Considering the Charge of Delusion and Resurrection Accounts

The account of the Resurrection is ultimately the center of the Christian faith.  As St. Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 15:

^14 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ^15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Because of this, those who would deny the teaching of Christians and wish to refute it need to attack the teaching and try to prove a claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Two Categories for Charges

In looking at these charges, we need to consider their basis.  Why should we accept them as credible?  The possibilities are:

1. Either they are based on evidence
2. Or they are based on the assumption the supernatural cannot happen

Accusations based on the first category do need to be addressed.  Avoiding this can make it seem like we live our faith in ignorance.  However, accusations based on the second assumption are guilty of begging the question.  The claim that the supernatural cannot happen is something to be proven, not assumed to be true.

The Focus of This Article

For the purposes of this article, I am limiting myself to two possibilities: That Jesus died but did not rise again, and that Jesus did not die, but everyone believed He did.  I am quite aware there are other claims made, but let's keep things manageable.

Now, there are two basic possibilities to explore with this objection: One, the claims of Jesus dying but not rising and Two, the basis of Jesus not dying to begin with.  The underlying association for both is that the Apostles were mistaken in what they believed.

The first claim tends to run under the following syllogism

1. The dead cannot live again
2. Jesus was dead
3. Therefore Jesus cannot live again

The second set runs under the following syllogism:

1. The dead cannot live again
2. The apostles saw Jesus alive
3. Therefore he had not died

Enthymemes Assumed But Not Proven

In both cases the major premise needs to be proven.  This is something which has never quite been proven, and those who argue it tend to hedge their words in phrases like "it is more reasonable to suppose that…"  Ultimately in these disputes, there is usually an enthymeme (a premise assumed but not spoken) which demonstrates the principle issue to be considered.

In disputes with atheists, this is a dispute over whether an all powerful God exists.  If an all powerful God exists, then there is no reasonable argument that such a God could not raise the dead.

In disputes with religious or spiritual beliefs, the principle dispute is over the authority of Christ and whether God would have raised Jesus from the dead.  If Jesus Christ did have authority, then His resurrection is not against what God would do.

Ultimately, such disputes need to address the primary assumption (that God does not exist or that Jesus Christ was not His Son) before moving on to the actual debate of the Resurrection.  However, it is commonly assumed by those who reject the Christian belief that their view is true, and the attacks are focused on the claim that their beliefs are the reasonable ones and those which disagree are not.

The conclusion of their argument is that since they believe it impossible that Jesus was raised from the dead, it is more reasonable to explain the Apostles claim with another cause.

The Hallucination Theory

The Hallucination theory is based on the idea that if someone thought they saw a man known dead walking around it is more probable that the person hallucinated.  This seems to assume Hume's theory.  There are several objections however which this theory requires an answer to if it is to be considered reasonable:

Hallucinations are things which happen to individuals.  It is true that a group of people might see an object and not understand what it was, but we would see large discrepancies in testimony because each individual would be interpreting this in their own mind.  However, we see that the testimony of scripture attests to Christ being seen by Mary Magdalene, the disciples sans Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the disciples in Emmaus, the apostles fishing, etc. 

Hallucinations tend to last for seconds or minutes.  The Christian claim is that Christ was among the apostles for 40 days.

Hallucinations do not interact with the world.  Yet the account is that Christ did interact with the world.  Thomas touched the wounds in his side, Christ ate with his apostles.

If the apostles were hallucinating, where was the actual body which could have proven their claims were false?  If the Sanhedrin wished to stop a delusion from going around all they would have to do is to produce the corpse of Jesus.

From this we have two considerations:

1. Either the sources are inaccurate or
2. The sources accurately attested to the fact that the Apostles saw something consistently

However, if the sources are to have been considered inaccurate, the question must be asked: On what basis can we make this claim?  What we have is an idea which rejects the testimony because the accounts contain miracles.  If this is to stand, then a valid disproof of the existence of the miraculous needs to be given.

