Light and Heat: ATTEMPTED AXIOM: Contra Ad Hominem

Thursday, May 14, 2009

ATTEMPTED AXIOM: Contra Ad Hominem

The truth of an argument does not depend on the one who makes it.

18 comments:

Jared Nelson said...: I disagree. For an argument when conducted in the real world for a complex issue depends on context/circumstance and motive. Therefore, one should at least doubt the merit of an argument, contigent on more information, in certain circumstances.

Let me give an example, from Socrates. If a man loans you his sword, you are obligated to give his rightful property back to him. Yet, if the man who loaned you this sword is making this argument while he is on a homicidal rampage, the merit of his argument depends on who is making it, namely the deranged man who in this context/circumstance has a poor motive for making this argument. You therefore should judge the merit of the argument depending on the one who makes it.; Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:18:00 PM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: I would say that the argument is flawed. It lacks merit in itself.

It should read: "If a man loans you his sword, you are obligated to give his rightful property back to him as long as he is not on a homicidal rampage."; Friday, May 15, 2009 12:35:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: How about:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

The merit of this argument depends entirely on the one who makes it.; Friday, May 15, 2009 8:43:00 AM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: Interesting point anonymous. The important distinction to keep in mind is between arguments and assertions. An assertion would be an element of an argument, but not itself an argument. The Scripture you quote is an assertion rather than an argument.

This would be an argument which includes Jesus' assertion: Jesus is the Son of God, therefore his assertion of being the way, the truth, and the life is true.; Friday, May 15, 2009 8:49:00 AM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: I suppose one could also construct Jesus' statement as an argument: I am the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, no one comes to the Father but by me.

But the argument is sound regardless of whether Jesus makes it or I make it from the pulpit on Sunday morning, given the fact that the premise is true (i.e. Jesus is the way, truth, and life).; Friday, May 15, 2009 8:52:00 AM CDT
Jared Nelson said...: Well, if we take the exact words of Christ (with the "I") then the merit of the argument entirely depends on the the one making it.

With my example, what invalidates the argument is the state and moral character of the one making the argument. The merit of the argument of returning rightful property is undermined by the character and state of the one who makes it.

I can see if one says "truth is truth" no matter who says it, yet from a human point of view, due to our finitude, we certainly need to take into account who is making an argument. If Satan quotes Scripture making an argument, then we distrust its validity for our human frailty and assume the truth is not fully displayed.

I take the same approach when reading something by a known heretic. Even if the logic seems sound, I judge the argument partly by who makes it and test it by whether those of better character have come to a similar conclusion. Pelagius or Marcion may have said many true things, but I doubt them until I see the same argument in more respectable and orthodox mouths.; Friday, May 15, 2009 10:11:00 AM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: Well, if we take the exact words of Christ (with the "I") then the merit of the argument entirely depends on the the one making it.
I think we have an unusual circumstance with this particular passage. Jesus is both the one making the argument, and the subject, his person being the basic premise. I can mount the same argument he mounts by saying, "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, no one comes to the Father but by him." Is the argument dependent on the one making it? No. It is dependent on the truth of the premise.

With my example, what invalidates the argument is the state and moral character of the one making the argument. The merit of the argument of returning rightful property is undermined by the character and state of the one who makes it.
But again, the argument you've laid out includes the person as its object. The person is an element of the argument itself. That's why his condition affects whether the argument is good or not in that particular situation. Example: I could make the same argument: "If a man loans you his sword, you are obligated to give his rightful property back to him even if he is on a homicidal rampage." I'm not the one on the rampage, but the argument is still bad. Or we could go the other direction with it. Let's say I am on a homicidal rampage and I say, ""If a man loans you his sword, you are obligated to give his rightful property back to him as long as he is not on a homicidal rampage." Would the argument I've presented be suspect because I am on a rampage? Or would it be a good argument? I would vote for the latter.

