Christian! Where is Your Faith?

I think one temptation Christians tend to fall into (and I include myself in this category) is the belief that God will either grant us what we want in the way we want or else He is being unfair or the like.  We try to force God into some narrow categories of "He will either do [A] or He is not fair."  In doing so, we forget that God loves us and seeks for us what is the greatest good if we will let Him do so.  Sometimes this means God will lead us in a way we do not think looks ideal from our finite perspective.

This mentality is an attitude which lacks faith in God.  We do not trust Him to do what is best in our life, come what may.  We get it into our hearts that there is only one right solution, and if God fails to provide that one solution we often see people acting as if God has "betrayed" us.

As a result, some people remain believers but are angry at God while others lose their faith.

I think there is a similarity between the Christian who has this mentality and certain atheists who seeks to "scientifically prove" that prayer doesn't work.  The error of reasoning is:

1. If God [Loves us OR God is real] He will do [what is being prayed for] (Either [A] or [B])
2. [What we pray for] doesn't happen. (Not [B])
3. Therefore God [doesn't love us OR is not real] (Therefore Not [A])

The problem is with the assumption of the major premise.  God can love us and God can exist without giving us what we pray for, if He deems that what we pray for to be pushing us away from what is not truly good for us

Alternately, when looking at the misfortunes of others, it is common to hear people indicate that God must be punishing them for what they did.

The Book of Job

I think the Book of Job is important to remember in these situations.  The synopsis of this book is Job, a man known for his holiness is suddenly afflicted losing all of his temporal wealth and is afflicted with bodily suffering.  Some of his friends come and seek to argue that because God has allowed this to happen, it must mean that Job has some evil deeds he is being punished for.

Job however, knows he has not done evil and is in a bitter quandary.  God afflicts the wicked.  Yet Job is afflicted and is not wicked.  Therefore he struggles with the thought that he is being afflicted unjustly.

What breaks this deadlock is the appearance of God.  God questions Job, demonstrating that the knowledge of man is vastly inferior to the knowledge of God.  From this, Job recognizes that man is unable to judge the wisdom of God and that just because man cannot perceive a reason for a thing happening does not mean there is no reason.

In the end, God restores to Job compensation many times what he lost.

I find the Book of Job to be a good reminder that what we suffer through is not without meaning or purpose, even if we cannot perceive the reason.

The Error of Vox Day

Unfortunately Christians tend to lose sight of this.  They feel trapped in the dilemma that God either must not be all powerful or else must not be all good.  Since the Christian recognizes the goodness of God (even the fuzzy minded Christians who contrast love and justice), they tend to look at the other end of the omnipotence of God and tend to water it down.

Vox Day is the pen name of Theodore Beale, author of The Irrational Atheist [A book which I do not recommend or endorse].   The book (apparently available for free download from his site.  All page references in this article will be from the Word document download) makes some good points and some points I think which are less so.  If he had just stopped at chapter 14, the book would be much less problematic than it actually is.

Unfortunately, to try to keep God's omnipotence and being Good, he tries to sacrifice God's being all knowing and falls into heresy, saying:

First, it is important to note that the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are eighty-seven references to the things that the Biblical God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge. (Page 262)

It is an unfortunate error on Beale's part.  Indeed it necessarily contradicts God's omnipotence and goodness if God does not know all.  So I must shake my head with sadness when I read him saying:

Regardless, a God who stands outside of space and time and who possesses all knowledge as well as all power is not bound to make use of his full capacities, indeed, who is going to shake their finger at him for failing to live up to his potential? Only the likes of Dawkins and Owens, one presumes, as their ability to logically disprove God’s existence by this method depends upon His abiding by their rigid definitions of His qualities . . . at least one of which He does not even claim in His Word. (page 264)

The problem is, if God does not "live up to His potential" that indicates a lack of perfection in God.  If He is not all knowing, then there are situations where God cannot use his omnipotence or behave in a perfectly good manner.

Beale has reduced God to a being on par with one of the Greek gods of mythology.  A being who was somewhat wiser than we are but can be caught looking the wrong way.  Beale would have been better served to consider the option of God setting the world in motion, and then intervening or not as He saw fit.

Job vs. Beale

Unfortunately, Beale does not put his faith in God.  He argues against the view that "God makes everything happen" by discussing things like Hurricane Katrina and saying atheists like Sam Harris are closer to the truth than the "Evangelical" who believes everything happens for a purpose (see page 266).

The problem is, Beale and his argument with the "God makes everything happen" Evangelicals fall into the same trap as Job and his friends.  The debate over whether God is all powerful and is afflicting Job vs. Job knowing he is not guilty and is struggling with whether God is less than perfectly good.

There is a difference between God directly causing a thing and God permitting a thing.  God does not do evil, though He may permit evil for a greater good to be brought out if it.  This does not mean He approves of the evil done.

Unfortunately for Beale, his objections were anticipated close to 1700 years before by Lactantius (AD 250-325) in his writing On the Workmanship of God.  If God sets the world in motion, creating weather patterns to bring us the needed rain for example, or creates the Earth with tectonic movements it is done for the purposes of making the Earth sustainable.

He was not caught napping when Katrina hit.  Nor did He necessarily do it to punish Louisiana.

God's Words to Job Applies to Us as Well

In Job 38, we see God putting the human assumptions in their place:

^{1 }Then the LORD addressed Job out of the storm and said:

^2 Who is this that obscures divine plans

with words of ignorance?

^3 Gird up your loins now, like a man;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

^4 Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

^5 Who determined its size; do you know?

Who stretched out the measuring line for it?

^6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,

and who laid the cornerstone,

^{7 }While the morning stars sang in chorus

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

^8 And who shut within doors the sea,

when it burst forth from the womb;

^9 When I made the clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling bands?

The point is, God created the world and we as humans cannot even remotely pretend to understand the workings of the mind of God.

Christian, Where is your Faith?

Here then is the question.  Do we believe in God?  Do we believe He is all powerful?  Do we believe He is perfectly good?  Do we believe He has promised to look after us and provide us our needs?

If so, we need to repeat the words of Christ in Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!”(Mt 26:42). Certainly there will be times in our life when affliction comes.  Some may be done by the free will of evil men.  Sometimes it may be natural disasters.  We can be afflicted by diseases.  We can suffer in many ways.  The question is: Will we have faith in Him, come what may, that He is the Lord of our life?

If not, then why do we profess to be a Christian if we will not put faith in the Christian God?

Christian! Where is Your Faith?

I think one temptation Christians tend to fall into (and I include myself in this category) is the belief that God will either grant us what we want in the way we want or else He is being unfair or the like.  We try to force God into some narrow categories of "He will either do [A] or He is not fair."  In doing so, we forget that God loves us and seeks for us what is the greatest good if we will let Him do so.  Sometimes this means God will lead us in a way we do not think looks ideal from our finite perspective.

This mentality is an attitude which lacks faith in God.  We do not trust Him to do what is best in our life, come what may.  We get it into our hearts that there is only one right solution, and if God fails to provide that one solution we often see people acting as if God has "betrayed" us.

As a result, some people remain believers but are angry at God while others lose their faith.

I think there is a similarity between the Christian who has this mentality and certain atheists who seeks to "scientifically prove" that prayer doesn't work.  The error of reasoning is:

1. If God [Loves us OR God is real] He will do [what is being prayed for] (Either [A] or [B])
2. [What we pray for] doesn't happen. (Not [B])
3. Therefore God [doesn't love us OR is not real] (Therefore Not [A])

The problem is with the assumption of the major premise.  God can love us and God can exist without giving us what we pray for, if He deems that what we pray for to be pushing us away from what is not truly good for us

Alternately, when looking at the misfortunes of others, it is common to hear people indicate that God must be punishing them for what they did.

