The Personal Attack and Internet Debate

Ever noticed how on the internet there is a tendency for certain individuals to substitute personal attacks for reasoned argument when it comes to expressing disapproval?  It's not just the forums (though Xanga does seem to draw a lot of this sort of commentary), but even on customer reviews of products.  Labels like "Mindless propaganda" and the dismissal of an idea solely on the grounds of the beliefs of the one who thinks it.

Unfortunately this is what has replaced rational discussion in many incidents nowadays.  The sad thing of it all is such behavior blocks attempts to really understand a position before attacking it.  Vitriol often replaces civil discourse until it seems we have nothing more than armed camps who don't discuss but rather fight.

Imagine if this sort of behavior took place in the 13th century…

Thomas Aquinas: …I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it…

Modern Internet Commenter: OMFG… You people are teh suck with your mindless drivel.  WTF??? DIAF you [String of expletives]

An exaggeration to be sure, but sadly not much of one (I've certainly deleted comments along this line).  Because an argument comes from a religious authority (for example) it is often rejected and savaged by people who believe there can be no validity to what they disagree with.  However, such an attack does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the argument from an individual is actually wrong.

Disclaimer

As usual, the examples used do not mean that I claim all members of the internet forums behave this way against Christians.  Nor does it mean no Christians behave this way towards their opponents either (at the end of the article you'll see me say we should NOT make use of these tactics ourselves).  Keep in mind that the examples used in this article are directed towards helping my fellow Christians be aware of these logical errors when directed against them and makes no statements about "Only group [X] uses these errors."

It is unfortunate that some comments on the internet blogs are not grounded in reasoned discourse, but in attempts to intimidate the authors of blog sites through verbal attacks, and this article seeks to inform that such attacks and the hostility which usually accompanies such tactics on the internet have no grounding in logic.

If the reader does not use these fallacies, then the article is not directed at them.

Four Fallacies

I find there are four popular fallacies often employed to attack the Christian faith on the internet without actually needing to study what it actually believes and on what basis.  These are:

1. The Genetic Fallacy
2. The Poisoning the Well fallacy
3. The Tu Quoque fallacy.
4. The Ad Hominem fallacy

Let's Look at these fallacies.

The Genetic Fallacy

The Genetic Fallacy is to attack an idea because of the source of the idea.  It presupposes an idea must be wrong because the source of the idea can't be right in general.  It works like this:

1. Idea [X] comes from group [Y]
2. Therefore Idea [X] is wrong.

Except that is no basis of whether an idea is true or not.

One of the most notorious examples of this sort of thinking came about in Nazi Germany when the Germans put an emphasis on German science, German art, German philosophy and so on.  It corresponded with a disdain for things like Jewish science, Jewish philosophy and so on.  This kind of thinking tended to create a disdain for things which had an origin in Jewish scientists.  It has been reported that such thinking tended to lead the Germans to disdain the atomic sciences… which hindered the Germans in the "race for the atomic bomb" in World War II.  Just because the Nazis disdained the scientific advances discovered by individuals who were Jewish did not make those advances wrong.

We see this in modern dialogue as well.  How often have we heard things like "You must get all your news from FOX" as a dismissal for a position?  The implication being that if it comes from FOX News, it can't be true.

I can recall seeing several internet discussions on evolution, where some interesting questions (at least to me) were raised by some individuals about evolution and problems with the Darwinian theory.  I recall evolutionists in that forum refusing to answer the questions, merely replying "You must be a creationist."  Now perhaps there were legitimate scientific answers to the questions being asked which showed the questions had a false understanding at the root, but the questions were never given answers.  They were rejected as unworthy of answering merely because they were associated with the idea of Intelligent Design and therefore deemed without merit because of this association.

The Genetic Fallacy is generally a way to avoid thinking.  A person or an idea [X] is labeled as a part of group [Y] with the indication that one can reject thinking about it because it comes from this source.  But the source has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

Now of course, not all actions of considering the source are the Genetic fallacy.  If for example, someone tells me that Father Harry Tick has said that one can contracept and still be a good Catholic, one can research what he has said in the past.  In the case of this example, if we see that Fr. Harry Tick has had similar ideas condemned by the Vatican in the past, we can consider it probable that he is not an accurate source if he has not retracted his views.  However this is applying scrutiny based on considering the credibility of the source, not rejecting it simply because of the source.

The Poisoning the Well Fallacy

The Poisoning the Well fallacy is an attempt to discredit an idea before it is even presented.  Certain words are used to make it seem that the view being presented is automatically wrong or at least suspect.  The fallacy runs along these lines:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person [A] is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person [A] makes will be false.

This kind of argument is often employed against the Catholic Church on teachings of sexual morality and their opposition to abortion.  Something to the effect of "The Catholic Church is run by celibate old men and exclude women from the priesthood, so whatever they might say about the issue is obviously misinformed."

The fact that priests are celibate is introduced to discredit the Church teaching on sexual morality before the Catholic view is even presented.  The attempt is to preemptively taint whatever the Church says as coming from "celibate old men who don't understand sex."

This is nonsense of course.  One does not have to engage in sexual acts to know that some of them are harmful any more than one has to experiment personally with narcotics to learn some are always harmful and some are harmful when used outside of the proper intent.

Many of the "One star" reviews I have seen of the books on Amazon defending Christian beliefs against atheism also used this form of attack.  Labels of "mindless dogma" and "irrational thinking" are often used to lead the potential reader a negative view of what the author says before he says it.

However, as we saw above from the Genetic Fallacy, just because one disapproves of the beliefs of source [X] does not mean the things said by source [X] are not true.

Disapproval does not mean the statement is disproved.

The Tu Quoque Fallacy

The Tu Quoque fallacy (Latin for "and you too") seeks to answer a charge with a counter charge with the intention of distracting the individual from the original challenge and put him on the defensive.  This often happens between Christians vs. Atheists and Catholics vs. Protestants over the "body count" debates about who has the "worst" record.

The argument runs as follows:

1. Person [A] Makes Argument [X]
2. Person [B] Makes unfavorable statement about Person [A] to indicate Argument [X] is not consistent with the behavior of Person [A]
3. Therefore Argument [X] is not valid

The problem is that while hypocrisy or bad behavior may reflect badly on individual [A]'s judgment on a certain issue, it does not mean that Argument [X] is automatically wrong.  Nor does it mean everything Individual [A] is associated with is automatically wrong.

The common attack can be summed up in this dialogue:

Father: You shouldn't smoke!  It's bad for you!

Teenage Daughter: Whatever… you smoke!

The fact that the Father smokes has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is bad for you.

When employed in debates between theists and atheists or Catholics and Protestants, the attack is generally used to avoid thinking about whether the argument is true by arguing that because a religion did certain things in the past does not mean that the argument they make NOW must be false.