I can see if one says "truth is truth" no matter who says it, yet from a human point of view, due to our finitude, we certainly need to take into account who is making an argument. If Satan quotes Scripture making an argument, then we distrust its validity for our human frailty and assume the truth is not fully displayed.

I take the same approach when reading something by a known heretic. Even if the logic seems sound, I judge the argument partly by who makes it and test it by whether those of better character have come to a similar conclusion. Pelagius or Marcion may have said many true things, but I doubt them until I see the same argument in more respectable and orthodox mouths.
This is an excellent point. But it does no violence to mine. I have asserted that the merit of an argument is independent of the one who makes it. I have not asserted that we should not be initially suspicious of arguments given their source. These are two different things.

Good thinking though Jared! Because you are making these arguments I've examined them very closely. :-) Your questions are sharpening my understanding of my own attempted axiom. And perhaps you'll convince me its wrong yet. It is after all an humble attempt.; Friday, May 15, 2009 11:19:00 AM CDT
Jared Nelson said...: I think it may be true ideally, assuming men are angels and our knowledge is exhaustive. Yet, in this world, an argument may be made by a person who purposefully leaves out information (such as merely making a point about returning rightful property without giving the information of being on a homicidal rampage).

So while the axiom may be true ideally, wisdom may dictate that due to our finite knowledge and poor motives in ourselves and others, one should evaluate the merits of an argument based on who is making it.; Friday, May 15, 2009 11:27:00 AM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: I believe wisdom suggests we should be aware of the sources of arguments, for the reasons you mention. However, one need not be morally pure or have exhaustive understanding to make a true argument. Heck, if that's true, why should I believe that it is? :-); Friday, May 15, 2009 12:06:00 PM CDT
Jared Nelson said...: Certainty and rejection are not binary realities, but exist on a spectrum. (As Calvin said: "unbelief is, in all men, always mixed with faith... we cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety.") Thus an argument can be thought true without certainty, and indeed held as suspect without rejecting it.

Thinking more: doesn't who is giving the argument also give credence to the argument? I'm thinking of John 6, and how I would not believe it except for Who is giving the argument. If John 6 was not in the Bible and someone merely told me: "Unless you drink the blood and eat the body of the Son of Man, you have no life in you" I would doubt the merits of his argument based on who said it. I trust the argument of John 6:53 based on Who made the argument.

By the Way, you should believe my argument since I am morally pure and have perfect knowledge in this ;); Friday, May 15, 2009 12:24:00 PM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: Certainty and rejection are not binary realities, but exist on a spectrum. (As Calvin said: "unbelief is, in all men, always mixed with faith... we cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety.") Thus an argument can be thought true without certainty, and indeed held as suspect without rejecting it.
I agree. Good thinking. However, again, this doesn't militate against the axiom I've proposed. The axiom has nothing to do with our perceptions of certainty and everything to do with the merit of an argument itself.

I think the one who mounts an argument may give an initial credence or lack thereof to the argument as we begin our assessment. Nonetheless, ultimately the merit of the argument is in the argument itself.

Your hypothetical regarding John 6 doesn't quite work. Again, you've changed the subject of the argument. If someone other than Jesus uttered the words "I am...", then the "I" (the subject) of the argument has changed, thus the argument itself has changed, and we're left wondering (warning: vain attempt at cleverness approaching) why our apples don't taste like oranges.; Friday, May 15, 2009 10:01:00 PM CDT
Jared Nelson said...: On John 6, that's why I kept pronouns out of it. In 6:53 the wording is "Son of Man" not I. I guess it depends on whether we count it as an assertion or an argument. "if...then" or "unless...then" is a sort of argument, right?

My question is if someone made that argument without John 6:53 in the Bible, would we accept it? Or do we accept it because of who made it?

But then again, it falls apart if this is more of an assertion, then we should say than an assertion has merit based on who is making it.; Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:16:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Perhaps, in the larger scheme of things, the merit of the argument isn't nearly as interesting (or meaningful) as the one making it.