The Book of Job

I think the Book of Job is important to remember in these situations.  The synopsis of this book is Job, a man known for his holiness is suddenly afflicted losing all of his temporal wealth and is afflicted with bodily suffering.  Some of his friends come and seek to argue that because God has allowed this to happen, it must mean that Job has some evil deeds he is being punished for.

Job however, knows he has not done evil and is in a bitter quandary.  God afflicts the wicked.  Yet Job is afflicted and is not wicked.  Therefore he struggles with the thought that he is being afflicted unjustly.

What breaks this deadlock is the appearance of God.  God questions Job, demonstrating that the knowledge of man is vastly inferior to the knowledge of God.  From this, Job recognizes that man is unable to judge the wisdom of God and that just because man cannot perceive a reason for a thing happening does not mean there is no reason.

In the end, God restores to Job compensation many times what he lost.

I find the Book of Job to be a good reminder that what we suffer through is not without meaning or purpose, even if we cannot perceive the reason.

The Error of Vox Day

Unfortunately Christians tend to lose sight of this.  They feel trapped in the dilemma that God either must not be all powerful or else must not be all good.  Since the Christian recognizes the goodness of God (even the fuzzy minded Christians who contrast love and justice), they tend to look at the other end of the omnipotence of God and tend to water it down.

Vox Day is the pen name of Theodore Beale, author of The Irrational Atheist [A book which I do not recommend or endorse].   The book (apparently available for free download from his site.  All page references in this article will be from the Word document download) makes some good points and some points I think which are less so.  If he had just stopped at chapter 14, the book would be much less problematic than it actually is.

Unfortunately, to try to keep God's omnipotence and being Good, he tries to sacrifice God's being all knowing and falls into heresy, saying:

First, it is important to note that the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are eighty-seven references to the things that the Biblical God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge. (Page 262)

It is an unfortunate error on Beale's part.  Indeed it necessarily contradicts God's omnipotence and goodness if God does not know all.  So I must shake my head with sadness when I read him saying:

Regardless, a God who stands outside of space and time and who possesses all knowledge as well as all power is not bound to make use of his full capacities, indeed, who is going to shake their finger at him for failing to live up to his potential? Only the likes of Dawkins and Owens, one presumes, as their ability to logically disprove God’s existence by this method depends upon His abiding by their rigid definitions of His qualities . . . at least one of which He does not even claim in His Word. (page 264)

The problem is, if God does not "live up to His potential" that indicates a lack of perfection in God.  If He is not all knowing, then there are situations where God cannot use his omnipotence or behave in a perfectly good manner.

Beale has reduced God to a being on par with one of the Greek gods of mythology.  A being who was somewhat wiser than we are but can be caught looking the wrong way.  Beale would have been better served to consider the option of God setting the world in motion, and then intervening or not as He saw fit.

Job vs. Beale

Unfortunately, Beale does not put his faith in God.  He argues against the view that "God makes everything happen" by discussing things like Hurricane Katrina and saying atheists like Sam Harris are closer to the truth than the "Evangelical" who believes everything happens for a purpose (see page 266).

The problem is, Beale and his argument with the "God makes everything happen" Evangelicals fall into the same trap as Job and his friends.  The debate over whether God is all powerful and is afflicting Job vs. Job knowing he is not guilty and is struggling with whether God is less than perfectly good.

There is a difference between God directly causing a thing and God permitting a thing.  God does not do evil, though He may permit evil for a greater good to be brought out if it.  This does not mean He approves of the evil done.

Unfortunately for Beale, his objections were anticipated close to 1700 years before by Lactantius (AD 250-325) in his writing On the Workmanship of God.  If God sets the world in motion, creating weather patterns to bring us the needed rain for example, or creates the Earth with tectonic movements it is done for the purposes of making the Earth sustainable.

He was not caught napping when Katrina hit.  Nor did He necessarily do it to punish Louisiana.

God's Words to Job Applies to Us as Well

In Job 38, we see God putting the human assumptions in their place:

^{1 }Then the LORD addressed Job out of the storm and said:

^2 Who is this that obscures divine plans

with words of ignorance?

^3 Gird up your loins now, like a man;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

^4 Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

^5 Who determined its size; do you know?

Who stretched out the measuring line for it?

^6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,

and who laid the cornerstone,

^{7 }While the morning stars sang in chorus

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

^8 And who shut within doors the sea,

when it burst forth from the womb;

^9 When I made the clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling bands?

The point is, God created the world and we as humans cannot even remotely pretend to understand the workings of the mind of God.

Christian, Where is your Faith?

Here then is the question.  Do we believe in God?  Do we believe He is all powerful?  Do we believe He is perfectly good?  Do we believe He has promised to look after us and provide us our needs?

If so, we need to repeat the words of Christ in Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!”(Mt 26:42). Certainly there will be times in our life when affliction comes.  Some may be done by the free will of evil men.  Sometimes it may be natural disasters.  We can be afflicted by diseases.  We can suffer in many ways.  The question is: Will we have faith in Him, come what may, that He is the Lord of our life?

If not, then why do we profess to be a Christian if we will not put faith in the Christian God?

Candy Bar Theology

^24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

^25 But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again.” (Acts:24:24-25)

One thing I have noticed in modern Christianity is the tendency of the believer to choose or not choose a belief based not on whether it is true, but on whether it is appealing.  Thus we hear the message of love, but believe the messages of obedience and judgment are left behind.

The Origin of the Term

In his insightful book, Socrates Meets Jesus, the character of Socrates speaks of the modern beliefs in Christianity as such:

Socrates: And I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Bertha: I just do, that's ail. Maybe it's irrational, Maybe we choose to believe things and choose to do things for other reasons than rational reasons. Didn't you ever think of that?

Socrates: Like eating that candy bar, for instance?

Bertha: Yes. I think you're wrong when you teach that evil comes only from ignorance. That's rationalism. That assumes that rea­son always rules. It doesn't. It gets pushed around by the desires and the will sometimes.

Socrates; I think you are convincing me of just that. In fact, I think I have seen two instances of it just this morning— instances of something I disbelieved in until now.

Bertha: Two instances?

Socrates: Yes. Your candy bar and your beliefs. You choose both not because they are good for you, or because they are true, but because they are sweet. Your belief that God forgives but does not judge is rather like a candy bar, is it not? It Is a sweet thought, the thought that we have only half of justice to deal with when we deal with God, that God rewards goodness but does not punish evil—is not that thought sweet and desirable? And are you not attracted to it just as you are attracted to the candy bar? (Page 55)

How It Afflicts Christianity

The reason this afflicts [no, I did not mean to type "affects"] Christianity is that it focuses on one aspect of God, making it the whole.  When the Church insists on looking at God as both Love and Just, it is the Church which is accused of legalism or being hard hearted in relation to God instead of considering the possibility of a lax conscience of the individual.

Such a view of Christianity seems to make use of the following kind of reasoning:

1. [God] is [Good] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Punishment] is [Good] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore [God] Does not [Punish] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

The problem is the assumption of the minor premise, that no punishment is not good.  This is begging the question because the minor premise needs to be proven, not assumed.  Now of course some punishment may be wrong because it is excessive or inflicted on the wrong individual.  However it does not follow no punishment is good.  Sometimes parents must correct their children.  Sometimes the state must incarcerate law breakers for their correction or the protection others.  We can argue more reasonably as follows:

1. [God] is [Just] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Punishment] is from [God] (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some [Punishment] is [Just] (Therefore some [C] is [B])

We can demonstrate the second premise from Scripture and Church teaching.  In both the Old and the New Testament, we see God speaking of punishment and warning of punishment as a way of calling the sinful man back to Himself.  So from this, the believer has to look at the major premise.  Do they believe that God is just or do they not?  If they believe God is both good and just, then it follows that if He punishes, He does so for reasons which are good and just.