Now of course at certain times, the introduction to a counter claim can be valid.  If someone argues:

1. All [A] is [B]
2. All [B] is [C]
3. Therefore All [A] is [C]

it can be refuted if someone can demonstrate that Some [A] is not [B], or Some [B] is not [C].  So if someone argues that "Islam is a religion of peace" the counter example of Islam sanctioning violence could be admissible if it could be established that this was official teaching and not some fringe group of heretics or some repudiated writing.  However, if someone said "Islam is looking to peacefully coexist with the world" and I responded, "Rubbish!  What about their forced conversions in the 8th century?" this would be a tu quoque attack.

Likewise, in a Catholic vs. Protestant debate about the "body count" of the Reformation era, it would be wrong to say in response to a challenge "Catholics did terrible things" that "So did Protestants."  THAT'S a Tu quoque.  However, if the assertion was that Only Catholic nations did these things, then counter example of Protestant nations doing the same thing refutes (validly) the claim that "only" Catholics did these things.

The Ad Hominem Argument

I find this is usually the last resort of a person losing an argument.  Ad hominem (Latin for "against the person") makes no attempt to refute an argument, but instead makes an attack against the individual who makes the argument as an attempt to undermine the argument through "guilt by association."

So, as an example, a lawyer claiming that a mob informer cannot be trusted to give information against his client because the informant is a criminal is an example of the ad hominem.  Another example would be along the lines of:

Person A: I think experimentation on animals is cruel

Person B: You would say that… you're a Vegan.

(The implication is that because person B is a Vegan, she is not being objective on the issue of animal experimentation).

The form of the fallacy usually takes this form:

1. Person [A] makes Argument [X]
2. Person [B] makes a personal attack on Person [A]
3. Therefore Argument [X] need not be considered.

Of course the personal attack on Person [A] has nothing at all to do with whether argument [X] is true.  In the example above, it is possible person [A] bases the objections from the philosophy of being a Vegan.  However it is also possible that Person [A] has some reliable information about some appalling practices which she opposes on grounds of compassion.

Unfortunately this tactic is common on internet debates.  Calling a Christian a "mindless sheep" because he rejects an argument (implying that if he would "think for himself" he wouldn't be a Christian) is an example of the ad hominem.  So too "Right Wing" "Left Wing" "Homophobic" and so on are slung about seeking to smear the individual with the implication that it somehow means the argument "can't" be true.

The problem is that the personal attack on the person making an argument is not a refutation of the argument.

It can be easy to fall into this argument.  One recent example was in dealing with Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews.  Some individuals sought to bring up the fact that as a boy, he grew up in Nazi Germany and therefore he must be hostile to the Jews in certain actions he did as Pope.  That he did grow up in Nazi Germany is true, but it is irrelevant.  (For example, he describes his father as a strong influence who was anti-Nazi).  So to reject the Pope's actions as being influenced by the fact he grew up in Germany in the 1930s and 40s is an ad hominem attack.

Now the ad hominem is NOT the same as personal insults, though on the internet it often devolves into them as an attacker grows more frustrated.  The ad hominem generally demonstrates a contempt for the beliefs or circumstances of an individual making the assertion, with the result that when the individual is frustrated enough the response is to lash out.

Usually once the person is reduced to name-calling it is a good sign the individual making use of them have no more to say and out of frustration or contempt.  (Once an individual reaches this stage, I find further dialogue is useless and banning them from my site is the best way to handle it).

The Christian Consideration: Don't Commit Those Errors

As Christians blogging, we often see these fallacies used against us.  However, as Christians who believe in the existence of Truth and who believe that we are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us we need to make sure that we do not fall into the trap of using these fallacies ourselves.

It is unfortunate that some Christians have made use of these fallacies as well.  Just as logic is a tool which can be used by any group to evaluate the truth, so too fallacies are not the property of only one group of people.  Any individual can fall into these errors.

If we as Christians seek to "practice what we preach," it means we can't use the Genetic fallacy to reject an idea just because a non-Christian proposes it.  We can't Poison the Well and present an argument in such a way as to turn the readers against it before they even hear it.  We can't use the Tu Quoque and reply to a charge with a counter charge, and we may not use the ad hominem and cast aspersions on our opponent because holds a view and think we have refuted our opponent's argument.

If we do these things, we can lead those who witness our writings to think we are illogical.

Now it is easy to slip into fallacy by forgetting the purpose of the argument we wish to make is to show Truth.  NOT "to win."  So while putting on a "literary beatdown" may be fun, this sort of behavior does not impress people who are searching for truth.  If we believe the Christian faith is true, we need to show why it is true and not to merely distract and intimidate. 

We've all done it I know.  For example, it's easy to think "Hah, this clown writes for National Catholic Distorter Reporter.  The position must be a load of garbage" as opposed to "Because this newspaper has a tendency to advocate certain views in contradiction to Catholic teaching, the positions it advocates needs to be scrutinized to be sure it is not doing the same here."

It's easy to write off all Protestant/Catholic views because their view is not Catholic/Protestant (or atheist/theist views because the view is not theist/atheist).  However this is not a reason in itself to dismiss the arguments made.

Ultimately we are all called to be just and compassionate in what we do or say.  If we resent tactics like this used against us, let us do our best not to make use of them ourselves.

Conclusion

Of course this does not mean we must be indifferent about religion or think that truth is relative.  If a thing is true, we need to defend that truth against error.  However the use of a logical error does not prove a position.  A logical error of the types described in the article may put one on the defensive and may be popular with the people who agree with you, but it is nothing more than a cheap tactic to intimidate, and makes no valid attack against the argument made.

The Personal Attack and Internet Debate

Ever noticed how on the internet there is a tendency for certain individuals to substitute personal attacks for reasoned argument when it comes to expressing disapproval?  It's not just the forums (though Xanga does seem to draw a lot of this sort of commentary), but even on customer reviews of products.  Labels like "Mindless propaganda" and the dismissal of an idea solely on the grounds of the beliefs of the one who thinks it.

Unfortunately this is what has replaced rational discussion in many incidents nowadays.  The sad thing of it all is such behavior blocks attempts to really understand a position before attacking it.  Vitriol often replaces civil discourse until it seems we have nothing more than armed camps who don't discuss but rather fight.

Imagine if this sort of behavior took place in the 13th century…

Thomas Aquinas: …I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it…

Modern Internet Commenter: OMFG… You people are teh suck with your mindless drivel.  WTF??? DIAF you [String of expletives]

An exaggeration to be sure, but sadly not much of one (I've certainly deleted comments along this line).  Because an argument comes from a religious authority (for example) it is often rejected and savaged by people who believe there can be no validity to what they disagree with.  However, such an attack does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the argument from an individual is actually wrong.

