WHO IS THIS UNCIRCUMCISED PHILISTINE? (Part 2)

Jerry D. McDonald

ast week we look at some of the things that atheists are being taught in their discussions with Christians.  We saw that the first tactic was called ‘The Red Herron” or “irrelevant conclusion.”

It might go something like this.  An atheist has told  you that a contradiction exists between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2.  2 Kings 8:26 says: “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem” while 2 Chron. 22:2 says: “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.”   Now, when you look at these two passages very quickly it seems that there is an inconsistency here.  However, with some study it can be seen the Jehoram (Ahaziah’s father) was sick and Ahaziah began to reign with his father at the age of 22 and when his father died he was 42.  You then challenge the atheist to show why it is a contradiction.  In a contradiction according to logic “two propositions are contradictory if one is the denial or negation of the other.  That is if they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false” (Ibid, p.173).

In other words, in order for these two scriptures to contradict each other, they must negate or deny each other.  One would have to say “Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign,” and the other would have to say “No, Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.”  You then ask well, which one is true and which one is false?  The atheist realizes that he cannot say that one is true and the other is false so he says, “Well, their both false statements.”  Then they set out to prove that the two statements are actually “contraries” and not “contradictories.”  They will say that both of them can be false, and this is true, but the point was that a contradiction existed between the two accounts.  Both statements can be contrary, and then again, both might be “sub-contrary.”  This is where both are true, they just give different information.

The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed when the atheist saw that he could not prove that a contradiction existed between the two passages, so now he goes for a contrary without admitting that the two passages do not contradict each other.  The atheist might say, “Well, God could not inspire anything that is not true, because God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2),” and then go to 1 Kings 22:22 and show that God sent a lying spirit into the mouths of Ahab’s prophets.  Now while you are explaining about the figure of speech anthrophomorism: “giving human attributes to that which isn’t human,” he has gotten himself off the hook from having to prove that a contradiction exists between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2.  A Red Herring, and Capaldi teaches atheists to do this.  This is dishonest and shows that the atheist cannot do what he said he could do which was to show a contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2.  Thus the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed and most (and most debaters for that matter) don’t even realize how they got from Ahaziah’s age to God sending a lying spirit.  This is one of their favorites.

2. Another favorite of Capaldi’s is “Argumentum Ad Hominem.”

“To attack ad hominem is to attack the man who presents the argument rather than the argument itself.  There are some subtle variations of it that you will discover throughout this chapter, but here we are concerned only with its more blatant use” (The Art of Deception, p. 92).

Examples he gave were things like:

“chastising him for insulting the intelligence of the audience by offering such a shabby case...., call attention to infelicities of your opponent’s use of the English grammar” (Ibid, pp. 92,93).

Uses of this also include calling the opposition names like “logical moron,” or “linguistic fool,” or something of that nature.  Capaldi says that “(t)he point of ad hominem is to discredit the opposition in indirect ways” (Ibid, p.92).  Legitimate logicians  instruct people not to commit this fallacy as it does not prove the point, all it does is to make the person committing it look bad in the eyes of the audience.  Yet Capaldi instructs people to do this because you might win the debate by doing it and as far as he is concerned “...the most important thing is winning...” (Ibid, p. 46).

In looking at these things, the Bible teaches us that in defending the cause of Christ “we do not war according to the flesh” (2 Cor. 10:4).  Some at Corinth had said that Paul was mighty in his letters, but was weak in presence (argumentum ad hominem).  In other words, they said that he felt at ease sitting back writing letters, but he would not have the courage to come and face them and say those things.  They said he was a coward, but Paul says that though we live in the flesh we do not have to act like the world acts.  When we defend the word of truth we are to defend it honorably and not use tactics like this.

As Christians we need to learn to defend the truth, expose error and reprove the gainsayer, but we need to learn to do this with honor and integrity.  Truth is the most important thing in any discussion, not winning.  Many of our own brethren have become so enamored with winning that they do so without the slightest regard for truth.  Calling people names and denying and purposely overlooking mistakes that one has made has become the favorite tactic in many debates today.  We can debate and defend the truth, but we must do it in an honorable way.  More to come.