If they don't believe God is good or just, then why follow Him?

"Does God really care about X?"

However, most people who do believe in God believe He is just and good.  It's just that they don't think their own behavior should be considered bad.  Because God is good and they don't think their behavior is bad, they reason that therefore God doesn't think the behavior they do is bad, but rather the "mean old Church" imposes this on people for whatever reason.

So we thus see all sorts of questions:

• "Do you really think God cares if I have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend?"
• "Do you really think God cares if a married couple trying to be good uses contraception?"
• "Do you really think God wants me to be unhappy because my spouse was unfaithful to me and ran off with another?"
• "Do you really think God cares about homosexual acts?"

The unvoiced part of the objection is "This is really unimportant and only the Church thinks it is important.  Yet it is that unvoiced objection which must be proven.

The problem is, of course, you can justify any kind of behavior from this point of view:

• "Do you really think God cares if I offer sacrifice to an idol?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I participate in the Death Camps?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I apostatize from the Faith?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I steal from a rich man?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I eat of the tree of knowledge?"

The thing is, if an act is contrary to His will and we know it is contrary to what He decrees, we are obligated to do as He commands and are guilty if we defy Him.  If a thing is contrary to His will and we do not know it is contrary to His will, our guilt or innocence will depend on what we could know if we bothered to find out.

The Ultimate Satanic Deception

Ultimately the Satanic deception behind such a mentality is Do what you will.  If you think it is good, it must be good.  Good is made subjective to feelings.  Because a God who forgives but does not punish is a pleasing thought, we hide from the consideration of if a thing is good, and what the consequences are for disobedience for what God commands.  Thus we have the sweetness of a forgiving God and the sweetness of self-indulgence without the responsibility and the obligations to obey and the consequences of disobedience.

Conclusion

It is an act of tremendous arrogance to assume for ourselves what is good or bad depending on what we want to do instead of what we ought to do.  To decide that punishment and sin is only for things which do not involve us and fail to consider what we are required to do or what happens when we disobey is foolish indeed.  It is not based on what is true, but what is pleasing to us.

Candy Bar Theology

^24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

^25 But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again.” (Acts:24:24-25)

One thing I have noticed in modern Christianity is the tendency of the believer to choose or not choose a belief based not on whether it is true, but on whether it is appealing.  Thus we hear the message of love, but believe the messages of obedience and judgment are left behind.

The Origin of the Term

In his insightful book, Socrates Meets Jesus, the character of Socrates speaks of the modern beliefs in Christianity as such:

Socrates: And I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Bertha: I just do, that's ail. Maybe it's irrational, Maybe we choose to believe things and choose to do things for other reasons than rational reasons. Didn't you ever think of that?

Socrates: Like eating that candy bar, for instance?

Bertha: Yes. I think you're wrong when you teach that evil comes only from ignorance. That's rationalism. That assumes that rea­son always rules. It doesn't. It gets pushed around by the desires and the will sometimes.

Socrates; I think you are convincing me of just that. In fact, I think I have seen two instances of it just this morning— instances of something I disbelieved in until now.

Bertha: Two instances?

Socrates: Yes. Your candy bar and your beliefs. You choose both not because they are good for you, or because they are true, but because they are sweet. Your belief that God forgives but does not judge is rather like a candy bar, is it not? It Is a sweet thought, the thought that we have only half of justice to deal with when we deal with God, that God rewards goodness but does not punish evil—is not that thought sweet and desirable? And are you not attracted to it just as you are attracted to the candy bar? (Page 55)

How It Afflicts Christianity

The reason this afflicts [no, I did not mean to type "affects"] Christianity is that it focuses on one aspect of God, making it the whole.  When the Church insists on looking at God as both Love and Just, it is the Church which is accused of legalism or being hard hearted in relation to God instead of considering the possibility of a lax conscience of the individual.

Such a view of Christianity seems to make use of the following kind of reasoning:

1. [God] is [Good] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Punishment] is [Good] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore [God] Does not [Punish] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

The problem is the assumption of the minor premise, that no punishment is not good.  This is begging the question because the minor premise needs to be proven, not assumed.  Now of course some punishment may be wrong because it is excessive or inflicted on the wrong individual.  However it does not follow no punishment is good.  Sometimes parents must correct their children.  Sometimes the state must incarcerate law breakers for their correction or the protection others.  We can argue more reasonably as follows:

1. [God] is [Just] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Punishment] is from [God] (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some [Punishment] is [Just] (Therefore some [C] is [B])

We can demonstrate the second premise from Scripture and Church teaching.  In both the Old and the New Testament, we see God speaking of punishment and warning of punishment as a way of calling the sinful man back to Himself.  So from this, the believer has to look at the major premise.  Do they believe that God is just or do they not?  If they believe God is both good and just, then it follows that if He punishes, He does so for reasons which are good and just.

If they don't believe God is good or just, then why follow Him?

"Does God really care about X?"

However, most people who do believe in God believe He is just and good.  It's just that they don't think their own behavior should be considered bad.  Because God is good and they don't think their behavior is bad, they reason that therefore God doesn't think the behavior they do is bad, but rather the "mean old Church" imposes this on people for whatever reason.

So we thus see all sorts of questions:

• "Do you really think God cares if I have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend?"
• "Do you really think God cares if a married couple trying to be good uses contraception?"
• "Do you really think God wants me to be unhappy because my spouse was unfaithful to me and ran off with another?"
• "Do you really think God cares about homosexual acts?"

The unvoiced part of the objection is "This is really unimportant and only the Church thinks it is important.  Yet it is that unvoiced objection which must be proven.

The problem is, of course, you can justify any kind of behavior from this point of view:

• "Do you really think God cares if I offer sacrifice to an idol?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I participate in the Death Camps?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I apostatize from the Faith?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I steal from a rich man?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I eat of the tree of knowledge?"

The thing is, if an act is contrary to His will and we know it is contrary to what He decrees, we are obligated to do as He commands and are guilty if we defy Him.  If a thing is contrary to His will and we do not know it is contrary to His will, our guilt or innocence will depend on what we could know if we bothered to find out.

The Ultimate Satanic Deception

Ultimately the Satanic deception behind such a mentality is Do what you will.  If you think it is good, it must be good.  Good is made subjective to feelings.  Because a God who forgives but does not punish is a pleasing thought, we hide from the consideration of if a thing is good, and what the consequences are for disobedience for what God commands.  Thus we have the sweetness of a forgiving God and the sweetness of self-indulgence without the responsibility and the obligations to obey and the consequences of disobedience.

Conclusion

It is an act of tremendous arrogance to assume for ourselves what is good or bad depending on what we want to do instead of what we ought to do.  To decide that punishment and sin is only for things which do not involve us and fail to consider what we are required to do or what happens when we disobey is foolish indeed.  It is not based on what is true, but what is pleasing to us.

Reflections on The Constitution, The Supreme Court and Justice

Much of the political debate going around today is based on the idea that because the Constitution permits a thing, there can be no complaint against it.  Setting aside for the moment specific issues of dispute in America, the theory ignores one crucial question:

Can the Constitution (or an interpretation of it) err or be unjust?