Disclaimer

As usual, the examples used do not mean that I claim all members of the internet forums behave this way against Christians.  Nor does it mean no Christians behave this way towards their opponents either (at the end of the article you'll see me say we should NOT make use of these tactics ourselves).  Keep in mind that the examples used in this article are directed towards helping my fellow Christians be aware of these logical errors when directed against them and makes no statements about "Only group [X] uses these errors."

It is unfortunate that some comments on the internet blogs are not grounded in reasoned discourse, but in attempts to intimidate the authors of blog sites through verbal attacks, and this article seeks to inform that such attacks and the hostility which usually accompanies such tactics on the internet have no grounding in logic.

If the reader does not use these fallacies, then the article is not directed at them.

Four Fallacies

I find there are four popular fallacies often employed to attack the Christian faith on the internet without actually needing to study what it actually believes and on what basis.  These are:

1. The Genetic Fallacy
2. The Poisoning the Well fallacy
3. The Tu Quoque fallacy.
4. The Ad Hominem fallacy

Let's Look at these fallacies.

The Genetic Fallacy

The Genetic Fallacy is to attack an idea because of the source of the idea.  It presupposes an idea must be wrong because the source of the idea can't be right in general.  It works like this:

1. Idea [X] comes from group [Y]
2. Therefore Idea [X] is wrong.

Except that is no basis of whether an idea is true or not.

One of the most notorious examples of this sort of thinking came about in Nazi Germany when the Germans put an emphasis on German science, German art, German philosophy and so on.  It corresponded with a disdain for things like Jewish science, Jewish philosophy and so on.  This kind of thinking tended to create a disdain for things which had an origin in Jewish scientists.  It has been reported that such thinking tended to lead the Germans to disdain the atomic sciences… which hindered the Germans in the "race for the atomic bomb" in World War II.  Just because the Nazis disdained the scientific advances discovered by individuals who were Jewish did not make those advances wrong.

We see this in modern dialogue as well.  How often have we heard things like "You must get all your news from FOX" as a dismissal for a position?  The implication being that if it comes from FOX News, it can't be true.

I can recall seeing several internet discussions on evolution, where some interesting questions (at least to me) were raised by some individuals about evolution and problems with the Darwinian theory.  I recall evolutionists in that forum refusing to answer the questions, merely replying "You must be a creationist."  Now perhaps there were legitimate scientific answers to the questions being asked which showed the questions had a false understanding at the root, but the questions were never given answers.  They were rejected as unworthy of answering merely because they were associated with the idea of Intelligent Design and therefore deemed without merit because of this association.

The Genetic Fallacy is generally a way to avoid thinking.  A person or an idea [X] is labeled as a part of group [Y] with the indication that one can reject thinking about it because it comes from this source.  But the source has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

Now of course, not all actions of considering the source are the Genetic fallacy.  If for example, someone tells me that Father Harry Tick has said that one can contracept and still be a good Catholic, one can research what he has said in the past.  In the case of this example, if we see that Fr. Harry Tick has had similar ideas condemned by the Vatican in the past, we can consider it probable that he is not an accurate source if he has not retracted his views.  However this is applying scrutiny based on considering the credibility of the source, not rejecting it simply because of the source.

The Poisoning the Well Fallacy

The Poisoning the Well fallacy is an attempt to discredit an idea before it is even presented.  Certain words are used to make it seem that the view being presented is automatically wrong or at least suspect.  The fallacy runs along these lines:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person [A] is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person [A] makes will be false.

This kind of argument is often employed against the Catholic Church on teachings of sexual morality and their opposition to abortion.  Something to the effect of "The Catholic Church is run by celibate old men and exclude women from the priesthood, so whatever they might say about the issue is obviously misinformed."

The fact that priests are celibate is introduced to discredit the Church teaching on sexual morality before the Catholic view is even presented.  The attempt is to preemptively taint whatever the Church says as coming from "celibate old men who don't understand sex."

This is nonsense of course.  One does not have to engage in sexual acts to know that some of them are harmful any more than one has to experiment personally with narcotics to learn some are always harmful and some are harmful when used outside of the proper intent.

Many of the "One star" reviews I have seen of the books on Amazon defending Christian beliefs against atheism also used this form of attack.  Labels of "mindless dogma" and "irrational thinking" are often used to lead the potential reader a negative view of what the author says before he says it.

However, as we saw above from the Genetic Fallacy, just because one disapproves of the beliefs of source [X] does not mean the things said by source [X] are not true.

Disapproval does not mean the statement is disproved.

The Tu Quoque Fallacy

The Tu Quoque fallacy (Latin for "and you too") seeks to answer a charge with a counter charge with the intention of distracting the individual from the original challenge and put him on the defensive.  This often happens between Christians vs. Atheists and Catholics vs. Protestants over the "body count" debates about who has the "worst" record.

The argument runs as follows:

1. Person [A] Makes Argument [X]
2. Person [B] Makes unfavorable statement about Person [A] to indicate Argument [X] is not consistent with the behavior of Person [A]
3. Therefore Argument [X] is not valid

The problem is that while hypocrisy or bad behavior may reflect badly on individual [A]'s judgment on a certain issue, it does not mean that Argument [X] is automatically wrong.  Nor does it mean everything Individual [A] is associated with is automatically wrong.

The common attack can be summed up in this dialogue:

Father: You shouldn't smoke!  It's bad for you!

Teenage Daughter: Whatever… you smoke!

The fact that the Father smokes has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is bad for you.

When employed in debates between theists and atheists or Catholics and Protestants, the attack is generally used to avoid thinking about whether the argument is true by arguing that because a religion did certain things in the past does not mean that the argument they make NOW must be false.

Now of course at certain times, the introduction to a counter claim can be valid.  If someone argues:

1. All [A] is [B]
2. All [B] is [C]
3. Therefore All [A] is [C]

it can be refuted if someone can demonstrate that Some [A] is not [B], or Some [B] is not [C].  So if someone argues that "Islam is a religion of peace" the counter example of Islam sanctioning violence could be admissible if it could be established that this was official teaching and not some fringe group of heretics or some repudiated writing.  However, if someone said "Islam is looking to peacefully coexist with the world" and I responded, "Rubbish!  What about their forced conversions in the 8th century?" this would be a tu quoque attack.

Likewise, in a Catholic vs. Protestant debate about the "body count" of the Reformation era, it would be wrong to say in response to a challenge "Catholics did terrible things" that "So did Protestants."  THAT'S a Tu quoque.  However, if the assertion was that Only Catholic nations did these things, then counter example of Protestant nations doing the same thing refutes (validly) the claim that "only" Catholics did these things.