Instead, this theory tends to reject all testimony which runs counter to the assumption that a miracle did not happen.  This is not reasonable however.  Without evidence to support the theory there is no reason to hold it as what did happen or was more likely to happen.

The "Jesus Did Not Die" Theory

The empty tomb is a hard thing to answer.  The Romans could not produce a body.  The Jews could not produce a body, and if Jesus was executed, the claim of the Resurrection could have been immediately shot down by showing his corpse.

Because of this, some people try to argue that Jesus was not really killed.  Now, to deny He was not executed is not reasonable (though the Koran [Sura 4:157-8] claims this) because even non-Christian sources attest He had been killed by the Romans.  The Roman historian Tacticus in his Annals, the Babylonian Talmud, the Greek Satirist Lucian, the Syrian stoic Bara Bar-Serapion and  Jewish historian Josephus (Though some references to the divinity of Christ are considered latter additions.  However, even with those removed, it attests to His being crucified) all report he had been executed.  So to argue He was never crucified requires some evidence to what actually did happen to him.

Given the crucifixion was a horrendous and disgraceful way to die, it is unlikely the Scripture writers would have chosen to invent this account of the death of their founder if a more "respectable death" had existed.

Because of this, some try to allege that Jesus was crucified and was presumed dead, but He later regained consciousness and escaped.

Now there are some very real problems with this assumption which need to be answered before it can be considered as anything more than idle speculation:

1) Jesus surviving the crucifixion needs to account for the fact that the Romans made sure a person was dead before removing him from the cross.  Soldiers who permitted a condemned man to escape would pay for it severely.

The fact that the soldiers broke the legs of the other prisoners crucified to hasten their death shows they were determined to make sure the prisoners were in fact dead.  Jesus, being seen to be dead, did not have His legs broken to be sure.  However He had a spear thrust into his side (see John 19:31ff), which shows the Romans left nothing to chance.

2) The spear thrust, described in John 19:34 attests to the flow of blood and water which, in medical terms meant Jesus' lungs had collapsed and indicate He died of asphyxiation (the normal method of death on the cross) [See here for an interesting medical description.  See here to go to the beginning of the report.  The JAMA issue it appeared in can be purchased here].

3) The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (John 19:38-42).  Claims he had merely lost consciousness need to explain how those who wrapped Him did not notice He was still breathing and also need to explain how He was not constricted and suffocated if wrapped when unconscious.

4) The accounts of the Resurrection convinced the Apostles He was gloriously alive, not half dead and injured (remember, assumptions that Jesus had regained consciousness and staggered back to the Apostles still have to account for the Roman practices of crucifixion).  Would the Apostles seeing a half dead man think He had risen from the grave?  Or would they have assumed He had merely escaped death?

5) How did a half dead man escape from the tomb, which was sealed and guarded?  Who moved the stone? (a half dead man could not)  If the apostles aided Him, it follows that they knew the truth and lied about it, which shoots down the idea of "sincere but deluded" and takes us back to the idea of "what did the apostles gain for lying?"  Moreover, if the Apostles overpowered the soldiers why were they not considered yet one more band of armed revolutionaries (which no document of the time alleges)?

6) If Jesus was alive and escaped, where did He go?  There are no credible documents of this.  Accounts of this type fall into categories of "pseudo-history" such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the like, not serious documents.  We again would move away from the "sincere but deluded" apostles and into the "willful fraud."

Such arguments in favor of the "unconscious Jesus" theory has to presuppose the inaccuracy of the texts, which requires proof if it is to be taken as anything other than idle speculation.

The Underlying Problem with the "Sincere But Deluded" Arguments

Whether one believes Jesus died and the Apostles were deluded about the belief He rose again or whether one believes Jesus never died to begin with, a crucial element is missing: evidence.

The Christian believes the testimony of the apostles to be reliable, that the apostles did encounter the Risen Christ and this encouraged them to preach their message to the world, even at the cost of their lives.  On the other hand, the person who denies this insists on another meaning and tends to call the Christians foolish for believing the testimony of the Apostles.