An "argument" is, more or less, just the application of fixed rules to propositions /assumptions. It's essentially a form of mathematical calculation. The most unassailable argument is only as good as the assumptions. For example:

All turtles speak Greek.
Socrates was a turtle.
Therefore, Socrates spoke Greek.

This argument is sound. The conclusion is even true. But the assumptions are, shall we say, suspect.

Given a few assumptions, even a computer could make an airtight argument. So, while your axiom is technically true -- the nature of the person/object making an argument doesn't affect the validity of the argument -- it doesn't really get you very far since the nature of the person/object making the argument will have everything to do with the assumptions underlying his argument (and, thus, his conclusion).

Your axiom has more value if you... er... assume that people actually use arguments to derive conclusions. In my experience, this isn't the case. People use arguments to reinforce conclusions they've often already arrived at by other means. When you detect and point out an invalidity in the argument, they simply alter their assumptions to preserve the conclusion.

Asserting that an argument's value exists independently of the one proposing the argument may be true, but it frequently obscures the fact that the value of the assumptions (and, hence, the conclusion) do not exist independently of the proposer.; Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:38:00 AM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

This is certainly an argument from Jesus. But here is the question: If someone else besides Jesus makes it, does it lose merit? Or is its merit independent of his making it?

I think its merit is independent of his making it. I wouldn't say it gained merit (i.e. truthfulness) when Jesus said it. I would say it was true (i.e. meritorious) and he said it.; Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:25:00 PM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: Excellent argument anonymous. If I might play devils advocate a moment.

Would you say you assumed the conclusion you desired and then framed your assumptions to reinforce it?

For instance, did you decision-making go like this?:

(1) You wanted to believe that people mount arguments to reinforce conclusions they already hold.
(2) Therefore, you assert your experience that this is true in order to reinforce the truth of it.

Or would you say you simply observed trends and made a conclusion? Or maybe a little of both?

Also, you make a good point distinguishing the concept of argument from objective reality. I wasn't thinking in terms of an argument having any merit apart from its reflection of objective reality.

Perhaps I should modify the axiom by adding the phrase, "Assuming merit involves correspondence to objective reality." That way the truth of one's assumption's would be included.

Thanks for the sharpening!

Let me know what you think.; Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:46:00 PM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: Actually, now that I have thought a bit more, I think it would be better to just change the word "merit" to "truth."

I think the word "merit" was causing confusion. Merit could mean "degree of certainty" or "validity," neither of which I was driving at.; Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:52:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: I wasn't making an argument so much as stating an assumption. Or maybe just a conclusion. ;-)

I arrived at my position as an attempt to make sense out of my experience. I learned at some point that a good argument is generally only effective when your target shares your own assumptions. Since I was usually arguing with people who didn't share my assumptions, they were largely immune to my arguments. I revised my approach and set out to attack their assumptions by demonstrating contradictions or inconsistencies in their own arguments. Clearly, if you can derive a contradiction from a set of assumptions, one or more of those assumptions cannot be true. I learned fairly quickly however that as soon as I closed in on a weakness in an opponent's argument, he would simply revise his assumptions to preserve his conclusion. Over time I discerned a pattern: peoples' most dearly held conclusions were immune to logical attack because they could go to almost any length to preserve them by altering assumptions indefinitely. This is precisely what conspiracy theorists do. No matter what evidence you mount to the contrary, there are folks convinced to their bones that NASA faked the Apollo 11 moon landings. Or that the CIA killed Kennedy. Or that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Or that God became a man and died. Whoops. See, it eventually occurred to me that we all do this to one extent or another. What's more, the more central the conclusion is to our lives, psyches, etc. the greater the lengths to which we will go to preserve it.