I believe the answer can clearly be yes to both.  I recall in High School civics class that the Constitution can be amended if a problem is perceived.  Certainly before 1865, the Constitution was flawed in that it denied citizenship to certain parts of the population simply on the basis of the color of their skin.

This shows the problem when certain politicians rally around the "Constitutional" Right of the woman to choose [abortion].  The right may be decreed constitutional by the Supreme Court, but neither it, nor the right to privacy it is based on can be found in the Constitution.

If the interpreters of the Constitution are unjust, it follows that the interpretations they give can be unjust.  This kind of rhetoric goes on frequently.  Today, there is a dispute over whether Obamacare is constitutional.  Nine years ago, there was a dispute over whether the Supreme Court "unjustly installed" George W. Bush as president.

What this demonstrates is [Regardless of whether the charges are true or not], we do have interpreters of the US Constitution whose decisions are binding and not able to be appealed.  If they are unjust in their decisions, there is very little we can do to stop them.

This isn't mere theory.  The Supreme Court has made some historically bad decisions and have been forced to contradict previous precedent, such as the Dred Scott case and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

I believe this shows that the Supreme Court can give an interpretation which they call Constitutional, but is also unjust.

This demonstrates that to invoke the Constitutionality of a law is no evidence as to whether or not it is just.

On Justice

However, justice in law is what separates the good forms of government from the immoral forms of government, and here the person who argues against any moral absolutes have hamstrung themselves when opposing injustice.

Justice can be defined as giving to another their due, and behaving in right conduct with other people.  All human persons are considered to have human rights simply on the basis of their being human.  Each person is entitled to the due of not being treated in a subhuman condition.  In America we have in the Bill of Rights which assumes all people have certain rights.

The Catholic Church speaks of justice between men as follows:

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.³⁵

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.³⁶ If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

In other words, because a person is human they possess certain rights independent of the government, and no government can take them away without being unjust.  Moreover, any government which denies these rights lacks moral legitimacy to their rule, and can only use force to make their decrees followed.

The Difference Between the Constitution and Justice

Whether or not the Constitution, or its interpretation, can be considered as possessing moral authority depends on whether it respects the human person or not.  If it does not respect the human person, the law may be binding by force, but it is not a law which we are morally obligated to follow, and in fact are morally obligated to oppose.

The Abortion Example

In 1973, the Supreme Court decreed abortion legal, and since then we have been told that it is based in the Constitutional Right to Privacy, which is not in the Constitution, and was not described as a right until 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut.  This invokes the Ninth Amendment, which is a circular argument which one can dismantle with a reductio ad absurdum.  [The Constitution doesn't say I can't murder anyone either, therefore I have a constitutional right to do so].

Now, one can argue that the right to privacy is a basic right which precedes the Constitution.  However, this overlooks a crucial consideration: Are the unborn human persons?  If so, then their right to life precedes the Constitutional Supreme Court Right to abortion.

The Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade entirely ignores this consideration, when it declares:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

This is entirely a circular argument, which assumes what it needs to prove: That a woman does in fact have the right to terminate a pregnancy.  It calls the unborn a potential life, but this is to be proven, not assumed to be true.

Indeed, without proving the fact that the fetus is not a person, the Supreme Court appears to have violated the 14th amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added)

If the assumption that the fetus is merely a potential human being is false, then the Supreme Court has created a situation where the unborn are denied the equal protection under the law.

The Roe v. Wade decision relies on an irrelevant appeal to past decisions of legal precedent, which selectively chooses certain examples and ignores others.  The reason it is an irrelevant appeal is that many of the precedents they cite are based on the scientifically erroneous ideas of quickening of the fetus, ignoring later medical advances.  From this we see the argument that since the actual forbidding of abortion in America was based on the fact that outright forbidding of abortion did not exist until the 19th century in America.

However, this is an argument from silence.  "We don't know of laws forbidding abortion until the 19th century.  Therefore it was permissible before then."  That laws were made in the 19th century does not prove that abortion was acceptable before.  Positive evidence that the nation, prior to the 19th century, sanctioned abortion is necessary.

Even from this, it does not follow that abortion is right.  To judge abortion as being morally neutral, it has to be established that the fetus is not alive.  If the fetus is a human person, it contains human rights which precede the laws of the United States.

The Quadrilemma of abortion

A right to abortion requires us to create some categories.  First, whether or not the fetus is a human person.  It either is or it is not.  Second, we need to determine whether we know this to be true.  This leaves us with four categories:

1. The unborn is a human person and we know it.
2. The unborn is not a human person and we know it
3. The unborn is a human person and we do not know it
4. The unborn is not a human person and we do not know it

In these four cases, we have three levels of guilt or innocence.

1. In the case of us knowing the unborn is a human person, government sanctioned abortion is the murder of a human person.
2. In the case of us knowing the unborn is not a human person, there is no problem with abortion.
3. In not knowing whether or not the unborn is a human person (cases 3 and 4), abortion becomes a reckless, grossly negligent act.

We can demonstrate these cases with another scenario.  You and a friend are deer hunting, and get separated.  You hear motion in the bush.  There are four possibilities:

1. The movement is caused by your friend and you know it
2. The movement is caused by a deer and you know it
3. The movement is caused by your friend and you do not know it
4. The movement is caused by a deer and you do not know it

When is it legitimate to shoot?  Only in case two.  Why?

1. In case 1, shooting when you know it is a person is willed murder
2. In case 2, shooting when you verified you can shoot safely is morally acceptable
3. In case 3, you are guilty of gross negligence and manslaughter at the very least
4. In case 4, you are still guilty of gross negligence.

Yet, instead of proving when the human person begins, the Supreme Court acts with gross negligence.  it "fires into the bush" without verifying the target, when it argues:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether or not past law has made a statement on whether or not the fetus is a person has no bearing on whether the fetus IS a human person.  To assume that the fetus is not a human person based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment is an evasion of the issue, when it says:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

This is an appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.  Does the lack of laws that declare the fetus a person make it so?

Dangerous Precedents

Certain nations, including the United States, have at certain times determined that certain human beings were not persons on the basis of their ethnicity.  The most extreme example is that of Nazi Germany with its claiming that Jews and Slavs were subhumans which lacked human rights.  We are of course horrified by the actions the Germans justified by a legal claim.  Through a legal ruling, human persons were terribly mistreated.

Now of course Nazi Germany was an extreme example.  However, the United States once considered the blacks to be less than fully human, and such a view was upheld by the Supreme Court.  Under the logic of Roe v. Wade past precedent could be used to deny any African American was a "human person."  After all, before 1865, there were no laws which held that view.  It instead took a war and some amendments to overturn the bad logic of the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Is Not the Same as Just: QED

We are back to the beginning, and the conclusion is clear.  Just because the Supreme Court or the Constitution says a thing is constitutional has no bearing on whether a thing is just.  So despite what the Supreme Court says, it still must be assessed as to whether it is just or not.  If it is not just, it must be opposed.

Yet, the whole problem is a thing is not defended as just, it is merely called "Constitutional" as if that was all the sanction which was needed.

Unfortunately, in America, there is little recourse to an unjust ruling by the Supreme Court.  It is the state legislatures which can vote for a proposed amendment (which first requires 2/3 of both House and Senate to vote in favor of a proposed amendment), not the people (unless the states call ratifying conventions… which happened once).

So where does this leave the Christian who feels he must oppose an unjust ruling?

