaging the souls of the American people.

The truth of the matter is every human is an apologist, for we all hold ideas that we believe are true. And we defend them, sometimes well, sometimes shabbily, even if they’re not worthy of a defense. The question is, “What do we count worth defending?”

For the last three years my husband and I have worked as a husband-wife team, running our fledgling non-profit Soulation. We weave spiritual formation with apologetics in order to defend truth. Our goal is to demonstrate a man and woman who both want to walk into becoming more “appropriately human.” We speak, we write and we work together. Dale’s book, Living with Questions, was released by Youth Specialties in August 2007. He spoke last Sunday at the National Youth Specialties Conference where 3000 copies of his book were given to the attendants. My three year apologetic work on femininity, Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home (April, 2007), has been out for 6 months. Wednesday evenings you’ll find us typing on our laptops taking questions on Soulation’s online chat forum (Ask LIVE! http://www.soulation.org/).

Our annual board meeting is approaching where we’ll re-evaluate how much time we need to settle our souls down into a rhythm of receiving from our God the insight and strength to share with others. For in all the hubbub of promoting our books and taking invitations we’ve realized that the most crucial thing is to remain attentive to the tugging Spirit of God to “grow here,” or “study there,” or “confess this,” or “rewrite that.” The number of books sold or the size of our events is not as significant as the growth in our own souls. For that is the message of Jesus. It’s the most important thing I can defend and it is the foundational reason for why I am an apologist. It is worth breaking stereotypes, it is worth being misunderstood, it is worth getting my hands dirty, it is worth seeing fires extinguished and truth free to grow.

by Jonalyn Grace Fincher
Author of Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home