If you’ve spent any time at all in reasoned discourse with people, you’ve seen people make “ad hominem” arguments, which are a form of logical fallacy. These are arguments like, “Your point is wrong, because you are high on drugs”. Calling you a drug abuser does nothing to disprove your point, unless of course you were claiming to be sober at that moment. The most revealing of these arguments is the “circumstantial ad hominem”: for example, “You are a Christian! Of course you would say that!”
Just as you’ve undoubtedly seen ad hominem attacks, you’ve seen people accuse others of making ad hominem arguments. Accusing someone of making an ad hominem argument is a foolproof way to shut them down and force them back into whatever logical trap you’ve constructed for them. C.S. Lewis was often irritated by people who made circumstantial ad hominems, and he even gave this argument a special name, “Bulverism”. Anyone who engaged in “Bulverism” was considered immediately illogical and wrong.
As much as I respect C.S. Lewis’s philosophical instincts, I think he misses the point on this one. People who throw about accusations of “ad hominem” and “Bulverism” reveal what their true motives are. They see logic and reason as weapons which can be deployed to bend the will of another.
To be sure, there is nothing wrong with reason. God is never illogical or irrational, and a firm commitment to intellectual honesty is an absolute necessity for Christians. But when you start beating people up with “ad hominem”, you are obviously not thinking about your own character and humility; you are thinking about binding another person’s mind.
And Christianity at it’s core is an ad hominem proposition. We believe that man is fallen and that the desires of his heart are sinful. Christianity is entirely about the battle of man’s will against God. Accusing people of “Bulverism” presupposes that those same people will arrive at God via logic, if only they close their eyes and pretend that neither of us has ulterior motives. This fantasy is not only preposterous, it is non-Christian.
Circumstantial ad hominem is a logical fallacy in pure syllogistic reasoning. But Christianity (and life and truth in general) is not an abstract syllogistic exercise. Christianity is not illogical, but you never arrive at Christianity through pure logic that is ignorant of human motives. Christianity addresses human nature and the desires of our own heart. I don’t know why Christians would be afraid of admitting this.
When someone says, “You are a Christian! Of course you would say that!”, you can take it as a compliment, and say “Yes! And it’s not even illogical!”.
I gave up on trying to reason people into the kingdom. I realize that I couldn’t do that and be a Calvinist simultaneously. However, I do try to give them some things to chew on.
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with using reason to help people understand things. John Piper, in his book “Don’t Waste Your Life”, opens by using reason (or common sense, in fact), to show that existentialism and deconstructionism are flawed. It is reasonable to point out that reason has limitations.
IMO, the issue is what are the intentions of the person you’re talking with? If they do not want to see, no amount of reason will ever make them see. That’s why Christ said things like “he who has ears, let him hear”, or “cast not your pearls before swine”. IMO, there is noting wrong with making “ad hominem” judgments about someone, and refraining from further discussion once you have enough evidence to question their willingness to be enlightened.
By the way, if you like apologetics you may find this site interesting: http://www.internetcongregation.org
A bit frustrating, but it’s nice to have Christians there too.
Josh, just came over to have a look after your comment on D&L. I agree with the sentiment here – that you can’t reason people into the Kingdom – but I’m not sure if you don’t over-dichotomize the issue. Charles Taylor’s argued that in the West increasingly people’s ‘default’ belief position is atheist / materialist, rather than religious, and this is because they associate atheist beliefs with science / reason and religious belief with faith / irrationality / intellectual immaturity.
My experience in Britain is that for people to even begin to consider Christ, they first have to understand it is not intellectually naive to believe in God; they need first to be helped to get over these false science : religion, faith : reason dichotomies. Only then will they even consider faith in God as an option, and presumably be open to divine illumination. I just think we need to be careful not to be over-dichotomising faith and reason ourselves, so that we’re not lapsing into a very modern kind of fideism which is anachronistic. Only when we understand faith and reason to be working together, in I suppose a more holistic, pre-modern way, can we allow theology to offer a rational (though not strictly logical) account of Christian faith at a time when it most needed; not rational in terms of justified by science, necessarily (contra McDowell etc.), but rational in terms of its own coherency, set on its own terms (or, I suppose, somewhat ‘ad hominem’).
Site looks interesting.
BTW, I added you to our blogroll on D&L. We will expect 30% of any profits you make in return. Just kidding.
Thanks, Simon.
You make a very good point, that we must never allow Christianity to be anti-rational. I’m simply arguing that reason will never work against someone who doesn’t want to be persuaded — and that our accusations of “Bulverism” and so on are just a mask for our own intentions.
Oh, and thanks for the blogroll! I’m planning to add a blogroll to this site soon, when I get more free time. It wasn’t easy with this particular WordPress theme, so I need to switch themes first.