Posted by Matthew in Making Disciples, Philosophy & Religion, Quotes on Mar 26th, 2010 | 0 comments

“Apologetics is a very powerful too, but it’s ultimately janitorial. . . . You are doing no more than clearing away debris that blocks the door to faith, and ultimatley it is God’s love that has to work its way into a heart.”

- Dinesh D’Souza

The Logic of Abortion

Posted by Matthew in Communication, Culture, Education, Philosophy & Religion, Politics on Mar 24th, 2010 | 0 comments

One of my favorite class discussions in our Public Speaking class at Appalachian State is on “Building Powerful Arguments.” In it we talk about logos, pathos, and ethos, and deductive and inductive reasoning. In order to demonstrate how a logical appeal (logos) can be made with a deductive argument, we use the topic of abortion. I lead the class in an attempt to create a deductive argument for a pro-choice and a pro-life position. I emphasize how important it is to be able to accurately articulate the view of the opposing argument (that is, to the satisfaction of one who hold that view). If this simple step were taken in such discussions, much misunderstanding, straw-man arguments, and talking past each other would be eliminated.

Deductive reasoning argues for a claim based primarily on the logical relationships of certain premises. First, the students must establish a major premise. This is an assumed principle that both sides should agree upon. Next is the minor premise. This is where the one logically connects the major premise to his or her claim. A simplified version of a deductive argument (a syllogism) for both sides of the abortion issue may look like this:

Pro-Choice

Major Premise:            Women have a right to control their bodies and # of children.
Minor Premise:            Abortion is an exercise of that right.
Claim:                         Protect abortion rights

Pro-Life
Major Premise:             Taking the life of another human is wrong.
Minor Premise:            Abortion is taking the life of a human.
Claim:                         Stop abortion

There are other ways to argue both sides, but this is a start upon which both sides generally agree. Anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this beginning point for discussion? Next time I will explain how both sides usually criticize the logic of the other.

Religious Liberty

Posted by Matthew in Philosophy & Religion, Politics, Quotes on Mar 1st, 2010 | 0 comments

“The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

“Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.”

- Manhattan Declaration

Posted by Matthew in Education, Philosophy & Religion, Quotes on Jan 19th, 2010 | 0 comments

After talking with a person reputed to be wise, Socrates reflected as he walked away,

“Well, I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.”

- Plato, Apology

Socrates, Paul, and Baptism for the Dead

Posted by Matthew in Books, Christian Living, Communication, Philosophy & Religion, Scripture Meditations, Theology on Jan 18th, 2010 | 0 comments

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” 1 Cor 15:29

Here is a notoriously difficult verse. There are two reasons for its difficulty: 1) “There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism,” and (more importantly) 2) Paul mentions a clearly unbiblical practice “without apparent disapproval.”[1] Gordon Fee states that “at least forty different solutions have been suggested.” However, most of these propose interpretations that do not match the straightforward meaning: some are being baptized vicariously for those who have already died. Whatever they were actually doing (which Fee says cannot be known), “what is certain is how the text functions in the argument . . . those actions are a contradiction to the position that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12).”[2]

The very same week I began to study this passage, I also started reading Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. The introduction includes a discussion of the persuasive strategies of Socrates. One strategy is called elenchus. “It is a tool for the exposure of problems with beliefs and inconsistencies in sets of beliefs rather than for demonstrating what is true and what is false.”[3] Based on observations of Paul’s argumentation and rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would use such a strategy. For the sake of this argument, Paul ignores the fact that being baptized for the dead is a bad idea and demonstrates that those who claim there is no resurrection have an inconsistent set of beliefs. This possibility is supported by Paul’s unusual use of third person (usually 2^nd person in such a context, cf. v. 12) and its clear contrast to the first person in the next verse. He certainly keeps his distance from this practice. He goes on to demonstrate that his own actions only make sense if the dead are raised, and therefore are consistent with his claim about the resurrection (vv. 30-32).

Paul assumes that one’s worldview should be internally consistent. I’m sure than none of us want to contradict ourselves. Although we may have theological consistency, it is possible we have not thought through the implications of our faith for other parts of a worldview – economics, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. It is not uncommon to find people with a biblical theology and an unbiblical political position. More to Paul’s point in this passage is the consistency of our faith and practice. Are our daily actions and lifestyle habits consistent with our professed faith? If not, it is appropriate to ask whether we believe it at all (James 2:18-26).

---

[1] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 764.

[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 763.

[3] Introduction to The Last Days of Socrates, xv.