At this point, the interesting question isn't "What arguments lead people to their conclusions?" so much as "Why do people choose to hold the conclusions that they are willing to expend the most effort rationalizing?" The answers are many, and varied. For some, the conclusion is the story they tell themselves to make sense of their experience. For others, the conclusion must be held in order to retain a position in a community. For a great many, their conclusions are held based on the person from whom they heard them. The arguments they construct to rationalize the conclusions may technically be immune to an ad hominem attack per your axiom... but that's something of a red herring since they're not really holding the conclusion because of the argument in the first place.

In any event, the conclusion of an argument is only as good as its assumptions. And those assumptions can be judged by the nature of the one postulating them. What's more, if (as you say) the truth of the assumption depends on correspondence to objective reality, one might even go so far as to say that assumptions cannot be judged without taking into account the nature of the postulant since one cannot establish the truth of the assumption unless one has established the postulant to be a reliable judge of objective reality. And that opens up a whole 'nother Pandora's box...; Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:29:00 PM CDT
M. Jay Bennett said...: Sorry to respond so slowly. My dad has dial up and Win98, so I had trouble posting comments while visiting with him the last few days.

Thanks for the followup response Anonymous. I like the way you think. I think I agree with most of what you've written here. (Interesting that I can evaluate your argument even though I have no idea who you are, huh?) Religious convictions should certainly be deeply held. And deeply held beliefs aren't easily swayed. Nonetheless, I think rational arguments are more important to a person's arriving at their beliefs than you suggest. The Bible, for instance, is full of rich arguments meant to convince us to hold certain beliefs about God and his creation.

I agree that the assumptions of an argument are its basis. Therefore, the argument is only as good as its assumptions. Also, as I said in an earlier comment, I believe the person making an argument (including its assumptions) should be considered when evaluating it. Nonetheless, the truth of the argument is not ultimately dependent on the one making it. (Which is really just another way of saying there is such thing as absolute truth).; Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:26:00 PM CDT

"Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, not embellished: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradict themselves, I am bound to the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand. May God help me, Amen" (Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, April 18, 1521).

"A Christian is perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all" (Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, A. D. 1520)

"To take no pleasure in assertions is not the mark of a Christian heart; indeed, one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all" (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will).

"Either God makes mistakes in his foreknowledge, and errors in his action (which is impossible), or else we act, and are caused to act, according to his foreknowledge and action" (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will).

"We are beggars, this is true" (The last written words of Martin Luther, Luther died February 18, 1546).

"Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 1.1, A.D. 1559).

"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 1.3, A.D. 1559).

"I call 'piety' that reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces. For until men recognize they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him--they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 2.1, A.D. 1559).

"He who is the boldest despiser of God is of all men the most startled at the rustle of a falling leaf" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 3.2, A.D. 1559).

"The doctrine of Justification is . . . the principal ground on which religion must be supported. . . . For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11.1, A.D. 1559).

"How detestable I ask you, is this madness: that man, finding God in his body and soul a hundred times, on this very pretense of excellence denies that there is a God?" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Book One: The Knowledge of God the Creator" Chapter 5, Section 4).

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight. . . . If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, 'Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.' But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death. If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins" (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

"The essence of faith consists in a due ascription of glory to God (Rom. 4:20). This we cannot attain to without the manifestation of those divine excellencies to us in which he is glorious. This is done in Christ alone, so as that we may glorify God in a saving and acceptable manner. He who discerns not the glory of divine wisdom, power, goodness, love, and grace, in the person and office of Christ, with the way of salvation of sinners by him, is an unbeliever" (John Owen, The Glory of Christ).

"As there is no true religion where there is nothing else but affection, so there is no true religion where there is no religious affection. As, on the one hand, there must be light in the understanding as well as an affected fervent heart; where there is heat without light, there can be nothing divine or heavenly in that heart, a head stored with notions and speculations, with a cold and unaffected heart, there can be nothing divine in that light; that knowledge is no true spiritual knowledge of divine things. If the great things of religion are rightly understood, they will affect the heart" (Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, A.D. 1746).