However, we are not unreasonable in asking "On what basis do you make your claims?"  If one wishes to assert that the accounts of the Resurrection are false, we must require evidence that backs up their claims.  To merely argue…

1. [Miracles] cannot [happen] (No [A] is [B])
2. The [Resurrection] was a Miracle ([C] is a part of [A])
3. Therefore the [Resurrection] could not have [happened] (Therefore [C] is not part of [B])

…requires proof of the major premise or proof that the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ were not accurate (which does not establish that miracles can't happen but seeks to deny it happened in this case).

Otherwise the claim is not reasoned, but merely an opinion without backing.

A Caveat

I do not make the argument that because there is no proof for these claims that it automatically means the opposite (the Resurrection happened) is true.  This would be the Argument from Silence fallacy (There is no proof for [A], therefore [B] is true).  Certainly there are many studies about the Scriptural accounts which need to be considered, and people who wish to study the Christian claims need to look at.

However, in all these cases, we need to recognize that presupposing that something can't be true is going to lead to pre-determined conclusions.  if the presumption is false, the conclusion cannot be said to be proven true. 

Most Christians do not accept Tertullian's maxim I believe because it is absurd.  Most believe because they find the testimony credible and the arguments against lacking credibility (this is not addressing the gift of faith of course, which is not apart from reason).  Christian apologetics are based on showing the credibility of the beliefs of Christianity.

If one wishes to deny the beliefs of Christianity, it is their right of course.  However, we are not being unreasonable in requiring the basis on which the rejection is made and assessing such claims.

Considering the Charge of Delusion and Resurrection Accounts

The account of the Resurrection is ultimately the center of the Christian faith.  As St. Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 15:

^14 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ^15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Because of this, those who would deny the teaching of Christians and wish to refute it need to attack the teaching and try to prove a claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Two Categories for Charges

In looking at these charges, we need to consider their basis.  Why should we accept them as credible?  The possibilities are:

1. Either they are based on evidence
2. Or they are based on the assumption the supernatural cannot happen

Accusations based on the first category do need to be addressed.  Avoiding this can make it seem like we live our faith in ignorance.  However, accusations based on the second assumption are guilty of begging the question.  The claim that the supernatural cannot happen is something to be proven, not assumed to be true.

The Focus of This Article

For the purposes of this article, I am limiting myself to two possibilities: That Jesus died but did not rise again, and that Jesus did not die, but everyone believed He did.  I am quite aware there are other claims made, but let's keep things manageable.

Now, there are two basic possibilities to explore with this objection: One, the claims of Jesus dying but not rising and Two, the basis of Jesus not dying to begin with.  The underlying association for both is that the Apostles were mistaken in what they believed.

The first claim tends to run under the following syllogism

1. The dead cannot live again
2. Jesus was dead
3. Therefore Jesus cannot live again

The second set runs under the following syllogism:

1. The dead cannot live again
2. The apostles saw Jesus alive
3. Therefore he had not died

Enthymemes Assumed But Not Proven

In both cases the major premise needs to be proven.  This is something which has never quite been proven, and those who argue it tend to hedge their words in phrases like "it is more reasonable to suppose that…"  Ultimately in these disputes, there is usually an enthymeme (a premise assumed but not spoken) which demonstrates the principle issue to be considered.

In disputes with atheists, this is a dispute over whether an all powerful God exists.  If an all powerful God exists, then there is no reasonable argument that such a God could not raise the dead.

In disputes with religious or spiritual beliefs, the principle dispute is over the authority of Christ and whether God would have raised Jesus from the dead.  If Jesus Christ did have authority, then His resurrection is not against what God would do.

Ultimately, such disputes need to address the primary assumption (that God does not exist or that Jesus Christ was not His Son) before moving on to the actual debate of the Resurrection.  However, it is commonly assumed by those who reject the Christian belief that their view is true, and the attacks are focused on the claim that their beliefs are the reasonable ones and those which disagree are not.