The Ad Hominem Argument

I find this is usually the last resort of a person losing an argument.  Ad hominem (Latin for "against the person") makes no attempt to refute an argument, but instead makes an attack against the individual who makes the argument as an attempt to undermine the argument through "guilt by association."

So, as an example, a lawyer claiming that a mob informer cannot be trusted to give information against his client because the informant is a criminal is an example of the ad hominem.  Another example would be along the lines of:

Person A: I think experimentation on animals is cruel

Person B: You would say that… you're a Vegan.

(The implication is that because person B is a Vegan, she is not being objective on the issue of animal experimentation).

The form of the fallacy usually takes this form:

1. Person [A] makes Argument [X]
2. Person [B] makes a personal attack on Person [A]
3. Therefore Argument [X] need not be considered.

Of course the personal attack on Person [A] has nothing at all to do with whether argument [X] is true.  In the example above, it is possible person [A] bases the objections from the philosophy of being a Vegan.  However it is also possible that Person [A] has some reliable information about some appalling practices which she opposes on grounds of compassion.

Unfortunately this tactic is common on internet debates.  Calling a Christian a "mindless sheep" because he rejects an argument (implying that if he would "think for himself" he wouldn't be a Christian) is an example of the ad hominem.  So too "Right Wing" "Left Wing" "Homophobic" and so on are slung about seeking to smear the individual with the implication that it somehow means the argument "can't" be true.

The problem is that the personal attack on the person making an argument is not a refutation of the argument.

It can be easy to fall into this argument.  One recent example was in dealing with Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews.  Some individuals sought to bring up the fact that as a boy, he grew up in Nazi Germany and therefore he must be hostile to the Jews in certain actions he did as Pope.  That he did grow up in Nazi Germany is true, but it is irrelevant.  (For example, he describes his father as a strong influence who was anti-Nazi).  So to reject the Pope's actions as being influenced by the fact he grew up in Germany in the 1930s and 40s is an ad hominem attack.

Now the ad hominem is NOT the same as personal insults, though on the internet it often devolves into them as an attacker grows more frustrated.  The ad hominem generally demonstrates a contempt for the beliefs or circumstances of an individual making the assertion, with the result that when the individual is frustrated enough the response is to lash out.

Usually once the person is reduced to name-calling it is a good sign the individual making use of them have no more to say and out of frustration or contempt.  (Once an individual reaches this stage, I find further dialogue is useless and banning them from my site is the best way to handle it).

The Christian Consideration: Don't Commit Those Errors

As Christians blogging, we often see these fallacies used against us.  However, as Christians who believe in the existence of Truth and who believe that we are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us we need to make sure that we do not fall into the trap of using these fallacies ourselves.

It is unfortunate that some Christians have made use of these fallacies as well.  Just as logic is a tool which can be used by any group to evaluate the truth, so too fallacies are not the property of only one group of people.  Any individual can fall into these errors.

If we as Christians seek to "practice what we preach," it means we can't use the Genetic fallacy to reject an idea just because a non-Christian proposes it.  We can't Poison the Well and present an argument in such a way as to turn the readers against it before they even hear it.  We can't use the Tu Quoque and reply to a charge with a counter charge, and we may not use the ad hominem and cast aspersions on our opponent because holds a view and think we have refuted our opponent's argument.

If we do these things, we can lead those who witness our writings to think we are illogical.

Now it is easy to slip into fallacy by forgetting the purpose of the argument we wish to make is to show Truth.  NOT "to win."  So while putting on a "literary beatdown" may be fun, this sort of behavior does not impress people who are searching for truth.  If we believe the Christian faith is true, we need to show why it is true and not to merely distract and intimidate. 

We've all done it I know.  For example, it's easy to think "Hah, this clown writes for National Catholic Distorter Reporter.  The position must be a load of garbage" as opposed to "Because this newspaper has a tendency to advocate certain views in contradiction to Catholic teaching, the positions it advocates needs to be scrutinized to be sure it is not doing the same here."

It's easy to write off all Protestant/Catholic views because their view is not Catholic/Protestant (or atheist/theist views because the view is not theist/atheist).  However this is not a reason in itself to dismiss the arguments made.

Ultimately we are all called to be just and compassionate in what we do or say.  If we resent tactics like this used against us, let us do our best not to make use of them ourselves.

Conclusion

Of course this does not mean we must be indifferent about religion or think that truth is relative.  If a thing is true, we need to defend that truth against error.  However the use of a logical error does not prove a position.  A logical error of the types described in the article may put one on the defensive and may be popular with the people who agree with you, but it is nothing more than a cheap tactic to intimidate, and makes no valid attack against the argument made.

Thoughts on the So-called New Atheism

Read more »

Thoughts on the So-called New Atheism

Read more »

The Parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant: How It Is Misapplied to Religion

The Parable to Consider

"Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking."

— Source: Jainworld.com

This kind of story is often invoked to justify religious indifferentism.  It claims no religion has a monopoly on the truth and each one has only a partial truth which limits them.  Is such a view accurate however?

The Parable is a Misunderstanding of Issues

I am inclined to think no, this is a false view of what religious disputes are about.  This Jainist parable looks at it as if religions are saying "The elephant only is like a pillar" or "The elephant is only like a rope" or so on.  This is inaccurate.

The dispute between religions is not over whether "the elephant" is like a pillar or a rope.  It is more like a dispute over whether the concept of "elephant" has a trunk or does not have a trunk.  If the elephant has a trunk, those who claim it does not err.  If the elephant normally (as opposed to a birth defect or accident) does not have a trunk, then those who claim it has a trunk err.

The elephant cannot both have a trunk and not have a trunk however.

So even if the truth "can be stated in seven different ways" as the parable says, there is still the case of speaking truth or falsehood.  No matter how many ways one speaks truth, falsehood is not truth.  This is the source of dispute over religion in all forms.

True or False?

When it comes to religious claims, there are several divisions which require an answer one way or another (This set of divisions inspired by Peter Kreeft's "Socratic Logic 3E"):

1. "Is there any hope of finding the truth about religion?"  Agnostics/skeptics answer no.  All others answer yes.
2. "Is there any type of God or supernatural reality which justifies the attitude of piety?"  Atheists answer no.  All others answer yes
3. "Is there an ultimate oneness to this reality?"  Polytheism answers no.  All others answer yes.
4. "Is this reality distinct from the universe and human consciousness?"  Pantheism answers no.  All others answer yes.
5. "Is this reality a person rather than a force or principle?  An 'I AM'?" Vague Philosophical Theism says no.  All others answer yes.
6. "Did this 'I AM' reveal Himself?"  Non-Religious Philosophical Theism says no.  All others answer yes.
7. "Did this 'I AM' send any Prophet greater than Moses?"  Judaism says no.  All others answer yes.
8. "Is the greatest prophet Jesus?"  Islam says no.  All others answer yes.
9. "Is Jesus a divine person as well as a human person, and is God a Trinity rather than one?"  Unitarianism says no.  Trinitarian Christianity answers yes.
10. "Did Jesus establish a single visible infallible Church with the authority to teach in His name?"  Protestantism says no.  All others answer yes.
11. "Is the Pope in Rome the present universal head of this Church?" Eastern Orthodoxy says no.  Catholicism answer yes.

