You're A What?
I often laugh whenever I watch the following debate take place (with its many variations):
Jimmy: “I can’t believe you are a dispensationalist! Don’t you know it has only been around for 170+ years?”
Suzanne: “I can’t believe you are an idiot! Don’t you know your argument is committing the Genetic Fallacy?”
Now, I believe that the Genetic Fallacy is indeed a fallacy. I do not think that Santa Clause exists simply because my mommy told me so. However, I question whether or not the argument that Jimmy is offering is guilty of committing this fallacy. It is true; Jimmy is making an argument that hinges upon the origin of dispensationalism? But, must all arguments which hinge on the origin of something be guilty of committing the Genetic Fallacy?
Consider: “A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant” (here; italics, mine).
So then the question becomes, I think, is Jimmy’s appeal to the origin of dispensationalist irrelevant?
Thoughts?
Jimmy: “I can’t believe you are a dispensationalist! Don’t you know it has only been around for 170+ years?”
Suzanne: “I can’t believe you are an idiot! Don’t you know your argument is committing the Genetic Fallacy?”
Now, I believe that the Genetic Fallacy is indeed a fallacy. I do not think that Santa Clause exists simply because my mommy told me so. However, I question whether or not the argument that Jimmy is offering is guilty of committing this fallacy. It is true; Jimmy is making an argument that hinges upon the origin of dispensationalism? But, must all arguments which hinge on the origin of something be guilty of committing the Genetic Fallacy?
Consider: “A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant” (here; italics, mine).
So then the question becomes, I think, is Jimmy’s appeal to the origin of dispensationalist irrelevant?
Thoughts?
posted by Anonymous | 10:37 AM
8 Comments:
Aaron,
I don't think the appeal is irrelevant. An example of Genetic Fallacy might be: "Drinking Coke is bad for you, don't you know it has only been around for 120 years?" In this example the age of Coke is irrelevant to its unhealthiness.
Granted, contending that the only error in dispensationalism is its relative youth would be foolish; equal to contending that we should not believe the earth is round because that idea is still relatively young.
However, in the dispensationalism discussion I think there is merit in addressing the origin of the view when it is compared with the long line of thought that precedes it (going back to apostolic tradition).
Good question.
I have found out, rather painfully, that on tests and quizzes (especially those with multiple choice) the first conclusion/answer I thought of was usually right, and the answer I changed it to had usually had an 'x' in red ink next to it.
Thus proving, through my personal experiences, that the older the assumption is, the more likely it is to be fact.
By the way, this means that flies do in fact, come from rotting meat, and yes, Jeff, the world is flat - evidence has been found that NASA created the video footage in a studio just like Star Trek did...
(Don't take this post seriously... seriously)
"But, must all arguments which hinge on the origin of something be guilty of committing the Genetic Fallacy?"
It seems rare that someone seriously argues for or against an idea based solely or mainly on its origin. It may be a starting point, but ideas that appear to be based on their origins, usually stem from other premises that are the real source of contention. For example, take the statement "Darby and Scofield were such great men that I believe whatever they write." Instead of debating the character of Darby or Scofield, I would ask - How do you know they are reliable? Is it right to believe everything someone writes even if they are generally reliable? What are their reasons for believing this idea? Is a newer idea always better?
Saying that an idea has survived the test of time seems to be an appeal to witnesses. Reliable witnesses are a helpful part of esatablishing ideas, but it is hard to imagine much serious debate that stops at merely the number or character of its believers.
There seems to be some tension between (and perhaps confusion of) deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning here. For example, Vijay hints that personal belief can draw on either or both. Let me follow that train, jump on that bandwagon, cart that horse.
Recall the difference. In deduction, true premises are reduced to a necessarily true conclusion (with no exceptions) by way of more-or-less formal logic; think mathematics, idealism, theoretical science, Romans. In induction, observations/experiences are built up to a "probably" true conclusion (with possible exceptions) by way of inference; think statistics, empiricism, experimental science, Proverbs. Contrary to popular belief, "the scientific method" can't prove anything.