The conclusion of their argument is that since they believe it impossible that Jesus was raised from the dead, it is more reasonable to explain the Apostles claim with another cause.

The Hallucination Theory

The Hallucination theory is based on the idea that if someone thought they saw a man known dead walking around it is more probable that the person hallucinated.  This seems to assume Hume's theory.  There are several objections however which this theory requires an answer to if it is to be considered reasonable:

Hallucinations are things which happen to individuals.  It is true that a group of people might see an object and not understand what it was, but we would see large discrepancies in testimony because each individual would be interpreting this in their own mind.  However, we see that the testimony of scripture attests to Christ being seen by Mary Magdalene, the disciples sans Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the disciples in Emmaus, the apostles fishing, etc. 

Hallucinations tend to last for seconds or minutes.  The Christian claim is that Christ was among the apostles for 40 days.

Hallucinations do not interact with the world.  Yet the account is that Christ did interact with the world.  Thomas touched the wounds in his side, Christ ate with his apostles.

If the apostles were hallucinating, where was the actual body which could have proven their claims were false?  If the Sanhedrin wished to stop a delusion from going around all they would have to do is to produce the corpse of Jesus.

From this we have two considerations:

1. Either the sources are inaccurate or
2. The sources accurately attested to the fact that the Apostles saw something consistently

However, if the sources are to have been considered inaccurate, the question must be asked: On what basis can we make this claim?  What we have is an idea which rejects the testimony because the accounts contain miracles.  If this is to stand, then a valid disproof of the existence of the miraculous needs to be given.

Instead, this theory tends to reject all testimony which runs counter to the assumption that a miracle did not happen.  This is not reasonable however.  Without evidence to support the theory there is no reason to hold it as what did happen or was more likely to happen.

The "Jesus Did Not Die" Theory

The empty tomb is a hard thing to answer.  The Romans could not produce a body.  The Jews could not produce a body, and if Jesus was executed, the claim of the Resurrection could have been immediately shot down by showing his corpse.

Because of this, some people try to argue that Jesus was not really killed.  Now, to deny He was not executed is not reasonable (though the Koran [Sura 4:157-8] claims this) because even non-Christian sources attest He had been killed by the Romans.  The Roman historian Tacticus in his Annals, the Babylonian Talmud, the Greek Satirist Lucian, the Syrian stoic Bara Bar-Serapion and  Jewish historian Josephus (Though some references to the divinity of Christ are considered latter additions.  However, even with those removed, it attests to His being crucified) all report he had been executed.  So to argue He was never crucified requires some evidence to what actually did happen to him.

Given the crucifixion was a horrendous and disgraceful way to die, it is unlikely the Scripture writers would have chosen to invent this account of the death of their founder if a more "respectable death" had existed.

Because of this, some try to allege that Jesus was crucified and was presumed dead, but He later regained consciousness and escaped.

Now there are some very real problems with this assumption which need to be answered before it can be considered as anything more than idle speculation:

1) Jesus surviving the crucifixion needs to account for the fact that the Romans made sure a person was dead before removing him from the cross.  Soldiers who permitted a condemned man to escape would pay for it severely.

The fact that the soldiers broke the legs of the other prisoners crucified to hasten their death shows they were determined to make sure the prisoners were in fact dead.  Jesus, being seen to be dead, did not have His legs broken to be sure.  However He had a spear thrust into his side (see John 19:31ff), which shows the Romans left nothing to chance.

2) The spear thrust, described in John 19:34 attests to the flow of blood and water which, in medical terms meant Jesus' lungs had collapsed and indicate He died of asphyxiation (the normal method of death on the cross) [See here for an interesting medical description.  See here to go to the beginning of the report.  The JAMA issue it appeared in can be purchased here].

3) The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (John 19:38-42).  Claims he had merely lost consciousness need to explain how those who wrapped Him did not notice He was still breathing and also need to explain how He was not constricted and suffocated if wrapped when unconscious.

