I overheard a conversation a while back that went like this.
Someone mentioned an article that had appeared in the press. The author of the
piece had reported on a scientific breakthrough and concluded that this—along
with the advance of science in general—rendered obsolete any and all
speculation about the existence of God. It’s a common argument, of course, and
one that appears regularly enough, though this particular piece did have a
specific twist that apparently upset many Christians as a challenge to their
beliefs. The second speaker in the conversation responded to the article’s
conclusions by saying that the publication involved had been shown to be disreputable
as a news source and was in financial difficulty.
This approach to argumentation is easy to categorize. It’s
“if you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.”
This is a very common strategy, used extensively by both
Christians and non-Christians, as a way to support their position against some
challenge. Christians use it, for example, as they did here, in defense of the
faith—and thus as a part of what is technically referred to as an apologetic
for their beliefs. It is, however, a form of argumentation that we as
Christians should never use.
As a matter of fact, I know of no serious study that has
shown this particular publication to be disreputable as a news source. Perhaps
such a study exists, but as I will demonstrate in a moment, that really does
not matter. I didn’t engage in too exhaustive of a search, but I found none. As
Christians we should be very careful of speaking poorly of people. Asserting
that the publishers, editors, staff, writers, and reporters of a publication
are untrustworthy is a serious charge. Not agreeing with or liking a
publication’s editorial position does not make that publication disreputable.
Three times the apostolic instruction in Scripture is that “all” instances and
forms of “slander” are forbidden to the believer (Ephesians 4:31; Colossians
3:8; 1 Peter 2:1). It is a very high standard, especially in a cynical age like
ours, but it is our standard nevertheless.
But let’s assume, for the sake of discussion that such a
study—or better yet several such studies—exists. As a publication, it is a
source of news that has been shown to be disreputable and untrustworthy. That
does not mean this article can therefore be dismissed. Even a clock that has
stopped working tells the time correctly twice each day. This article, now that
it has been brought up, can be examined on its own merits. The fact that the
author and our conversation partner are both made in God’s image demands such a
response from us. We can examine the ideas involved, to the best of our ability
test them against what we know to be true, and draw conclusions appropriately.
In their classic book, How
to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren clearly delineate how
to properly disagree. If we are to disagree with an author, we must show specifically
where the author is uninformed, misinformed, or where his argument is illogical
or incomplete. Failing being able to demonstrate this, we must agree at least
partly, or we can say truthfully we don’t know but would like to suspend
judgment pending further study and thought. We would be wise to limit ourselves
to this framework, especially if we expect a watching world to take seriously
our claim to care for the truth because we worship one who claimed The Truth.
(See my summary of Adler’s and Van Doren’s helpful ideas here.)
Interestingly at a scientific conference (see information
here)
a speaker outlined what he called “a general manual of denialism,” a list of
six tactics used by believers against science. As you will notice, attacking
the messenger is one tactic that he lists:
“First, cast doubt on the science. Second, question the
personal motives and integrity of the scientists. Third, magnify genuine
disagreements among scientists, and cite nonexperts with minority opinions as
authorities. Fourth, exaggerate the potential harm caused by the issue at hand.
Fifth, frame issues as a threat to personal freedom. And sixth, claim that
acceptance would repudiate a key philosophy, religious belief, or practice of a
group.”
As a matter of fact, I would argue that these tactics are
not limited to religious believers—the arguments used by unbelievers, including
scientists, against religious belief often engage in the same tactics. Still,
speaking as a Christian, regardless if we find these tactics used against our
faith, as Christians we need to be discerning, not reactionary. And that
includes, among other things, refusing to engage in the dishonest and often
slanderous tactic of refuting a message by attacking the messenger.
Source: Thanks to my friend John Eddy or bringing my
attention to the article cited in this piece.
This entry was posted
at Monday, September 03, 2012
and is filed under
Discernment,
Reactionary,
Science,
Truth
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.