An Unjust Law is not a Law

One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

—Martin Luther King Jr.  Letter from a Birmingham Jail

This is ultimately what must put the Christian unwillingly in conflict with the government of the United States at times.  When the government decrees that it is permissible to degrade the human person, we must speak out against it, not bowing the knee to the unjust law… even if it comes from the Supreme Court or the Constitution itself.

However, there is a limit to what we can do.  If it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we must choose the suffering of evil, as we may not choose an evil means to achieve the desired end.  Nor can we participate with the evil law.

So, in short, our opposition to injustice must be done in keeping with making a Christian witness.

Reflections on The Constitution, The Supreme Court and Justice

Much of the political debate going around today is based on the idea that because the Constitution permits a thing, there can be no complaint against it.  Setting aside for the moment specific issues of dispute in America, the theory ignores one crucial question:

Can the Constitution (or an interpretation of it) err or be unjust?

I believe the answer can clearly be yes to both.  I recall in High School civics class that the Constitution can be amended if a problem is perceived.  Certainly before 1865, the Constitution was flawed in that it denied citizenship to certain parts of the population simply on the basis of the color of their skin.

This shows the problem when certain politicians rally around the "Constitutional" Right of the woman to choose [abortion].  The right may be decreed constitutional by the Supreme Court, but neither it, nor the right to privacy it is based on can be found in the Constitution.

If the interpreters of the Constitution are unjust, it follows that the interpretations they give can be unjust.  This kind of rhetoric goes on frequently.  Today, there is a dispute over whether Obamacare is constitutional.  Nine years ago, there was a dispute over whether the Supreme Court "unjustly installed" George W. Bush as president.

What this demonstrates is [Regardless of whether the charges are true or not], we do have interpreters of the US Constitution whose decisions are binding and not able to be appealed.  If they are unjust in their decisions, there is very little we can do to stop them.

This isn't mere theory.  The Supreme Court has made some historically bad decisions and have been forced to contradict previous precedent, such as the Dred Scott case and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

I believe this shows that the Supreme Court can give an interpretation which they call Constitutional, but is also unjust.

This demonstrates that to invoke the Constitutionality of a law is no evidence as to whether or not it is just.

On Justice

However, justice in law is what separates the good forms of government from the immoral forms of government, and here the person who argues against any moral absolutes have hamstrung themselves when opposing injustice.

Justice can be defined as giving to another their due, and behaving in right conduct with other people.  All human persons are considered to have human rights simply on the basis of their being human.  Each person is entitled to the due of not being treated in a subhuman condition.  In America we have in the Bill of Rights which assumes all people have certain rights.

The Catholic Church speaks of justice between men as follows:

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.³⁵

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.³⁶ If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

In other words, because a person is human they possess certain rights independent of the government, and no government can take them away without being unjust.  Moreover, any government which denies these rights lacks moral legitimacy to their rule, and can only use force to make their decrees followed.

The Difference Between the Constitution and Justice

Whether or not the Constitution, or its interpretation, can be considered as possessing moral authority depends on whether it respects the human person or not.  If it does not respect the human person, the law may be binding by force, but it is not a law which we are morally obligated to follow, and in fact are morally obligated to oppose.

The Abortion Example

In 1973, the Supreme Court decreed abortion legal, and since then we have been told that it is based in the Constitutional Right to Privacy, which is not in the Constitution, and was not described as a right until 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut.  This invokes the Ninth Amendment, which is a circular argument which one can dismantle with a reductio ad absurdum.  [The Constitution doesn't say I can't murder anyone either, therefore I have a constitutional right to do so].

Now, one can argue that the right to privacy is a basic right which precedes the Constitution.  However, this overlooks a crucial consideration: Are the unborn human persons?  If so, then their right to life precedes the Constitutional Supreme Court Right to abortion.

The Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade entirely ignores this consideration, when it declares:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

This is entirely a circular argument, which assumes what it needs to prove: That a woman does in fact have the right to terminate a pregnancy.  It calls the unborn a potential life, but this is to be proven, not assumed to be true.

Indeed, without proving the fact that the fetus is not a person, the Supreme Court appears to have violated the 14th amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added)

If the assumption that the fetus is merely a potential human being is false, then the Supreme Court has created a situation where the unborn are denied the equal protection under the law.

The Roe v. Wade decision relies on an irrelevant appeal to past decisions of legal precedent, which selectively chooses certain examples and ignores others.  The reason it is an irrelevant appeal is that many of the precedents they cite are based on the scientifically erroneous ideas of quickening of the fetus, ignoring later medical advances.  From this we see the argument that since the actual forbidding of abortion in America was based on the fact that outright forbidding of abortion did not exist until the 19th century in America.

However, this is an argument from silence.  "We don't know of laws forbidding abortion until the 19th century.  Therefore it was permissible before then."  That laws were made in the 19th century does not prove that abortion was acceptable before.  Positive evidence that the nation, prior to the 19th century, sanctioned abortion is necessary.

Even from this, it does not follow that abortion is right.  To judge abortion as being morally neutral, it has to be established that the fetus is not alive.  If the fetus is a human person, it contains human rights which precede the laws of the United States.

The Quadrilemma of abortion

A right to abortion requires us to create some categories.  First, whether or not the fetus is a human person.  It either is or it is not.  Second, we need to determine whether we know this to be true.  This leaves us with four categories:

1. The unborn is a human person and we know it.
2. The unborn is not a human person and we know it
3. The unborn is a human person and we do not know it
4. The unborn is not a human person and we do not know it

In these four cases, we have three levels of guilt or innocence.

1. In the case of us knowing the unborn is a human person, government sanctioned abortion is the murder of a human person.
2. In the case of us knowing the unborn is not a human person, there is no problem with abortion.
3. In not knowing whether or not the unborn is a human person (cases 3 and 4), abortion becomes a reckless, grossly negligent act.

We can demonstrate these cases with another scenario.  You and a friend are deer hunting, and get separated.  You hear motion in the bush.  There are four possibilities:

1. The movement is caused by your friend and you know it
2. The movement is caused by a deer and you know it
3. The movement is caused by your friend and you do not know it
4. The movement is caused by a deer and you do not know it

When is it legitimate to shoot?  Only in case two.  Why?

1. In case 1, shooting when you know it is a person is willed murder
2. In case 2, shooting when you verified you can shoot safely is morally acceptable
3. In case 3, you are guilty of gross negligence and manslaughter at the very least
4. In case 4, you are still guilty of gross negligence.

Yet, instead of proving when the human person begins, the Supreme Court acts with gross negligence.  it "fires into the bush" without verifying the target, when it argues:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether or not past law has made a statement on whether or not the fetus is a person has no bearing on whether the fetus IS a human person.  To assume that the fetus is not a human person based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment is an evasion of the issue, when it says:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

This is an appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.  Does the lack of laws that declare the fetus a person make it so?

Dangerous Precedents

Certain nations, including the United States, have at certain times determined that certain human beings were not persons on the basis of their ethnicity.  The most extreme example is that of Nazi Germany with its claiming that Jews and Slavs were subhumans which lacked human rights.  We are of course horrified by the actions the Germans justified by a legal claim.  Through a legal ruling, human persons were terribly mistreated.

Now of course Nazi Germany was an extreme example.  However, the United States once considered the blacks to be less than fully human, and such a view was upheld by the Supreme Court.  Under the logic of Roe v. Wade past precedent could be used to deny any African American was a "human person."  After all, before 1865, there were no laws which held that view.  It instead took a war and some amendments to overturn the bad logic of the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Is Not the Same as Just: QED

We are back to the beginning, and the conclusion is clear.  Just because the Supreme Court or the Constitution says a thing is constitutional has no bearing on whether a thing is just.  So despite what the Supreme Court says, it still must be assessed as to whether it is just or not.  If it is not just, it must be opposed.