4) The accounts of the Resurrection convinced the Apostles He was gloriously alive, not half dead and injured (remember, assumptions that Jesus had regained consciousness and staggered back to the Apostles still have to account for the Roman practices of crucifixion).  Would the Apostles seeing a half dead man think He had risen from the grave?  Or would they have assumed He had merely escaped death?

5) How did a half dead man escape from the tomb, which was sealed and guarded?  Who moved the stone? (a half dead man could not)  If the apostles aided Him, it follows that they knew the truth and lied about it, which shoots down the idea of "sincere but deluded" and takes us back to the idea of "what did the apostles gain for lying?"  Moreover, if the Apostles overpowered the soldiers why were they not considered yet one more band of armed revolutionaries (which no document of the time alleges)?

6) If Jesus was alive and escaped, where did He go?  There are no credible documents of this.  Accounts of this type fall into categories of "pseudo-history" such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the like, not serious documents.  We again would move away from the "sincere but deluded" apostles and into the "willful fraud."

Such arguments in favor of the "unconscious Jesus" theory has to presuppose the inaccuracy of the texts, which requires proof if it is to be taken as anything other than idle speculation.

The Underlying Problem with the "Sincere But Deluded" Arguments

Whether one believes Jesus died and the Apostles were deluded about the belief He rose again or whether one believes Jesus never died to begin with, a crucial element is missing: evidence.

The Christian believes the testimony of the apostles to be reliable, that the apostles did encounter the Risen Christ and this encouraged them to preach their message to the world, even at the cost of their lives.  On the other hand, the person who denies this insists on another meaning and tends to call the Christians foolish for believing the testimony of the Apostles.

However, we are not unreasonable in asking "On what basis do you make your claims?"  If one wishes to assert that the accounts of the Resurrection are false, we must require evidence that backs up their claims.  To merely argue…

1. [Miracles] cannot [happen] (No [A] is [B])
2. The [Resurrection] was a Miracle ([C] is a part of [A])
3. Therefore the [Resurrection] could not have [happened] (Therefore [C] is not part of [B])

…requires proof of the major premise or proof that the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ were not accurate (which does not establish that miracles can't happen but seeks to deny it happened in this case).

Otherwise the claim is not reasoned, but merely an opinion without backing.

A Caveat

I do not make the argument that because there is no proof for these claims that it automatically means the opposite (the Resurrection happened) is true.  This would be the Argument from Silence fallacy (There is no proof for [A], therefore [B] is true).  Certainly there are many studies about the Scriptural accounts which need to be considered, and people who wish to study the Christian claims need to look at.

However, in all these cases, we need to recognize that presupposing that something can't be true is going to lead to pre-determined conclusions.  if the presumption is false, the conclusion cannot be said to be proven true. 

Most Christians do not accept Tertullian's maxim I believe because it is absurd.  Most believe because they find the testimony credible and the arguments against lacking credibility (this is not addressing the gift of faith of course, which is not apart from reason).  Christian apologetics are based on showing the credibility of the beliefs of Christianity.

If one wishes to deny the beliefs of Christianity, it is their right of course.  However, we are not being unreasonable in requiring the basis on which the rejection is made and assessing such claims.

Reflections on the Church and Politics

"I've always thought liberal and conservative were terms used not to think but to avoid thinking.  You can classify anything as liberal or conservative, then simply declare yourself one or the other, and all your thought for the rest of your life can be a knee jerk."

— Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell (page 17)

(Character of "CS Lewis" in a Socratic dialogue)

One of the tendencies I have noticed in the modern world is to place things into political categories.  Topic [A] is deemed conservative and is thus rejected by liberals.  Topic [B] is deemed liberal, and thus is rejected by conservatives.  I suppose it is natural in terms of partisan politics, but the problem is that often such categorical thinking is not limited to politics, but instead applies these categories to apolitical subjects or institutions.

Unfortunately this also is applied to the teachings of the Church, and the Church is deemed "liberal" by the conservatives, and "conservative" by the liberals.