The genetic fallacy is indeed an example of (poor) deductive reasoning. Thus, the syllogism "Dispensationalism is recent, and recent ideas are wrong; therefore, dispensationalism is wrong" is an invalid argument about the propositional truth or falsity of dispensational theology. Deductive argument about theology must proceed impersonally and logically (whether systematically or not) from known truth (be it Scripture, special revelation and/or general revelation, depending on whom you ask): in context, but otherwise regardless of its origin.
On the other hand, we have here some inductive answers to Aaron's question of deduction. For example, in Mark's experience, the first guess is usually right, yet spontaneous generation doesn't happen and the Earth is not flat. (By the way, one could argue from Psalms and/or Job --- as well as at least some pagan mythologies --- that the round-earth idea actually came first.) Also, Jeff appeals to "the long line of... apostolic tradition," despite its fallibility. Even Jimmy and Suzanne each start off with "I can't believe [that]...", revealing that they are talking as much about themselves as the subject of debate; it can be hard to keep inductive reasoning from degenerating into self-referential autobiography, as in these fictional protagonists' case. Still, induction is useful and even valid in its own realm (else every Proverb that refers to the mouths of fools would be guilty of ad hominem fallacy at very least)... just not for deductive purposes.
My cent #1 of 2: deductive "arguments that hinge on the (irrelevant) origin of something" are fallacious. An example of a relevant appeal to origins would be that the alleged documentation of the Priory of Sion (of The da Vinci Code fame) in the National Library of France originated as a latter 20th-century hoax. The PoS therefore could not have existed before then, let alone continuously since the 1st century.
My cent #2 of 2: inductive "arguments that hinge on the (irrelevant) origin of something" are just part of the process. In the absence of deductive activity (perhaps necessarily due to the complexity of the subject), it's allowable and even expected to react by drawing on general principles/rules/"laws" that are based on an accumulated body of supposed experience. Thus, a conservative thinker (in a general apolitical sense) may tend to distrust a 200-year-old idea because "in general, older is better" and the idea seems "new," while a progressive thinker (in a general apolitical sense) may have similar distrust because "in general, newer is better" and the idea seems "old."
Surely why in the 2000yr history of Christianity and 3500yr history of Israel noone had thought of something until recently would cause me at least to pause and in humility ask not whether everyone else had missed something but whether I had.
I think the analogy between dispensationalism and a round earth (both of which, on a popular level, are relatively young)is quite misleading.
When we talk about the earth being round we are talking about an observable object which has an observable shape--to affirm that the object has a certain shape (namely, roundness), if it corresponds to the shape which the object maintains, is to state a fact.
When we talk about dispensationalism, however, we are not talking about facts per se. Rather, we are talking about a particular (popular, American) model for interpreting certain facts (e.g. God is working in his creation; God is going to ultimately defeat evil and bring justice to the world).
Thoughts?
Thought: any model with explanatory power must consist of logical relationships or rules that can be expressed as statements of fact (verbal or symbolic, qualitative or quantitative) and then be evaluated empirically or deductively as appropriate. For example, "Redemptive history is discontinuous" affirms that redemptive history possesses the property of discontinuity and thus asserts a fact. Statements of fact are not limited to "observable objects"; abstract entities can possess properties of state or being just as concrete objects can.
The articulated claims of dispensationalism (whether specific instances or basic principles) therefore can be analogous to round-earth assertions, I think. Indeed, the round earth also serves as a "model" in which many lower-level physical observations (atmospheric refraction, tides, terrestrial gravity, lengths of days & seasons, climate, compasses, et al) have been re-interpreted.
Now, if we were to limit ourselves to a dispensationalism sans facts, then we'd be left to describe mere behavioral traits of a subculture: reading "Left Behind" books, Revelation-driven numerology, Zionism, apathy toward or suspicion of conservational causes, etc. ... not what Jimmy had on his mind, perhaps?
I agree to some extent that we should argue against something based on its merits and not solely on its age, but I think you do have to mention at some point the fact that it is a newer idea in the church, and also explain others as well. For most of my life (until about 3 years ago), I was only taught certain (now I know of them as dispensational) views of the church. It helps me to at least know that this is has not always been the only model for viewing events in Scripture and in the church.
Post a Comment
<< Home