However, many of my positions are Reformed and so after many years of intense study I am comfortable stating I am within the Reformed theological camp.
Those of other views, Christian or non-Christian, liberal Christian or conservative Christian, are welcome. But, I do not want to argue on and on in circles. At times we need to simply state a case and then leave it at that, as we have made our best points and there is no point repeating them over and over.
In other words, there is no point beating an opponent over the head.
I am interested in loving others as much as I love myself (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 10, Galatians 5). I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks.
Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments.
From:
logical fallacy
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
I will not, with God's help attack someone personally within the context of a debate or discussion in order to strengthen my case, because it does not work. I also will not accept this treatment in return.
This is not to conclude that it is ad hominem to state that someone is 'this or is that' if it is accurate and out of the context of a debate and discussion. I can avoid the use of ad hominem against someone in a debate that is being 'a this or that', but I simply do not use a personal attack within the argument.
So, yes, sometimes someone is being a jerk, but I do not use that as a form of argumentation.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Autumn
Video clips pretty funny!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteThe Phantom...Cool! I thought of him the other day concerning something you said.
ReplyDeleteThe first video: "We're sorry but this video is no longer available."
I have had others use ad hominem against me, especially when debating against Evolutionists and Gays. I no longer debate against homosexuals, because they are completely unrepentant and loving their sin way too much. Plus, society is more and more backing up their sinful choices.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteJeff, I replaced the clip, which worked earlier today, with the same clip from another source on You Tube.
I avoid discussions where others use ad hominem because I reason that personal attacks demonstrate intellectual weakness and it places me in a position where I may become too angry. Also, I may just be debating in vain with closed minds.
Russ:)
Hey,teaching Bible Truths makes makes enemies,but ad hominem should not discourage christians from telling the truth or engage in "apologetic"discussions!
ReplyDeleteAs U Russ said;... where others use ad hominem...it demonstrates intellectual weakness...
(i guess this should call us to a godly living,so that the world outside may see the fruits of the Spirit in us, 1.Peter 4:14-16.)
Those are wise words, Anon. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI agree that teaching the Bible will make enemies, and this should happen only by the choice of those who oppose the Biblical God. Sadly, too often these opponents are within the Church, at least the Church in human terms.
Russ
Hi Russ, Dave Allan, I had forgotten how funny the guy was and still is thanks to video.
ReplyDeleteSadly for me is see our world as an "ad hominem" world.
In Australia politics is over run by these sorts of attacks. It spills over to all parts of our society. The media pride themselves in finding the dirt and discrediting a person even though what they may have suggested or stood for was right.
It takes precedence over good ideas and smart thinking. It attacks because that's what the opposition are supposed to do. I call it the adversarial world.
The abortion debate is on here again in our state and its a hot one. But they want to legalise at 24 weeks unquestioned and then to 38 weeks with a couple of doctors approval. You can imagine the heat of this debate. Insults flying everywhere. Pro life, pro choice, you guessed it.
Anyway Russ good article again. A little lighter but informative and opens the door for some interesting discussion and debate once gain.
Regards, Russell.
Those are wise words, Russell.
ReplyDeleteThe political world is full of ad hominem. Concerning abortion, it is very rarely the actual science of whether an embryo is actually human or not that is discussed. In Washington State presently there are political ads running for a candidate wishing to return to power. The subject of one presentation is embryonic stem cell research, as it is asked why anyone would possibly oppose it. They know why some oppose it, but want to appeal to bias and emotion rather than an intellectual discussion.
This appeals to personal bias and is ad hominem. The character of the political opponent is attacked rather than the substance and reasoning of his view.
The late Dave Allen was a classic comedian with some very good skits.
Me, I will beat a dead horse as long as I can, and will if possible annoy people. Is that the right thing to do? I doubt it, but at least I am honest. rick b
ReplyDeleteRick, I appreciate your commitment to Biblical truth.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
Had to comment on the goal video - that is WEIRD. Also sweet pic of the Phantom!
ReplyDeleteCheers, David.
ReplyDeleteI thought you would like The Phantom picture.