The Falsity in an Either-Or Dilemma

…the parties have a great interest in winning the election, not so much in order to make their doctrines triumph by the President-elect's help, as to show, by his election, that their doctrines have gained a majority.

—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

The logical form I have seen employed by conservatives and liberals in attacking the Church (or seeking to use the Church terminology as a mark of credibility for their ideologies) is a false dilemma, which runs as follows:

1. The Church either supports [A] or [B].
2. The Church doesn't support [A].
3. Therefore the Church supports [B].

So if the Pope doesn't support Israel or Marxists in Central America (these can be [A]) on an issue, he is promptly accused of supporting the PLO or despotic governments (these can be [B]).

The problem is with the major premise: "Either [A] or [B]."  If I partially support one of the options, if I reject both options or if I prefer a solution outside of [A] or [B], the major premise is false and the conclusion is not proven true.

Yet it is this error which liberals and conservatives use to either denounce the Church (when it condemns what they support) or make it appear their entire platform has legitimacy (when on an issue there are similarities between Church teaching and party platform).

Is Social Justice Liberal?

In light of the Church making certain statements on "Social Justice," I've noticed both liberals and conservatives seeking to hijack the term.  Many liberals interpret "Social Justice" as "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and seek to label anything which is not expanded government involvement as being "against Church teaching."

On the other hand, many conservatives also believe "Social Justice" is "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and conclude the Church is run by liberals.  The syllogism above becomes:

1. The Church either supports [Expanded government control] or it favors [laissez faire]
2. The Church has spoken against [laissez faire]
3. Therefore it favors [Expanded government control].

Of course, reading Caritas in veritate, we see that the Church favors neither model.  It recognizes that the individual role has a part to play, it recognizes the need of the state to protect the rights of the person… and it insists that without a Christian approach, a system will end up dehumanizing people, regardless of intent.

When the Church speaks of social justice, it is wrong to apply the political meaning of the term to the Church, which speaks of the morality which is binding on all societies.  The error of the false dilemma comes in assuming there is only one (partisan) solution and anyone who criticizes elements of the solution or praises certain elements of that solution must endorse the political platform which the term is associated with.

The Church teaches that the person has certain rights and dignities as a person which cannot be taken away by law.  Practices in a nation which deny these rights and dignities are to be condemned, regardless of the ideology which commits the injustice.  When an economic system or a political structure, or the customs of a nation allow this sort of injustice, the Church must speak on what is right and wrong, regardless of the political parties which believe in one choice or another.

So to invoke certain phrases from the Church is meaningless unless one understands the context of what the Church means.  "Social Justice" is assumed to be a "liberal" issue, and therefore it is assumed any solution must be "liberal" in nature… what the Church actually says and intends on the topic is immaterial to both factions.

Is Abortion Conservative?

The Church views the issue of abortion along these lines:

1. It is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an innocent person
2. the unborn child is an innocent person
3. Therefore it is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an unborn child.

Because of this, the Church has no choice but to condemn murder in keeping with the teaching of God. In the Ten Commandments, the Hebrew word translated as Kill in Exodus 20:13 is רָצַח (ratsach), which means "murder" or "slay." 

If the unborn child is living, the direct killing (slaying) of the unborn child is as unjust as infanticide.  This also shows why capital punishment or wars are not the same case as abortion, so those who oppose abortion yet believe capital punishment can be licit are not inconsistent (as John Grisham once argued in his rather poor novel The Appeal).

Yet the key issue of whether or not the unborn is a person never gets addressed by those who favor abortion rights.  For them, the sole issue is whether or not the woman has the right to engage in sexual activity without repercussions.  However, even if one rejects Christian morality the issue of a 'woman's right to control her fertility" becomes moot if the unborn is a person, because no person can decide to arbitrarily end another person's life out of expedience.