Yet, the whole problem is a thing is not defended as just, it is merely called "Constitutional" as if that was all the sanction which was needed.

Unfortunately, in America, there is little recourse to an unjust ruling by the Supreme Court.  It is the state legislatures which can vote for a proposed amendment (which first requires 2/3 of both House and Senate to vote in favor of a proposed amendment), not the people (unless the states call ratifying conventions… which happened once).

So where does this leave the Christian who feels he must oppose an unjust ruling?

An Unjust Law is not a Law

One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

—Martin Luther King Jr.  Letter from a Birmingham Jail

This is ultimately what must put the Christian unwillingly in conflict with the government of the United States at times.  When the government decrees that it is permissible to degrade the human person, we must speak out against it, not bowing the knee to the unjust law… even if it comes from the Supreme Court or the Constitution itself.

However, there is a limit to what we can do.  If it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we must choose the suffering of evil, as we may not choose an evil means to achieve the desired end.  Nor can we participate with the evil law.

So, in short, our opposition to injustice must be done in keeping with making a Christian witness.

Reflections on The Mob

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."(Mt 7:6).

Awhile back, I wrote about the mob (not to be confused with the Mafia) mentality turning on Richard Dawkins, who appealed to it against the Christians.  Currently, it is turning its hunger against the Catholic Church.

Seeing so many uninformed commentators posting on websites bashing the Church and accusing Catholics of defending sexual abuse, I thought it would be good to comment on some of the characteristics of the mob mentality sweeping the Internet

The Purpose of this Article

I don't intend to write this to attack any individual.  Most people who take part in mob mentality don't realize they are doing it.  Rather, I write this to my fellow Christians to help them deal with the attacks of the mob… which we Christians see opposed to us all too often.  If any individual reading this thinks what I say comes too close to home, remember that one can break free of the mob by refusing to follow what "everyone says" or "relying on the newspapers" to get the facts.  In other words, to investigate before attacking.

Characteristic #1: The Mob is Led by Appeals to Emotion, Not Reason

Usually an appeal to the mob is based on the appeal to emotion.  Some sort of horrible situation is either hypothesized, or a real situation (usually something which the target condemns anyway) is expressed as the norm which is approved of.  The emotion desired is that outrage over the issue as presented by the mob leader and disproportionate calls for action are the result.  Now, the one who feeds the mob may appeal to emotion by flattery, saying the members of the mob are clearly reasonable people and care about justice.  From there, the mob can be flattered into action along these lines:

1. You are clearly a reasonable person.
2. Those who disagree say you are wrong
3. Therefore they are saying you are unreasonable.

This is an appeal to pride.

This brings us to the second characteristic.

Characteristic #2: The Mob cannot be reached by logic but is easily swayed by Logical Fallacies

This cuts both ways.  The one seeking to feed the mob cannot get too cerebral or they will lose the mob.  So the message needs to be kept simple in a slogan like manner.  On the other hand, the one defending their position against the mob has nothing to exploit.  Appeals to reasoned arguments will not work.  Either the argument goes above their head or there will be an agitator [See below] twisting your words to a meaning you never said to begin with.

Logical fallacies do work however… for our opponents.  We ourselves should never consider using them.  The ad hominem is very successful used against us, as is the red herring.  Bulverisms are also effective.  Telling the mob that the argument is already proven in their favor will make them resistant to the facts showing them it is wrong.  "That's your opinion" is a common (and dishonest) tactic.

There was a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII.  He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners.  So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace."  Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This shows the disadvantage the Christian has in defending the faith.  In order to sway the mob, we would have to appeal to logical fallacies that are intellectually dishonest.

This is shown in the spurious allegations against the Pope.  The simple slogan is "The Pope covered for abusers."  The rebuttal takes far longer to state than the accusation because it has to show why the premise is wrong and then show the evidence to the contrary.

Characteristic #3: Reason drops dramatically in groups

Peer pressure and other tactics can sway individuals who, when alone, might listen to reason.  "The mob" is stupid, but this doesn't mean individuals within it are stupid.  This often happens when one person thinks something isn't quite right, but peer pressure can make them doubt their own knowledge, and give into the groupthink [decision-making by a group as a whole, resulting in unchallenged, poor-quality decisions] of mobs.

Lynch mobs historically were influenced this way.  Individuals may have thought the act was wrong, but when the whole crowd is howling for vengeance, it is easy for the individual to be influenced into setting their own judgment aside.

This is also how the Nazis came to power.  Of course there were individuals who thought Hitler was wrong.  However, when what seems to be the whole country is supporting an injustice, it is very hard to stand against the crowd without beginning to wonder if it is you who are wrong.

Those who feed the mob prey on this.  The use of the appeal to numbers fallacy is often successful: "Everyone else knows of this injustice.  Why do you support those who are guilty?"

This brings us to the next characteristic.

Characteristic #4: The slogan cannot be questioned.  If you question it, you stand with the enemy

There is a work called Fuhrer Ex, of a Neo Nazi in Germany who eventually grew sick of the movement (because he could no longer believe what they held) and left it.  One of the key elements of the book was that certain elements were so often repeated, using false sources, that it was accepted as true.  When the author began to question some of the assumptions of the group (holocaust denial, applications of violence etc.) he was unable to convince them… indeed the propaganda he helped form was cited as an authority against his arguments, and he was accused of siding with the enemy.

This is commonly employed with the current attacks against the Church.  The accusation "The Pope covered for abusers" is a slogan which cannot be questioned.  If you do, you are defending the evil in the slogan, not showing the truth in their mind.

Any attempts to rebut such an accusation is met with the accusation that the debunker is making excuses, "playing the victim card" and so on.

It is depressingly effective.  Consider all those out there who post comments on the blogs accusing Catholic apologists of "defending child rape" on the grounds that they question the slogan.   Never mind the fact that the Pope was a strong force for reforming the Church system.  Never mind the fact that the slogans are not supported by the actual facts.  If you dare to defend the Pope, you are accused of defending the system.

"You're either with us or against us" (or a variant in wording) is the battle cry.  No, this wasn't just George W. Bush (though he was appealing to the mob mentality, to his detriment).  Any group which accuses a person who disagrees with them of being on the side of the enemy uses this argument.  But this argument ignores the crucial question: Is it right that I am with you?  Do I have to be on the opposite side if I oppose you?

The mob demands we answer "yes" to both questions.  The reasoned person answers "If your position is true, I will stand with you.  If your position is not true, I will stand where the truth is to be found."

Unfortunately, the mob sees this as supporting the other side.

Characteristic #5: Agitators help influence the mob

This isn't an argument of a conspiracy theory.  I'm not talking about some person with a nefarious plot to overthrow something.  The mob generally is headless.  It can be guided and influenced but it can never be controlled.  The mob can turn on the one who tries to use it.

Rather, I am talking about true believers in a cause who have a strong hatred of whatever they are working against.  This zeal leads them to attack what they see as an enemy.  They instinctively make emotional appeals to steer the audience to their position.  These people tend to be zealous, or even fanatical in their hatred.  They are certain they are right.  However, they differ from those who are speaking the truth in that they generally will use any tactic against their enemy, justifying it on the grounds that the enemy does worse.

For example, ex-Catholics who become anti-Catholics take whatever real or imagined wrong from the Church which offends them, and use their anger as a focus to attack the Church, certain that whatever wrong they suffered (or think they suffered) was not only deliberate, but malicious as well.  So they scour Church documents for words which will justify their hatred of the Church, giving them the interpretation they choose.  If you tell them their interpretation is wrong, you are accused of lying.  Or being stupid.