These divisions (wherever one may find themselves in it) show the flaw with the Jainist argument given at the beginning of this article.  Either there is hope of finding the truth about religion or there is not.  If the skeptics are right, then all others are wrong.  Either there is some kind of God or there isn't.  If atheists are right, then all others are wrong.  Either the supernatural is one or it is not.  If polytheists are right, all others are wrong.  Either God is distinct from the universe or is not.  If pantheistic religions are right, all others are wrong… and so on.

"What IS" is The Issue of Dispute

The point is, arguing over whether the elephant is a trunk or a leg or a tail is not what religions dispute.  It is over issues over whether a thing is or is not.  It cannot be both in the same context, so people who hold one necessarily must deny the other.

I think this set of divisions also shows the nature of the dispute between different groups.  If a Christian debates an agnostic, the ground of dispute is not over Christian doctrines but over whether we can know truth about religion.  When Christians and Eastern practitioners debate, it is over whether or not God is distinct from the universe.  When the Christian debates the Moslem, the dispute is over whether the greatest revelation is from Christ or not.  When Catholics and Protestants debate, the debate is over whether God intended one authoritative Church to teach in His name.

Obviously we can't believe that we can both know and not know the truth of religion, as these are contradictory.

Because of this, I really don't think this Jainist Parable is valid in approaching the disputes of religion.

The Parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant: How It Is Misapplied to Religion

The Parable to Consider

"Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking."

— Source: Jainworld.com

This kind of story is often invoked to justify religious indifferentism.  It claims no religion has a monopoly on the truth and each one has only a partial truth which limits them.  Is such a view accurate however?

The Parable is a Misunderstanding of Issues

I am inclined to think no, this is a false view of what religious disputes are about.  This Jainist parable looks at it as if religions are saying "The elephant only is like a pillar" or "The elephant is only like a rope" or so on.  This is inaccurate.

The dispute between religions is not over whether "the elephant" is like a pillar or a rope.  It is more like a dispute over whether the concept of "elephant" has a trunk or does not have a trunk.  If the elephant has a trunk, those who claim it does not err.  If the elephant normally (as opposed to a birth defect or accident) does not have a trunk, then those who claim it has a trunk err.

The elephant cannot both have a trunk and not have a trunk however.

So even if the truth "can be stated in seven different ways" as the parable says, there is still the case of speaking truth or falsehood.  No matter how many ways one speaks truth, falsehood is not truth.  This is the source of dispute over religion in all forms.

True or False?

When it comes to religious claims, there are several divisions which require an answer one way or another (This set of divisions inspired by Peter Kreeft's "Socratic Logic 3E"):

1. "Is there any hope of finding the truth about religion?"  Agnostics/skeptics answer no.  All others answer yes.
2. "Is there any type of God or supernatural reality which justifies the attitude of piety?"  Atheists answer no.  All others answer yes
3. "Is there an ultimate oneness to this reality?"  Polytheism answers no.  All others answer yes.
4. "Is this reality distinct from the universe and human consciousness?"  Pantheism answers no.  All others answer yes.
5. "Is this reality a person rather than a force or principle?  An 'I AM'?" Vague Philosophical Theism says no.  All others answer yes.
6. "Did this 'I AM' reveal Himself?"  Non-Religious Philosophical Theism says no.  All others answer yes.
7. "Did this 'I AM' send any Prophet greater than Moses?"  Judaism says no.  All others answer yes.
8. "Is the greatest prophet Jesus?"  Islam says no.  All others answer yes.
9. "Is Jesus a divine person as well as a human person, and is God a Trinity rather than one?"  Unitarianism says no.  Trinitarian Christianity answers yes.
10. "Did Jesus establish a single visible infallible Church with the authority to teach in His name?"  Protestantism says no.  All others answer yes.
11. "Is the Pope in Rome the present universal head of this Church?" Eastern Orthodoxy says no.  Catholicism answer yes.

These divisions (wherever one may find themselves in it) show the flaw with the Jainist argument given at the beginning of this article.  Either there is hope of finding the truth about religion or there is not.  If the skeptics are right, then all others are wrong.  Either there is some kind of God or there isn't.  If atheists are right, then all others are wrong.  Either the supernatural is one or it is not.  If polytheists are right, all others are wrong.  Either God is distinct from the universe or is not.  If pantheistic religions are right, all others are wrong… and so on.

"What IS" is The Issue of Dispute

The point is, arguing over whether the elephant is a trunk or a leg or a tail is not what religions dispute.  It is over issues over whether a thing is or is not.  It cannot be both in the same context, so people who hold one necessarily must deny the other.

I think this set of divisions also shows the nature of the dispute between different groups.  If a Christian debates an agnostic, the ground of dispute is not over Christian doctrines but over whether we can know truth about religion.  When Christians and Eastern practitioners debate, it is over whether or not God is distinct from the universe.  When the Christian debates the Moslem, the dispute is over whether the greatest revelation is from Christ or not.  When Catholics and Protestants debate, the debate is over whether God intended one authoritative Church to teach in His name.

Obviously we can't believe that we can both know and not know the truth of religion, as these are contradictory.

Because of this, I really don't think this Jainist Parable is valid in approaching the disputes of religion.

Examining an Anti-Catholic Attack

The Usual Disclaimer

Yes I am aware that not all anti-Catholics express beliefs in the same way, and that not all people who believe some of these claims are anti-Catholic.  However the claim I am addressing are real and often get thrown about in Internet debate with the express purpose of attacking the Catholic faith.  Please keep this limiting frame in mind before accusing me of holding a position I am not stating.

Introduction

One of the common arguments used to attack the Catholic Church is that it "imposed" certain doctrines not found in Scripture.  From this, it is claimed that because they were not found in Scripture, they must have been invented for (insert nefarious reason here).

As this claim circulates, there are certain assumptions which get repeated but, when looked at, don't have a logical basis.

Defining the Difference

Let me make clear here that I do not equate "anti-Catholic" with "Disagrees with the Catholic Church."  One can be civil in disagreement, holding "I believe X is true, so I think Catholics must have the wrong interpretation here," without imputing an evil will to the Catholic Church.  I believe such individuals are wrong when they believe this of course, but hostility to Catholic beliefs does not fuel their claims.