During the 2008 election the argument tended to run:

1. [Republicans] [oppose abortion] (All [A] is [B])
2. [The Bishops] [oppose abortion] (All [B] is [C])
3. Therefore [the Bishops] are [Republicans.]  (Therefore all [C] is [A])

The problem is that the argument claims that abortion is a Republican issue and therefore anyone who agrees with the issue is a Republican.  However anyone who opposes abortion who is not a Republican makes the conclusion false… the conclusion is not supported by the premises, and is a non sequitur.

Another logical problem is the Genetic fallacy.  Because opposition to abortion is equated with "conservative," it is rejected on account of the source.  However, the fact that conservatives agree with the Church on the issue does not mean the condemnation of abortion is not true.

The Underlying Problem

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

—Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

Both the conservative and the liberal who reject the Church position and label it as "proof" of favoring the other side assume their own view is correct, and their submission to Church teaching only goes so far as it mirrors what they believe.  When the Church teaching goes against a party platform, it is accused of being "partisan."

However, the Church's self-confessed interest is dealing with the salvation of souls and telling people to turn from sinful acts towards the truth.

Speaking of "what is just," for example, is different than saying "only party [X] is just."  The former is a statement of what is.  The second is ideology.

Before accusing the Church of "being liberal" or "being conservative" one has to understand what in fact the Church teaches and means in its statements.  If one recognizes the Church as the body Christ established on Earth to carry out His work of salvation, then it does have authority to bind and to loose.

Under such a view, worldly partisan views need to be compared to, and judged by, the teaching of the Church, and not the Church view be compared to and judged by the partisan world view.

Reflections on the Church and Politics

"I've always thought liberal and conservative were terms used not to think but to avoid thinking.  You can classify anything as liberal or conservative, then simply declare yourself one or the other, and all your thought for the rest of your life can be a knee jerk."

— Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell (page 17)

(Character of "CS Lewis" in a Socratic dialogue)

One of the tendencies I have noticed in the modern world is to place things into political categories.  Topic [A] is deemed conservative and is thus rejected by liberals.  Topic [B] is deemed liberal, and thus is rejected by conservatives.  I suppose it is natural in terms of partisan politics, but the problem is that often such categorical thinking is not limited to politics, but instead applies these categories to apolitical subjects or institutions.

Unfortunately this also is applied to the teachings of the Church, and the Church is deemed "liberal" by the conservatives, and "conservative" by the liberals.

The Falsity in an Either-Or Dilemma

…the parties have a great interest in winning the election, not so much in order to make their doctrines triumph by the President-elect's help, as to show, by his election, that their doctrines have gained a majority.

—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

The logical form I have seen employed by conservatives and liberals in attacking the Church (or seeking to use the Church terminology as a mark of credibility for their ideologies) is a false dilemma, which runs as follows:

1. The Church either supports [A] or [B].
2. The Church doesn't support [A].
3. Therefore the Church supports [B].

So if the Pope doesn't support Israel or Marxists in Central America (these can be [A]) on an issue, he is promptly accused of supporting the PLO or despotic governments (these can be [B]).

The problem is with the major premise: "Either [A] or [B]."  If I partially support one of the options, if I reject both options or if I prefer a solution outside of [A] or [B], the major premise is false and the conclusion is not proven true.

Yet it is this error which liberals and conservatives use to either denounce the Church (when it condemns what they support) or make it appear their entire platform has legitimacy (when on an issue there are similarities between Church teaching and party platform).

Is Social Justice Liberal?

In light of the Church making certain statements on "Social Justice," I've noticed both liberals and conservatives seeking to hijack the term.  Many liberals interpret "Social Justice" as "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and seek to label anything which is not expanded government involvement as being "against Church teaching."

On the other hand, many conservatives also believe "Social Justice" is "Expanded government control of private enterprise," and conclude the Church is run by liberals.  The syllogism above becomes:

1. The Church either supports [Expanded government control] or it favors [laissez faire]
2. The Church has spoken against [laissez faire]
3. Therefore it favors [Expanded government control].