LOL at the tipped-over casket, and at hitchhiking with a casket, in the 2nd video. That sure seems like a long walk to the cemetary, carrying a casket.
ReplyDeleteMy dad was cremated, as will my mom be. I will probably choose that option as well, since it makes things far easier for the surviving relatives.
The third video is funny.
ReplyDeleteThat fourth video is hilarious, though Dave Allen is sacrilegious and attacks the Bible (i.e., "...and this is the Book that you'll...place your hand upon!"). However, he does bring up some interesting points.
For example, what did God do throughout eternity before He created angels and people and the universe? Of course, we only assume there was 'nothing to do,' because we are used to the material world. To us, if there's no TV, radio, car or computer, life is over!
Dave Allen:
"And He sees that Adam is happy"... Did you get that, Russ?
Dave Allen:
'God steals Adam's rib'....
Um, who MADE that rib? God was only letting Adam use it for a time. That's not stealing, when you make something, then use that thing to make something else. Besides, God was using it to make a partner and companion for Adam.
Dave Allen:
"He doesn't say, 'Where did you come from?'"
The Bible does not record every single word or conversation that took place. Genesis is a summary, not a stenography record like in a courtroom.
FOFLOL at the snake joke! But again, an interesting point, and one which I have considered myself. Why did Adam not show surprise that a snake could talk? My best guess is that everything was basically new to Adam anyway, and his intelligence, before eating of the forbidden fruit (which never says "apple," BTW), was like a child. Therefore, I suspect he just took things at face value, and, since everything was new to him anyway, a talking snake didn't surprise him any more than anything else did.
And as far as the relationship between the snake and Satan (though he didn't bring that up), I assume that Satan "possessed" the snake, though the Bible does not specifically say that. The Bible does, however, associate Satan with being "that great serpent," as well as a "dragon" (which the snake could have looked like before God apparently took its legs away in the curse), so maybe it was more than merely a case of Satan possessing a walking snake (God said to the snake that, from now on, it will crawl in the dust on its belly, which I assume meant that it used to walk).
Dave Allen:
"Now why that area?"
Interesting point. However, "that area" includes the visible reproductive organs which are also used to expel waste, so that may have something to do with why "that area" is associated with 'nakedness.'
The New Testament addresses this:
"On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it..." (I Corinthians 12:22-24)
Also, LOL about the nose!
"cremated"
ReplyDeleteI am sorry Jeff, but when ever I hear or see that word I think of Cream of Wheat.
Yes, I figure Dave Allen was more of a critic of the Bible than a supporter, but I find his talks and skits often humourous and thought provoking. It is good to post these in a Christian context.
For example, what did God do throughout eternity before He created angels and people and the universe?
There was no time, God simply was. But how that works, I do not know exactly.
Dave Allen:
"And He sees that Adam is happy"... Did you get that, Russ?
Yes.:)
FOFLOL at the snake joke! But again, an interesting point, and one which I have considered myself. Why did Adam not show surprise that a snake could talk?
Satan/the devil is called the serpent in Revelation 20: 2 .
I reason as Satan is spirit and not material, he could have possessed a serpent, or perhaps could have taken the form of a serpent and could speak, or as many scholars point out both Genesis and Revelation use in various places various degrees of literalness and use figurative language, it is possible that Satan appeared as light, in the form of a human being, or spoke to Eve through telepathy.
His evil wicked nature and actions could have him described as a serpent in Genesis as is the case in Revelation. We already have the Biblical example, although from a later text.
(God said to the snake that, from now on, it will crawl in the dust on its belly, which I assume meant that it used to walk).
I have read that this may mean that Satan, since we know he is spirit, not an animal, was cast to earth. So, satanic power has partial and limited dominion over earth, and let us assume perhaps aspects of outer space that humans may inhabit at times.
I reason the Adam and Eve story occurred, and Adam is essential as Christ is connected to Adam in Romans 5, for example. But, from scholars that know the Genesis text very well there is a debate on the degrees of literalness of at least the creation and fall stories.
This debate IS NOT simply a liberal vs. conservative debate and so somewhat non-literal perspectives cannot be cast aside as from those that do not trust Scripture.