However, the anti-Catholic generally seems to assume that the difference in belief is based on an evil intent from the Church designed to "enslave" people in a religion deliberately calculated to keep people from God.  Such individuals make it their business to "save" Catholics from Hell, often using scare tactics, and sometimes using some rather unethical practices involving the misrepresentation of what Catholics believe.

Of course we can't explore all of these claims as they are numerous indeed (a recommended place to start is Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism), but let's start with a common one which recently showed up again in a retort a person made to me.

The Premise to Be Explored

The common premise to be explored today is: that things which the Catholics believe, which Protestants reject, are Unchristian and not true.  Normally this gets expressed as something similar to the following (which has many forms): "X is a false belief.  If you want me to believe your belief is true, then show me where it says this in the Bible." 

Now this can be expressed in different ways than put here of course.  Some are expressed in ways which are logically valid.  Some are not.  I can't anticipate all of the ways this can be expressed, but since most of the differences are semantics and not real difference in meaning, I will take the form I have often run into above and use this as the basis for the investigation.

Some Initial Problems with this particular argument

This argument normally strikes me as being rather petulant in nature.  It makes a claim ("This belief is unbiblical") but instead of showing whether the claim is true, it actually insists on making the person who disagrees with a claim disprove them.  In logic, this is known as Shifting the Burden of Proof).  This tactic presumes the claim (X is a false belief) is already proven and demands the person who disagrees to disprove the case.

The gut instinct might be to just say "Well, prove your own claim" but I don't recommend this.  This usually gets into a Scripture slinging match which can never end because there is no one authority to determine whose interpretation of Scripture is correct.

The reason this is ineffective is there are three things which are presumed by this demand which need to be established, before we can accept it:

1. That the Word of God is limited to the Bible alone
2. That the Protestant canon of Scripture is authoritative.
3. Who is authorized to judge which interpretation of Scripture is correct.

So first we need to look at what is wrong with the argument by putting it into a valid syllogism.

Putting the challenge in a logical form

The first step is putting the argument into a form which is logically valid.  [That is, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true].  It is true that many of these arguments are expressed in logically invalid ways [even if the premises were true (which I don't grant), the argument cannot prove the conclusion].  However we do need to put it in a valid form to avoid accusations of creating a straw man argument.

So let's try to take this argument, listed in the section "The Premise to be explored," which claims Catholic beliefs are not true because they are not in the Bible.

I think the best way to express what the argument hopes to achieve is to make it a negative statement about what truth involves in relation to scripture instead of a positive statement about Scripture in relation to truth.  Hopefully this phrasing will exclude enough [Such as avoiding side roads about whether things outside of Scripture like math can be true] through definition, to avoid misunderstanding what we mean by "truth" and therefore avoid meaningless quibbles about "that's not what I meant."

Here, we need to recognize the enthymeme (the unspoken but assumed argument), which is essentially that the only truths concerning salvation come from scripture and anything else claiming to involve salvation is false.  So, we can state the syllogism this way:

1. No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True] (No [A] is [B])
2. Some [Catholic Teachings] are [Teachings pertaining to salvation not found in the Bible] (Some [C] is [A]
3. Therefore some [Catholic Teachings] are Not [true] (Therefore Some [C] is not [B])

(Hopefully, the reader, will recognize that this is not an attempt to create a straw man, but is an attempt to make a common anti-Catholic claim fit into a logical form so it is valid.)

If we limit it this much, the logical form is valid (the basic premise is, a thing [C] that is in group [A] is excluded from group [B]), and if the premises are true, then the conclusion can be said to be proven true.  However, if one or both of the premises are false, or cannot be established to be true, then the conclusion cannot be said to be proven true.

So let's look at the premises.

Examining the Major Premise

The first problem is the major premise.  In order for the argument to be proven true, the premise

"No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]"

has to be shown to be true.  The problem is one cannot demonstrate this.  Scripture itself does not claim "No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]."  Nor does Scripture define what books of the Bible are part of the Bible.

So…

• IF the claim "No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]" is a [teaching pertaining to salvation]
• AND This claim is [not found in the Bible]
• THEN logically this claim is not [true]

(In other words, the premise contradicts itself unless it can be shown from Scripture).

I think we can establish that "No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]" is supposed to be true and necessary for salvation (such as Sola Scriptura).  If it weren't, people wouldn't have problems with Catholic beliefs and there would be no concern from some that Catholics are damned for following such beliefs.  So if such a teaching is not found in the Bible, the major premise is not true, and the conclusion (Therefore some [Catholic Teachings] are Not [true]) is not proven.

Moreover, we can point to a few verses of Scripture to show that a Sola Scriptura approach is not held in the Bible.

^25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

(John 21:25)

^15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes. 2:15)

The first passage demonstrates that Scripture does not claim to be the exhaustive source of what Jesus did.  The second demonstrates it was not the written documents but the teaching the Apostles gave, regardless of the media used, which were important.

[It should be noted that two common verses used to justify Sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:15 and Acts 17:11, do not demonstrate the exclusive nature of "Scripture alone."]

Examining the Minor Premise

So having given some of the reasons I reject the major premise of the argument, let us move on to the minor premise: "Some [Catholic Teachings] are [Teachings pertaining to salvation not found in the Bible]."

There are two problems with the Minor Premise.   The first problem is the disagreement over canon.  The second is over the dispute over meaning of Scriptures.

In the first case, the problem is over canon.  Certainly as far back as the canon of Scripture was defined, it was the Septuagint (LXX) canon for the Old Testament.  It was not until the 16th century that Protestants adopted the canon of the Masoretic text (which does not have the Greek only books of the Old Testament).  So the question is, on which authority is it to be determined that Scripture is based only on the 66 books recognized by Protestants?

If an anti-Catholic wants to attack a belief on being "unbiblical" the questions that must be asked are which version do you call authoritative and under what authority do you insist on such a version?  Until that is settled, the only reason for rejecting beliefs discussed in the deuterocanonical works is merely personal preference.

The second problem is the dispute over meaning.  Catholics do indeed read Scripture, and our beliefs which we hold can be said to not contradict Scripture.  So it is a matter of interpretation.  anti-Catholics hold to one interpretation and claim that Catholic beliefs are "unbiblical" because they do not.  So for the minor premise to be shown to be true, it has to be shown that the Christian teaching excludes the Catholic interpretation and it has to be shown by appealing to an authority which both would accept.