Of course, reading Caritas in veritate, we see that the Church favors neither model.  It recognizes that the individual role has a part to play, it recognizes the need of the state to protect the rights of the person… and it insists that without a Christian approach, a system will end up dehumanizing people, regardless of intent.

When the Church speaks of social justice, it is wrong to apply the political meaning of the term to the Church, which speaks of the morality which is binding on all societies.  The error of the false dilemma comes in assuming there is only one (partisan) solution and anyone who criticizes elements of the solution or praises certain elements of that solution must endorse the political platform which the term is associated with.

The Church teaches that the person has certain rights and dignities as a person which cannot be taken away by law.  Practices in a nation which deny these rights and dignities are to be condemned, regardless of the ideology which commits the injustice.  When an economic system or a political structure, or the customs of a nation allow this sort of injustice, the Church must speak on what is right and wrong, regardless of the political parties which believe in one choice or another.

So to invoke certain phrases from the Church is meaningless unless one understands the context of what the Church means.  "Social Justice" is assumed to be a "liberal" issue, and therefore it is assumed any solution must be "liberal" in nature… what the Church actually says and intends on the topic is immaterial to both factions.

Is Abortion Conservative?

The Church views the issue of abortion along these lines:

1. It is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an innocent person
2. the unborn child is an innocent person
3. Therefore it is never licit to directly cause or will the death of an unborn child.

Because of this, the Church has no choice but to condemn murder in keeping with the teaching of God. In the Ten Commandments, the Hebrew word translated as Kill in Exodus 20:13 is רָצַח (ratsach), which means "murder" or "slay." 

If the unborn child is living, the direct killing (slaying) of the unborn child is as unjust as infanticide.  This also shows why capital punishment or wars are not the same case as abortion, so those who oppose abortion yet believe capital punishment can be licit are not inconsistent (as John Grisham once argued in his rather poor novel The Appeal).

Yet the key issue of whether or not the unborn is a person never gets addressed by those who favor abortion rights.  For them, the sole issue is whether or not the woman has the right to engage in sexual activity without repercussions.  However, even if one rejects Christian morality the issue of a 'woman's right to control her fertility" becomes moot if the unborn is a person, because no person can decide to arbitrarily end another person's life out of expedience.

During the 2008 election the argument tended to run:

1. [Republicans] [oppose abortion] (All [A] is [B])
2. [The Bishops] [oppose abortion] (All [B] is [C])
3. Therefore [the Bishops] are [Republicans.]  (Therefore all [C] is [A])

The problem is that the argument claims that abortion is a Republican issue and therefore anyone who agrees with the issue is a Republican.  However anyone who opposes abortion who is not a Republican makes the conclusion false… the conclusion is not supported by the premises, and is a non sequitur.

Another logical problem is the Genetic fallacy.  Because opposition to abortion is equated with "conservative," it is rejected on account of the source.  However, the fact that conservatives agree with the Church on the issue does not mean the condemnation of abortion is not true.

The Underlying Problem

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

—Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

Both the conservative and the liberal who reject the Church position and label it as "proof" of favoring the other side assume their own view is correct, and their submission to Church teaching only goes so far as it mirrors what they believe.  When the Church teaching goes against a party platform, it is accused of being "partisan."

However, the Church's self-confessed interest is dealing with the salvation of souls and telling people to turn from sinful acts towards the truth.

Speaking of "what is just," for example, is different than saying "only party [X] is just."  The former is a statement of what is.  The second is ideology.

Before accusing the Church of "being liberal" or "being conservative" one has to understand what in fact the Church teaches and means in its statements.  If one recognizes the Church as the body Christ established on Earth to carry out His work of salvation, then it does have authority to bind and to loose.

Under such a view, worldly partisan views need to be compared to, and judged by, the teaching of the Church, and not the Church view be compared to and judged by the partisan world view.

On False Comparisons and Other Errors Used In Attacks on the Christian Faith

Read more »

On False Comparisons and Other Errors Used In Attacks on the Christian Faith

Read more »

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.