So, They Asked Me To Be A Professor…

So, They Asked Me To Be A Professor…

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

“Welcome. This is an exciting time in the life of Houston Baptist University (HBU). Since its founding
in 1960, the University has grown into a thriving community of faith
and scholarship…HBU is taking steps to become a leading institution for Christian higher education in America.

From its home in the heart of Houston, Texas, one of the nation’s
largest and most diverse metropolitan areas, HBU provides a learning
experience that instills in students a passion for academic, spiritual,
and professional excellence. This mission serves as the driving force
behind our continued efforts to enrich the total student life
experience.

By enhancing our campus facilities, strengthening our rigorous liberal
arts core curriculum, expanding our graduate program offerings, and
competing in NCAA Division I athletics, HBU is uniquely positioned to
serve both undergraduate and graduate students seeking an excellent
education.

Thank you for your interest in HBU. I hope you will take the opportunity to drop by and visit
the HBU campus to experience firsthand all of the wonderful things the
University has to offer. Our faculty, staff and students are ready to
greet you.

Dr. Robert B. Sloan, Jr.
President
Houston Baptist University”

I have accepted the position of Assistant Professor beginning this fall at HBU!  More on this in a later blog post, but let me say that I whole-heartedly support President Sloan and incoming Provost John Mark Reynolds.  Along with new professor, Holly Ordway (pictured with me on campus), I find that HBU is the place to be!

MJ

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns

Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

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.

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.

Here are links to the past six blog posts dealing with these topics:

1. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Focus On The Presidential Campaigns (May 10th, 2011)
2. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Ad Hominem (May 18th, 2011)
3. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Red Herring (May 31st, 2011)
4. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Straw Man (June 17th, 2011)
5. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Appeal to Pity (August 29th, 2011)
6. Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: the Loaded Question (October 25th, 2011)

MJ

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

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

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

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.
The Blasphemy Challenge

The Blasphemy Challenge

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The Blasphemy Challenge: A Few Responses

I could not help but post on this latest stunt of the Rational Response Squad (RRS), because of the impact it appears to have had on so many people. The challenge itself is based in logically fallacious thinking which makes me concerned for why so many people find this challenge so “cool,” …especially if the promoting organization using “rational” in their name.

First, let me explain the premise of the challenge. The RRS has set a challenge for people to commit the “unpardonable sin” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is to deny his existence. It is based on the Scripture from Matthew 12:31. The first 1001 people to upload a You Tube video denying the Holy Spirit get a free DVD of “The God Who Wasn’t There.” There’s more to unpack here, but even the very premise of the challenge, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence, shows a lack of attention to and knowledge about Christian theology.

Christians discuss, and conflict, on what constitutes this blasphemy. None of them, however, say it is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit (at least to my knowledge). Conversely, here’s one explanation of this Scripture from R.C. Sproul:

If the Holy Spirit has opened your eyes and caused you to see that Jesus is the Christ, and then, after knowing by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Son of God, you accuse Jesus of being satanic, you have now committed the unforgivable sin.

Sproul states that this explanation would mean that the sin is theoretically committed by a believer in God, not an unbeliever. Whoa! Talk about getting your stunt mixed up. Sproul backs this potential explanation up with the context of the previous verses, which involves Jesus healing a demon-oppressed man and afterward being accused by the religious leaders of doing so through the power of Satan. So, the passage is not technically addressing atheists. And before anyone gets theologically spicy with me, even Sproul states that this is only a theoretical situation described by the unpardonable sin when he exegetes the passage (check it out in the full article). He further acknowledges the theological doctrines that would be affected if a genuine believer could indeed commit an unpardonable sin. So again, this is not the only historic theological explanation, but I think it’s a good place to start an investigation. The basic point here is to demonstrate the faulty thinking behind the blasphemy challenge that failed to consider how Christians have historically interpreted the passage (and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy).

Second, let me explain a further logical problem of this challenge. A person is supposed to deny the existence of that which they already believe does not exist. So, the atheist is making a claim that is very close to, if not the same as, a tautological claim, such as “an atheist is an atheist.” Tautologies do not provide any new information between the subject and predicate of a sentence, so they don’t really say anything.

The statement of “I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit” can, in effect, be a statement of the denial of God’s existence when it’s in accordance with Trinitarian Monotheism. The Holy Spirit is the third person of God, one in essence with God. Due to this theological commitment, to deny the Spirit’s existence is to deny God’s existence…if, again, we are dealing with actual Christian Trinitarianism. So, again, the challenge in light of Christian Trinitarianism amounts to atheists denying the existence of God. Therefore, the premise of this challenge seems to be to publicly verbalize that “An atheist is an atheist.” Or, perhaps, more specifically, the challenge amounts to an identity statement of “I, an atheist, deny the existence of God.”

Third, The Blasphemy Challenge seems to be a media stunt for those who already agree with the RRS, leading an emotionally-charged public condemnation of Christianity towards building a certain kind of atheist camaraderie (not all atheists would condone or engage in this kind of activity). One thing I noticed is that the RRS is not challenging people to blaspheme any of the other religious ideas of god or gods. This challenge is specifically targeting Christian Trinitarian Monotheism. [1] Perhaps, targeting religious minority groups in our society would be viewed as grossly, or negligently, intolerant, bringing too much undesired heat to the challenge. So the organization might be purposefully avoiding condemning those beliefs about God. Lacking a fuller philosophical spectrum of denouncement of belief in God, or gods, this challenge seems more gimmicky, giving a sort of fan-service to the internet new atheist.

Finally, as C.S. Lewis stated, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” Though the RRS is attempting to do something splashy to get people to think rationally about belief in God, it appears that they have really done the opposite through the use of logical fallacy. A person cannot blaspheme that which they deny. A straw-man theology of Christianity doesn’t communicate anything true about it. A tautological statement is not helpful in thinking through beliefs. And finally, in taking the challenge, people commit to the premise that their denial means something, which implies their belief in the reality of God…and I’m guessing that’s not the desired outcome.

MJ

 

______________________

[1] Someone will inevitably say, “But Christianity is the only one claiming the ‘unpardonable sin,’ and so that’s why it’s the only religion addressed. My response is two-fold: 1) that seems theologically and philosophically lazy or disingenuous, because 2) other religions have statements that could be similarly utilized as ‘tests’ for true believers, as well as punishments or consequences for disbelievers and/or sin (even if also pulled out-of-context). Further, it is culturally fashionable and acceptable, at this time, to denigrate the Christian religion (and possibly some forms of atheism), but not necessarily other belief systems.