Those I have met who hold Sola Scriptura generally invoke two areas as authority that their teachings are correct:

1. The "Plain Sense" of Scripture
2. The "Inspiration of the Holy Spirit" on the Reader.

"Plain Sense" as Authority and "Inspiration of the Holy Spirit"

I believe we can show the problem with the claim of the "plain sense" of Scripture as a source of authority.  We merely need look at how so many teachings of Jesus are disputed as to what the "plain sense" means.  Take the "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6, where those who reject the Catholic view claims Jesus spoke merely symbolically… but usually cannot agree on what the symbol "means."  Or take Jesus' words on Baptism and see the wide dispute on whether it is necessary or merely symbolic.

These contradictions over the "Plain Sense" also shows that the invoking of the Holy Spirit as inspiring the reader to "know" the truth is dubious.  The Holy Spirit, being God, cannot be contradictory.  If, as Christians, we believe in Christ's teachings, we believe they are true for all people.  Not one truth for me and another for you

If the different groups cannot agree on the meaning of the "plain sense," how can it be invoked?  If the Holy Spirit inspires the reader, how do we justify the contradictory beliefs except as "I'm right, you err!" 

In such a case, it claims the individual reader has infallibility in a way far beyond what Catholics believe the Pope possesses.

The Flaw of Inconsistency

There is another flaw as well, which was hinted at in the section "Examining the Major Premise."  If the claim is made that some Catholic claim must be shown explicitly from Scripture if it is to be believed and the idea of indirect allusions to a belief are rejected, then the one who insists this must practice what they preach and show explicitly from the Bible that only the Bible is authoritative.  If the individual claims the right for indirect proof to establish this claim, but denies the Catholic the right to do the same, the charge of "hypocrisy" sticks.

The Flaw of Presuming Too Much

As I said in the section "Some Initial Problems with this particular argument" the problem is the anti-Catholic seeking to argue that Catholic beliefs are manmade and demonic (which is an interesting contradiction as well) presumes too much that needs to be proven.  Before invoking "Show me the word in the Bible," they need to establish that the Word of God is limited to the Bible alone and the books contained in their canon."

The reason this needs to be established is that if the Word of God is not limited to Scripture alone, then it follows that some of the Word of God is outside of Scripture.  If some of the Word of God is outside of Scripture, an appeal to Scripture alone would be imposing artificial limits on the Word of God.

Conclusion

Of course I do not presume to claim that the entire dispute between Catholics and Protestants about teaching authority is ended on account of this article.  However, I do believe that I have shown substantial problems with the "Beliefs not in the Bible are false" argument.

1. How do we know the Bible alone is the sole source of truth?  (Scripture seems to emphasize the authority of the Church)
2. Which canon of Scripture is authoritative?
3. Who is an arbiter in determining whether an interpretation is legitimate or not?

These points need to be proven true before we can accept the premises of "Things outside the Bible are not truths required for salvation," and "Some Catholic teachings are things outside the Bible."

Because the premises cannot be established as true, the argument (even though it follows a valid form) cannot be said to prove the conclusion.

This is because ultimately, the dispute over Scripture is not over whether or not it is true, but over what authority is recognized to interpret it.

Examining an Anti-Catholic Attack

The Usual Disclaimer

Yes I am aware that not all anti-Catholics express beliefs in the same way, and that not all people who believe some of these claims are anti-Catholic.  However the claim I am addressing are real and often get thrown about in Internet debate with the express purpose of attacking the Catholic faith.  Please keep this limiting frame in mind before accusing me of holding a position I am not stating.

Introduction

One of the common arguments used to attack the Catholic Church is that it "imposed" certain doctrines not found in Scripture.  From this, it is claimed that because they were not found in Scripture, they must have been invented for (insert nefarious reason here).

As this claim circulates, there are certain assumptions which get repeated but, when looked at, don't have a logical basis.

Defining the Difference

Let me make clear here that I do not equate "anti-Catholic" with "Disagrees with the Catholic Church."  One can be civil in disagreement, holding "I believe X is true, so I think Catholics must have the wrong interpretation here," without imputing an evil will to the Catholic Church.  I believe such individuals are wrong when they believe this of course, but hostility to Catholic beliefs does not fuel their claims.

However, the anti-Catholic generally seems to assume that the difference in belief is based on an evil intent from the Church designed to "enslave" people in a religion deliberately calculated to keep people from God.  Such individuals make it their business to "save" Catholics from Hell, often using scare tactics, and sometimes using some rather unethical practices involving the misrepresentation of what Catholics believe.

Of course we can't explore all of these claims as they are numerous indeed (a recommended place to start is Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism), but let's start with a common one which recently showed up again in a retort a person made to me.

The Premise to Be Explored

The common premise to be explored today is: that things which the Catholics believe, which Protestants reject, are Unchristian and not true.  Normally this gets expressed as something similar to the following (which has many forms): "X is a false belief.  If you want me to believe your belief is true, then show me where it says this in the Bible." 

Now this can be expressed in different ways than put here of course.  Some are expressed in ways which are logically valid.  Some are not.  I can't anticipate all of the ways this can be expressed, but since most of the differences are semantics and not real difference in meaning, I will take the form I have often run into above and use this as the basis for the investigation.

Some Initial Problems with this particular argument

This argument normally strikes me as being rather petulant in nature.  It makes a claim ("This belief is unbiblical") but instead of showing whether the claim is true, it actually insists on making the person who disagrees with a claim disprove them.  In logic, this is known as Shifting the Burden of Proof).  This tactic presumes the claim (X is a false belief) is already proven and demands the person who disagrees to disprove the case.

The gut instinct might be to just say "Well, prove your own claim" but I don't recommend this.  This usually gets into a Scripture slinging match which can never end because there is no one authority to determine whose interpretation of Scripture is correct.

The reason this is ineffective is there are three things which are presumed by this demand which need to be established, before we can accept it:

1. That the Word of God is limited to the Bible alone
2. That the Protestant canon of Scripture is authoritative.
3. Who is authorized to judge which interpretation of Scripture is correct.

So first we need to look at what is wrong with the argument by putting it into a valid syllogism.

Putting the challenge in a logical form

The first step is putting the argument into a form which is logically valid.  [That is, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true].  It is true that many of these arguments are expressed in logically invalid ways [even if the premises were true (which I don't grant), the argument cannot prove the conclusion].  However we do need to put it in a valid form to avoid accusations of creating a straw man argument.

So let's try to take this argument, listed in the section "The Premise to be explored," which claims Catholic beliefs are not true because they are not in the Bible.

I think the best way to express what the argument hopes to achieve is to make it a negative statement about what truth involves in relation to scripture instead of a positive statement about Scripture in relation to truth.  Hopefully this phrasing will exclude enough [Such as avoiding side roads about whether things outside of Scripture like math can be true] through definition, to avoid misunderstanding what we mean by "truth" and therefore avoid meaningless quibbles about "that's not what I meant."