There are those on the conservative fundamentalist side that sharply criticize those with different perspectives and they need to be careful. My pastor is a conservative and he reasons those that do not understand the figurative nature of parts of Genesis, do the text a disservice.
We need an open mind on the issue. This is why I present various perspectives.
Cheers, Jeff.
Russ
That first clip, sooo funny! LOL! It just goes to show a lot of energy is waisted when debating which then conceives frustrations in thought.. The video is funny... But true! God bless Tamela
ReplyDeleteThank you, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you appreciate the video.
Russ:)
Thank you for your very timely, very appropriate, and very educational post, Russ. Just this morning, someone used ad hominem in comments for my latest posted article regarding Evolution vs. Creation, and your posted article helped better prepare me to answer him!
ReplyDeleteSome of the things he said were, in part:
bobxxxx said...
Your dishonest quote mining (taking quotes from scientists out of context to distort their meaning) does not change the reality of evolutionary biology.
Unfortunately creationists are only interested in getting their information filtered by dishonest people who have never discovered anything. Creationists refuse to study the discoveries of modern science because they are terrified of science, and they are especially afraid of evolution because if evolution is true, most of their religious beliefs make no sense.
The choice is scientific reality or religious fantasy. Cowardly people prefer their fantasy world. People who want to educate themselves prefer the discoveries of modern science.
Most non-scientists and especially creationists have no idea how much science has advanced in recent years.
Biologists are no longer trying to prove evolution because it's been accepted as a fact for a very long time. Instead they are busy learning more about the almost 4 billion year history of life. Meanwhile creationists deny evolution is a proven fact. They are being left behind in the Dark Ages while science rapidly moves forward into the 21st century.
You kindly aided me, Russ, by posting a comment, saying in part:
thekingpin68 said...
There is also scientific theory and debate, and Jeff has presented his perspective through documentation. The ad hominem should be left out of the debate.
And, in responding to the (assumed Atheistic) Evolutionist, I replied to him, in part:
Jeff said...
As thekingpin68 pointed out, you resort to the red herring ad hominem fallacy. You make a vain attempt to subvert the quotes which I have collected, by stooping to false accusations and personal attacks (i.e., falsely claiming that I am being dishonest).
Thanks for the kind words and information, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, my referencing of cremation had nothing to do with the passing of Jeff's Dad in context. I was simply responding to the humorous context of the clips and Jeff's comment with humour. In most ways death is not funny even though Allen uses it for humour.
My condolences go out to you, Jeff.
Excuse the long comment, but I thought your readers related to this subject may enjoy something I posted a year or two ago now:
ReplyDeleteI argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. (Not!) People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
1. Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hot-shot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hot-shot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large shots of Jack Daniels, you?ll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
2. Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 below the mean gross poverty level." NOTE: Always make up exact figures. If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
3. Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not." Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.
4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what 'parameters' means. Here's how to use your comebacks: You say "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873…" Your opponents says "Lincoln died in 1865" You say "You're begging the question."
OR
You say "Liberians, like most Asians…" Your opponent says "Liberia is in Africa." You say "You're being defensive."
5. Compare your opponent to Joseph Stalin.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Stalin up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Joseph Stalin might say." Remember that this is the alternative of last resort; it tend to close all options of retreat.
Keep these basic principles in mind, and you will find it easy (and perhaps even entertaining) to out-argue anybody.
Good luck, and happy hunting.
Thanks, Deejay, you may be the life of the party with that approach.;)
ReplyDeleteThe term begging the question is thrown around a lot. I did an article on the subject in archives.
Here is a portion:
Simon Blackburn in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy writes that begging the question assumes what is at issue in an argument. Blackburn (1996: 39). Although persons are commonly accused of begging the question there is no logical definition of those kinds of arguments that beg the question. Blackburn (1996: 39). In the widest sense any valid argument may beg the question since its premises already contain its conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39). Blackburn explains that these types of arguments can still be reasonably held. Blackburn (1996: 39). I do however, attempt to avoid arguing my conclusion in any one of my premises although a premise could allude to a conclusion, although I attempt to avoid this as well. Blackburn writes that a best definition of begging the question would be if a clear premise would not be accepted by any reasonable person who is initially prone to deny the conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39).