Agitators are good at twisting words.  If you use a vague analogy, they will distort it.  If you use one example to lead into another point, they will use the the example and misrepresent it as being your point.  Their tone will always be condescending and mocking you… obviously you must be an idiot if you disagree with them.  [This is why Christians should avoid sarcasm and mocking.  Yes these people can make us angry, but getting angry is to lose the argument].

They will always reduce their arguments to slogans however, and will not listened to reasoned argument.  Why?  Because they aren't here to discuss the truth.  They are here to attack people who disagree with their accusation which they interpret as denying their experience.

These can either be poor at what they do, in which case you can reduce them to silence, or they can be skilled enough to make an argument futile: you won't get a fair hearing for your position.  The agitator's clever phrasing will lead the mob to think he has won when in fact, he is doing nothing to answer your actual points.

Sometimes you have to suppress your desire to get in the "last hit" and walk away from those people.  A "last act of defiance" almost never comes off looking as good as you hope it would.

Dealing with the Mob

Arguing your case before the mob is like casting pearls before swine.  If you take a position which the mob has been told is wrong, it will be distorted and the distortion will be turned against you.  They will believe the agitator's distortion is true and no matter what you say, it will be the agitator's misrepresentation and not what you said that they will believe. 

Now the temptation is to sink to their level, slinging mud for mud and insult for insult.  However, such a tactic may win points with the "living in Mom's basement" crowd who enjoys an exchange of insults, but it won't actually prove the point we are trying to get across.  It won't actually convince them either, because what the Christian calls people to is contrary to the appetite of the mob.

Christians can't feed the appetite of the mob.  Nor should we want to.  What the mob wants too often is wrong in the eyes of the believer. Whether the mob wants a scapegoat or whether the mob wants us to bless its immoral actions, we can't give them these things.

However, there is a way which we can use.  That is remembering that the mob is not a faceless mass, but is made up of individuals with different motives and levels of understanding.  You can't speak to the mob.  You can only speak to individuals.  Only individuals can be turned from error.  The mob simply wants the bread and circuses, and will support whoever will feed their appetite.

All we can do is to speak to the individual, hoping they will listen to the truth and not to what agitators distort our position to be, praying they will leave the mob.  Because of this, we need to pray that we act in accordance with God's will and try our best to act as representatives of the King.

After that we can do no more (though we must be tireless in doing this task).

Finally, we must remember that Jesus has told us men would hate us on account of Him.  They will use whatever scandal (real or imagined) they can find to fuel their hatred.  We should remember Christ's words in such a case:

^22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.

^23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. (Luke 6:22-23)

Reflections on The Mob

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."(Mt 7:6).

Awhile back, I wrote about the mob (not to be confused with the Mafia) mentality turning on Richard Dawkins, who appealed to it against the Christians.  Currently, it is turning its hunger against the Catholic Church.

Seeing so many uninformed commentators posting on websites bashing the Church and accusing Catholics of defending sexual abuse, I thought it would be good to comment on some of the characteristics of the mob mentality sweeping the Internet

The Purpose of this Article

I don't intend to write this to attack any individual.  Most people who take part in mob mentality don't realize they are doing it.  Rather, I write this to my fellow Christians to help them deal with the attacks of the mob… which we Christians see opposed to us all too often.  If any individual reading this thinks what I say comes too close to home, remember that one can break free of the mob by refusing to follow what "everyone says" or "relying on the newspapers" to get the facts.  In other words, to investigate before attacking.

Characteristic #1: The Mob is Led by Appeals to Emotion, Not Reason

Usually an appeal to the mob is based on the appeal to emotion.  Some sort of horrible situation is either hypothesized, or a real situation (usually something which the target condemns anyway) is expressed as the norm which is approved of.  The emotion desired is that outrage over the issue as presented by the mob leader and disproportionate calls for action are the result.  Now, the one who feeds the mob may appeal to emotion by flattery, saying the members of the mob are clearly reasonable people and care about justice.  From there, the mob can be flattered into action along these lines:

1. You are clearly a reasonable person.
2. Those who disagree say you are wrong
3. Therefore they are saying you are unreasonable.

This is an appeal to pride.

This brings us to the second characteristic.

Characteristic #2: The Mob cannot be reached by logic but is easily swayed by Logical Fallacies

This cuts both ways.  The one seeking to feed the mob cannot get too cerebral or they will lose the mob.  So the message needs to be kept simple in a slogan like manner.  On the other hand, the one defending their position against the mob has nothing to exploit.  Appeals to reasoned arguments will not work.  Either the argument goes above their head or there will be an agitator [See below] twisting your words to a meaning you never said to begin with.

Logical fallacies do work however… for our opponents.  We ourselves should never consider using them.  The ad hominem is very successful used against us, as is the red herring.  Bulverisms are also effective.  Telling the mob that the argument is already proven in their favor will make them resistant to the facts showing them it is wrong.  "That's your opinion" is a common (and dishonest) tactic.

There was a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII.  He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners.  So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace."  Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This shows the disadvantage the Christian has in defending the faith.  In order to sway the mob, we would have to appeal to logical fallacies that are intellectually dishonest.

This is shown in the spurious allegations against the Pope.  The simple slogan is "The Pope covered for abusers."  The rebuttal takes far longer to state than the accusation because it has to show why the premise is wrong and then show the evidence to the contrary.

Characteristic #3: Reason drops dramatically in groups

Peer pressure and other tactics can sway individuals who, when alone, might listen to reason.  "The mob" is stupid, but this doesn't mean individuals within it are stupid.  This often happens when one person thinks something isn't quite right, but peer pressure can make them doubt their own knowledge, and give into the groupthink [decision-making by a group as a whole, resulting in unchallenged, poor-quality decisions] of mobs.

Lynch mobs historically were influenced this way.  Individuals may have thought the act was wrong, but when the whole crowd is howling for vengeance, it is easy for the individual to be influenced into setting their own judgment aside.

This is also how the Nazis came to power.  Of course there were individuals who thought Hitler was wrong.  However, when what seems to be the whole country is supporting an injustice, it is very hard to stand against the crowd without beginning to wonder if it is you who are wrong.

Those who feed the mob prey on this.  The use of the appeal to numbers fallacy is often successful: "Everyone else knows of this injustice.  Why do you support those who are guilty?"

This brings us to the next characteristic.

Characteristic #4: The slogan cannot be questioned.  If you question it, you stand with the enemy

There is a work called Fuhrer Ex, of a Neo Nazi in Germany who eventually grew sick of the movement (because he could no longer believe what they held) and left it.  One of the key elements of the book was that certain elements were so often repeated, using false sources, that it was accepted as true.  When the author began to question some of the assumptions of the group (holocaust denial, applications of violence etc.) he was unable to convince them… indeed the propaganda he helped form was cited as an authority against his arguments, and he was accused of siding with the enemy.

This is commonly employed with the current attacks against the Church.  The accusation "The Pope covered for abusers" is a slogan which cannot be questioned.  If you do, you are defending the evil in the slogan, not showing the truth in their mind.

Any attempts to rebut such an accusation is met with the accusation that the debunker is making excuses, "playing the victim card" and so on.

It is depressingly effective.  Consider all those out there who post comments on the blogs accusing Catholic apologists of "defending child rape" on the grounds that they question the slogan.   Never mind the fact that the Pope was a strong force for reforming the Church system.  Never mind the fact that the slogans are not supported by the actual facts.  If you dare to defend the Pope, you are accused of defending the system.