"'Tis plainly the design of the gospel to exalt God's free grace and love, and the excellency and fullness of Christ Jesus the Savior; and in order to that, to show us our own great and entire unworthiness and emptiness of all excellency in ourselves, and that it is not any proportion or manner of relation between our excellency that moves God to bestow upon us those great blessings of the gospel, but mere grace. And therefore those that think there is any proportion between any of their excellency and any of these blessings, they are far from closing with the design of the gospel" (Jonathan Edwards, "None are Saved by Their Own Righteousness").

"I assert, that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause. What is self-existent, must be from eternity, and must be unchangeable; but as to all things that begin to be, they are not self-existent, and therefore must have some foundation of their existence without themselves. That whatsoever begins to be, which before was not, must have a cause why it then begins to exist, seems to be the first dictate of the common and natural sense which God hath implanted in the minds of all mankind, and the main foundation of all our reasonings about the existence of things past, present, or to come" (Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will).

"All dependent existence whatsoever is in a constant flux, ever passing and returning; renewed every moment, as the colors of bodies are every moment renewed by the light that shines upon them; and all is constantly proceeding from God, as light from the sun. "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, 404).

"Few desires on the part of religious teachers have been more harmfully exaggerated than the desire to 'avoid giving offense.' . . .

"Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all. . . .

"'Christ died'--that is history; 'Christ died for our sins'--that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity. . . .

"Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity--liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood; while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man's will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God. . . .

"If the Church were led to wipe out all products of the thinking of nineteen Christian centuries and start fresh, the loss, even if the Bible were retained, would be immense. . . .

"Where the most eloquent exhortation fails, the simple story of an event succeeds; the lives of men are transformed by a piece of news. . . .

"The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task--she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help them avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: 'You people are very good,' he says; 'you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible--especially in the life of Jesus--something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people.' Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He. . . .

"Jesus did not invite the confidence of men by minimizing the load which he offered to bear. . . .

"The truth is that if Jesus be merely an example, he is not a worthy example; for He claimed to be far more. . . .

"The Jesus of the New Testament has at least one advantage over the Jesus of modern reconstruction--He is real. . . .

"Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to speak at all of "salvation") in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God. . . .

"It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the Cross, they are trampling upon human
hearts. . . .

"If a man has once come under a true conviction of sin, he will have little difficulty with the doctrine of the Cross. . . .

"Religion cannot be made joyful simply by looking on the bright side of God. For a one-sided God is not a real God, and it is the real God alone who can satisfy the longing of our soul. . . .

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Were we not safer with a God of our own devising--love and only love, a Father and nothing else, one before whom we could stand in our own merit without fear? He who will may be satisfied with such a God. But we, God help us--sinful as we are, we would see Jehovah. Despairing, hoping, trembling, half-doubting and half-believing, trusting all to Jesus, we venture into the presence of the very God. And in His presence we live. . . .

"If Christian faith is based upon truth, then it is not the faith which saves the Christian but the object of the faith. And the object of the faith is Christ. . . .

"The Church is the highest Christian answer to the social needs of man. . . .

"Truth cannot be stated clearly at all without being set over against error. . . .

"There is in the Christian life no room for despair. Only, our hopefulness should not be founded on the sand. It should be founded, not upon a blind ignorance of the danger, but solely upon the precious promises of God" (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1923]).

Light and Heat

Thursday, May 14, 2009

ATTEMPTED AXIOM: Contra Ad Hominem

18 comments:

Profile

Looking for a PCA church in Southeast Georgia?

Books I've Recently Read

Blog Archive

My Sermon Audios

Blogroll

Podcasts

Professional Affiliations

Theological Journals to which I Subscribe

Puritan-Reformed Links

Tags

Augustine

Martin Luther

John Calvin

John Owen

Jonathan Edwards

J. Gresham Machen

Copyright