Here, we need to recognize the enthymeme (the unspoken but assumed argument), which is essentially that the only truths concerning salvation come from scripture and anything else claiming to involve salvation is false.  So, we can state the syllogism this way:

1. No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True] (No [A] is [B])
2. Some [Catholic Teachings] are [Teachings pertaining to salvation not found in the Bible] (Some [C] is [A]
3. Therefore some [Catholic Teachings] are Not [true] (Therefore Some [C] is not [B])

(Hopefully, the reader, will recognize that this is not an attempt to create a straw man, but is an attempt to make a common anti-Catholic claim fit into a logical form so it is valid.)

If we limit it this much, the logical form is valid (the basic premise is, a thing [C] that is in group [A] is excluded from group [B]), and if the premises are true, then the conclusion can be said to be proven true.  However, if one or both of the premises are false, or cannot be established to be true, then the conclusion cannot be said to be proven true.

So let's look at the premises.

Examining the Major Premise

The first problem is the major premise.  In order for the argument to be proven true, the premise

"No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]"

has to be shown to be true.  The problem is one cannot demonstrate this.  Scripture itself does not claim "No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]."  Nor does Scripture define what books of the Bible are part of the Bible.

So…

• IF the claim "No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]" is a [teaching pertaining to salvation]
• AND This claim is [not found in the Bible]
• THEN logically this claim is not [true]

(In other words, the premise contradicts itself unless it can be shown from Scripture).

I think we can establish that "No [Teachings pertaining to salvation not Found in the Bible] are [True]" is supposed to be true and necessary for salvation (such as Sola Scriptura).  If it weren't, people wouldn't have problems with Catholic beliefs and there would be no concern from some that Catholics are damned for following such beliefs.  So if such a teaching is not found in the Bible, the major premise is not true, and the conclusion (Therefore some [Catholic Teachings] are Not [true]) is not proven.

Moreover, we can point to a few verses of Scripture to show that a Sola Scriptura approach is not held in the Bible.

^25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

(John 21:25)

^15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes. 2:15)

The first passage demonstrates that Scripture does not claim to be the exhaustive source of what Jesus did.  The second demonstrates it was not the written documents but the teaching the Apostles gave, regardless of the media used, which were important.

[It should be noted that two common verses used to justify Sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:15 and Acts 17:11, do not demonstrate the exclusive nature of "Scripture alone."]

Examining the Minor Premise

So having given some of the reasons I reject the major premise of the argument, let us move on to the minor premise: "Some [Catholic Teachings] are [Teachings pertaining to salvation not found in the Bible]."

There are two problems with the Minor Premise.   The first problem is the disagreement over canon.  The second is over the dispute over meaning of Scriptures.

In the first case, the problem is over canon.  Certainly as far back as the canon of Scripture was defined, it was the Septuagint (LXX) canon for the Old Testament.  It was not until the 16th century that Protestants adopted the canon of the Masoretic text (which does not have the Greek only books of the Old Testament).  So the question is, on which authority is it to be determined that Scripture is based only on the 66 books recognized by Protestants?

If an anti-Catholic wants to attack a belief on being "unbiblical" the questions that must be asked are which version do you call authoritative and under what authority do you insist on such a version?  Until that is settled, the only reason for rejecting beliefs discussed in the deuterocanonical works is merely personal preference.

The second problem is the dispute over meaning.  Catholics do indeed read Scripture, and our beliefs which we hold can be said to not contradict Scripture.  So it is a matter of interpretation.  anti-Catholics hold to one interpretation and claim that Catholic beliefs are "unbiblical" because they do not.  So for the minor premise to be shown to be true, it has to be shown that the Christian teaching excludes the Catholic interpretation and it has to be shown by appealing to an authority which both would accept.

Those I have met who hold Sola Scriptura generally invoke two areas as authority that their teachings are correct:

1. The "Plain Sense" of Scripture
2. The "Inspiration of the Holy Spirit" on the Reader.

"Plain Sense" as Authority and "Inspiration of the Holy Spirit"

I believe we can show the problem with the claim of the "plain sense" of Scripture as a source of authority.  We merely need look at how so many teachings of Jesus are disputed as to what the "plain sense" means.  Take the "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6, where those who reject the Catholic view claims Jesus spoke merely symbolically… but usually cannot agree on what the symbol "means."  Or take Jesus' words on Baptism and see the wide dispute on whether it is necessary or merely symbolic.

These contradictions over the "Plain Sense" also shows that the invoking of the Holy Spirit as inspiring the reader to "know" the truth is dubious.  The Holy Spirit, being God, cannot be contradictory.  If, as Christians, we believe in Christ's teachings, we believe they are true for all people.  Not one truth for me and another for you

If the different groups cannot agree on the meaning of the "plain sense," how can it be invoked?  If the Holy Spirit inspires the reader, how do we justify the contradictory beliefs except as "I'm right, you err!" 

In such a case, it claims the individual reader has infallibility in a way far beyond what Catholics believe the Pope possesses.

The Flaw of Inconsistency

There is another flaw as well, which was hinted at in the section "Examining the Major Premise."  If the claim is made that some Catholic claim must be shown explicitly from Scripture if it is to be believed and the idea of indirect allusions to a belief are rejected, then the one who insists this must practice what they preach and show explicitly from the Bible that only the Bible is authoritative.  If the individual claims the right for indirect proof to establish this claim, but denies the Catholic the right to do the same, the charge of "hypocrisy" sticks.

The Flaw of Presuming Too Much

As I said in the section "Some Initial Problems with this particular argument" the problem is the anti-Catholic seeking to argue that Catholic beliefs are manmade and demonic (which is an interesting contradiction as well) presumes too much that needs to be proven.  Before invoking "Show me the word in the Bible," they need to establish that the Word of God is limited to the Bible alone and the books contained in their canon."

The reason this needs to be established is that if the Word of God is not limited to Scripture alone, then it follows that some of the Word of God is outside of Scripture.  If some of the Word of God is outside of Scripture, an appeal to Scripture alone would be imposing artificial limits on the Word of God.

Conclusion

Of course I do not presume to claim that the entire dispute between Catholics and Protestants about teaching authority is ended on account of this article.  However, I do believe that I have shown substantial problems with the "Beliefs not in the Bible are false" argument.

1. How do we know the Bible alone is the sole source of truth?  (Scripture seems to emphasize the authority of the Church)
2. Which canon of Scripture is authoritative?
3. Who is an arbiter in determining whether an interpretation is legitimate or not?

These points need to be proven true before we can accept the premises of "Things outside the Bible are not truths required for salvation," and "Some Catholic teachings are things outside the Bible."

Because the premises cannot be established as true, the argument (even though it follows a valid form) cannot be said to prove the conclusion.

This is because ultimately, the dispute over Scripture is not over whether or not it is true, but over what authority is recognized to interpret it.