"You're either with us or against us" (or a variant in wording) is the battle cry.  No, this wasn't just George W. Bush (though he was appealing to the mob mentality, to his detriment).  Any group which accuses a person who disagrees with them of being on the side of the enemy uses this argument.  But this argument ignores the crucial question: Is it right that I am with you?  Do I have to be on the opposite side if I oppose you?

The mob demands we answer "yes" to both questions.  The reasoned person answers "If your position is true, I will stand with you.  If your position is not true, I will stand where the truth is to be found."

Unfortunately, the mob sees this as supporting the other side.

Characteristic #5: Agitators help influence the mob

This isn't an argument of a conspiracy theory.  I'm not talking about some person with a nefarious plot to overthrow something.  The mob generally is headless.  It can be guided and influenced but it can never be controlled.  The mob can turn on the one who tries to use it.

Rather, I am talking about true believers in a cause who have a strong hatred of whatever they are working against.  This zeal leads them to attack what they see as an enemy.  They instinctively make emotional appeals to steer the audience to their position.  These people tend to be zealous, or even fanatical in their hatred.  They are certain they are right.  However, they differ from those who are speaking the truth in that they generally will use any tactic against their enemy, justifying it on the grounds that the enemy does worse.

For example, ex-Catholics who become anti-Catholics take whatever real or imagined wrong from the Church which offends them, and use their anger as a focus to attack the Church, certain that whatever wrong they suffered (or think they suffered) was not only deliberate, but malicious as well.  So they scour Church documents for words which will justify their hatred of the Church, giving them the interpretation they choose.  If you tell them their interpretation is wrong, you are accused of lying.  Or being stupid.

Agitators are good at twisting words.  If you use a vague analogy, they will distort it.  If you use one example to lead into another point, they will use the the example and misrepresent it as being your point.  Their tone will always be condescending and mocking you… obviously you must be an idiot if you disagree with them.  [This is why Christians should avoid sarcasm and mocking.  Yes these people can make us angry, but getting angry is to lose the argument].

They will always reduce their arguments to slogans however, and will not listened to reasoned argument.  Why?  Because they aren't here to discuss the truth.  They are here to attack people who disagree with their accusation which they interpret as denying their experience.

These can either be poor at what they do, in which case you can reduce them to silence, or they can be skilled enough to make an argument futile: you won't get a fair hearing for your position.  The agitator's clever phrasing will lead the mob to think he has won when in fact, he is doing nothing to answer your actual points.

Sometimes you have to suppress your desire to get in the "last hit" and walk away from those people.  A "last act of defiance" almost never comes off looking as good as you hope it would.

Dealing with the Mob

Arguing your case before the mob is like casting pearls before swine.  If you take a position which the mob has been told is wrong, it will be distorted and the distortion will be turned against you.  They will believe the agitator's distortion is true and no matter what you say, it will be the agitator's misrepresentation and not what you said that they will believe. 

Now the temptation is to sink to their level, slinging mud for mud and insult for insult.  However, such a tactic may win points with the "living in Mom's basement" crowd who enjoys an exchange of insults, but it won't actually prove the point we are trying to get across.  It won't actually convince them either, because what the Christian calls people to is contrary to the appetite of the mob.

Christians can't feed the appetite of the mob.  Nor should we want to.  What the mob wants too often is wrong in the eyes of the believer. Whether the mob wants a scapegoat or whether the mob wants us to bless its immoral actions, we can't give them these things.

However, there is a way which we can use.  That is remembering that the mob is not a faceless mass, but is made up of individuals with different motives and levels of understanding.  You can't speak to the mob.  You can only speak to individuals.  Only individuals can be turned from error.  The mob simply wants the bread and circuses, and will support whoever will feed their appetite.

All we can do is to speak to the individual, hoping they will listen to the truth and not to what agitators distort our position to be, praying they will leave the mob.  Because of this, we need to pray that we act in accordance with God's will and try our best to act as representatives of the King.

After that we can do no more (though we must be tireless in doing this task).

Finally, we must remember that Jesus has told us men would hate us on account of Him.  They will use whatever scandal (real or imagined) they can find to fuel their hatred.  We should remember Christ's words in such a case:

^22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.

^23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. (Luke 6:22-23)

Bulverisms

Introduction

Ever notice how intolerant people are when they accuse someone else of being intolerant or pushing their views onto others?  Ever notice how it is assumed that the Christian must be wrong because of some condition which causes them to be intolerant or unable to think for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't think this way?

Unfortunately this is a common tactic on the Internet.  It is not a new one however.  CS Lewis wrote about it in 1941, and noted it was old then.  It is the assumption that a person is wrong and seeks to provide a motive for why he is wrong… but never in fact PROVES the person is in fact wrong.

What Is A Bulverism?

CS Lewis spoke of Bulverism as follows:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

—CS Lewis.  God In the Dock, page 273

CS Lewis wrote about this phenomenon in 1941, but it seems to be a common thing today.

The Logical Error of the Bulverism

The logical form of a Bulverism is:

1. You claim that A is true.
2. Because of B, you want A to be true.
3. Therefore, A is false.

In other words, the argument of a Bulverism assumes the opponent is wrong in holding position [A] because of condition [B].  Thus we see Christians defamed because they are assumed wrong.  The attacker then goes on to give a reason for why the Christian holds A.  What is never proven however is that the Christian is wrong for holding position A.

It's a form of non sequitur.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise.  It also begs the question, that [A] is false when that needs to be proven

Lewis uses an analogy to illustrate the point:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error. [Emphasis added]

The Common Attack

This often comes into play in the most crude attack against the Christian.  We hear that if we would think for ourselves, we would realize we are blindly following the error of Christianity [I'm putting this far more charitably than the anti-Christian would do].  This assumes:

1. Christians claim [Certain moral behavior] are correct
2. Because Christians [do not think for themselves], they think [certain moral behaviors] are correct
3. Therefore Christians are wrong in thinking [certain moral behaviors] are correct.

We could apply the "Christians are homophobic" argument here as well… and certain anti-Christians do this as well.

The Overlooked Flaws With Using the Bulverism

The problem is, of course, that if one can use this argument against the Christian, the Christian can use the argument against their attacker.  We can merely substitute "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Muslim" or "Liberal" or "Conservative" and plug it in, and we can sling it back at you.

Of course you haven't proven your point and neither have I.

The use of the Bulverism is in essence sawing off the branch you are sitting on.  If one employs it against an opponent, the opponent can point it right back at the person making the attack.  If one refuses to apply it to their own argument, they cannot apply it to the opponent without being a hypocrite.

First Prove Your Point.  Then You Can Psychoanalyze

What is overlooked in the Internet debate today is that there is only one reason for rejecting something as false… and that is demonstrating that it is false.  All the reasons for trying to explain why something is false is meaningless if the thing is in fact true.

Yet instead, we see appeals to false analogy, appeals to numbers, appeals to age or newness… all of which are logical fallacies which do not prove the point one which one wishes to make.

Advice for the Christian

The Christian should be watchful for the Bulverism… first of all to avoid making the error yourself.  We who believe Jesus is the Truth should first of all demonstrate that the opponent's view IS false before trying to delve into motives why they are wrong.

Second of all to make sure you are not tricked by it.  It becomes easy to get caught up in challenging the reason the opponent provides for why we are wrong, completely overlooking the fact that first the opponent needs to prove we are wrong.

So don't get distracted.  One needs to stick to the point of insisting they prove their point.  Otherwise it will be treated as if they are right