David H. Sanford within The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines begging the question under the heading of circular reasoning. It is described as reasoning that traced backwards forms it own conclusion and returns to that starting point. Sanford (1996: 124). Sanford explains that presuming a truth of a conclusion within a premise thwarts the attempt to increase the degree of reasonable confidence that a conclusion is true. Sanford (1996: 124). It is better when putting together different types of arguments to establish separate but related premises that would ultimately support a conclusion rather than weakening an argument by assuming the conclusion within a premise and therefore not providing actual evidence for the conclusion.
David A. Conway and Ronald Munson in The elements of reasoning explain begging the question (Petitio Principii) as when the issue at hand is begged and not really addressed. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is when some reason offered for some conclusion is not really different from the conclusion itself. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is stating a conclusion that also serves as a premise. Conway and Munson (1997: 132).
The following are comments I have made on Jeff's recent article:
ReplyDeleteevolution
There is design and rules of science (laws) set into place.
Again there is the use of the ad hominem which does not strengthen one's argument whatsoever. The points Jeff raises need to be answered. Jeff is quoting experts in the field and they cannot be easily dismissed as mumbo, jumbo.
Ad hominem
Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments.
Even if Christianity and Biblical revelation was demonstrated to be untrue, atheism would not be the most reasonable worldview to hold to.
(I listed in the comments my first cause and deism articles which can be found in thekingin68 archives and/or via a blog search.)
first cause
deism
I know what atheism reasons. I had to deal with the subject (problem of evil) in MPhil and PhD theses at secular Universities.
Each religious and non-religious view needs to be evaluated with somewhat of an open mind, or one won't generally pass at that level.
Religions do contradict each other at core issues at times, and that is why they cannot all be essentially true.
Neither Jeff or I are supporting all religions.
Atheism is not in my mind the best alternative to Christianity. I pointed to my article on first cause and to an explanation of deism which I think makes more sense than atheism.
Thanks
Will this be done without the ad hominem swipes at Christianity and religion that do not assist the evolutionary argument?
The truthfulness of the Christian worldview is an important topic, but the worldview has to first be reasonably understood to properly discuss.
Deejay,
ReplyDeleteYour comment is hilarious, and I'm tempted to print it out and memorize it!
Russ,
In the widest sense any valid argument may beg the question since its premises already contain its conclusion.
Cool, so I guess that means it can be used in any argument! LOL!
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your sharing and scrutinizing various 'debate tactics,' as this is most helpful. I also appreciate contributions such as Deejay's, which, although meant to be humorous, also gives some insight into the philosophy of debate as it relates to the human psyche and human emotional response. (Now, is that last sentence a valid statement, or am I just making things up, in terms of the parameters of Deejay's comment?)
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate very much your kind words. I use my blogs to learn as much as teach.
The term valid is commonly used to mean well grounded, and just. A logical statement.
With social research methods and statistics:
Validity: A concern with the integrity of the conclusions that come from a piece of research. It usually refers to measurement validity. Bryman (1999: 545). Measurement validity is the degree to which a measure of a concept truly reflects the concept. Bryman (1999: 541).
Within philosophy:
Validity: In its primary meaning it is whether arguments are valid or invalid according to whether conclusion follows the premises. Premises and conclusions themselves are not valid or invalid, but are true or false. Blackburn (1999: 389). From my reading, an argument is considered valid as long as it does not have a true premise and false conclusion. A valid argument can have a true premise and true conclusion, false premise and false conclusion and a false premise and true conclusion. An argument can have more than one premise.
So, one can have these valid combinations:
tt
ff
ft
But not
tf
This is stated in The Elements of Reasoning written by David A. Conway and Ronald Munson on page 34.
BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
Your blog ethic is very respectful when you state in this article about loving others as much as yourself. May your blogging standard always reflect that of your Master, The Lord Jesus Christ...which thus far totally has!
ReplyDelete-Respected Reader-
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteTo do Christian blogging without love is to largely miss the point. But, I must admit, it is often a challenge.
Russ:)