Debates and Emotional Rhetoric

Just a note on some things that I’ve been seeing in the blogosphere lately. I have been reading through a couple of debates that have taken place via blog postings and comments, and I have noticed that quite a few of the debates have gone well past defending assertions into a bit of unnecessary rhetoric. A lot of this is due to the use of appeals to emotion. Unfortunately, this often derails dialogue, because emotive anecdotes do not actually add any weight to whether something is true or not.  This isn’t to say that we should not react to things with emotion- to assume this is to make us something less than human.  However, an emotional reaction, whether warranted or not, does not prove or disprove something.

Perhaps the best example of this that I can give has come out of the Ehrman-Wright debate on suffering.  In one of Wright’s responses, he questions Ehrman’s discussion on the Holocaust as evidence that there is no God.  He points out that Ehrman is quite right to ask how Christians can rectify the existence of God (under his working definition of “all good”) with atrocities such as the Holocaust, but then he questions Ehrmans presentation where he gives several pages of graphic detail that could have been easily summed up in less.  Wright’s question is just: why spend so much time doing so?  The point has been made- can the two co-exist? It seems that Ehrman drags this out much more than needs to be done in order to illicit a bigger emotional response.

Immediately, Ehrman accused Wright of “cold logic” and asserting that atrocities do not deserve emotional responses.  This is not what Wright has said, however.  He has only pointed out that Ehrman’s rhetoric takes us away from the actual debate in order to manipulate the emotions of the audience.  Instead of making an assertion in defense of his argument, he piles on emotive anecdotes.  Should we have an emotional response to the Holocaust? Absolutely! It was an atrocity in the strongest sense of the word. Does it exlude the existence of God? That remains to be proven.

The problem is essentialy this: Does the existence of evil disprove the existence of God? If so, why? First we must get Ehrman to define the term “all good God.”  Usually, when people use this term, they use it in a sense that is not abscribed to God even in the Bible.  At this point, it is merely a straw-man, because Ehrman is not even interacting with the God that the Bible puts forth. If Bible does put forth this idea of God, then it is a valid concern and must be discussed.  The emotive appeal adds nothing to the actual debate itself.

Also, emotive appeals fail to address another possibility: that the action which illicits a response may be a misapplication of a truth. In the case of evil and God, it may be that the truth “God is love” is misapplied (which is often the case).

This is also seen in many discussions on Calvinism.  Many non-calvinists say that the doctrine of election makes us robots.  This is a definite emotional appeal, as no one wants to be a robot- we want meaning in our actions and lives.  However, the Calvinist position does not deny that our actions are deprived of meaning and significance.  The Calvinist position is that we will continue to choose (meaningfully!) what we most want, that is, what is most in-line with our nature.  Because we are sinful by nature, we will continue in that lifestyle- whoever commits sin is a slave to sin.  We make choices. Our choices have meaning and significance. Our choices will always be in line with what we most want. To say that we are robots is then another straw-man, constructed through an emotionally charged statement.  The argument denies the Calvinist belief that the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God in salvation AND the responsibility of man.

A third example is found in the debate on justification by faith alone.  Some would say that if this doctrine were true, then we can do whatever we want with our lives. It’s a license to sin. Again, an emotionally charged statement.  Certainly, this is the belief of some. However, the fact that some become libertines, doing whatever they want, does not detract from the possible validity of the doctrine. Their misapplication of a truth does not automatically prove the alternative position. Certainly, it is my belief that the Bible teaches that justification is not by works, but it is also my belief that true faith exhibits itself with good works, because of the reality of what happens when we experience regeneration. A good tree produces good fruit. Faith without works is a dead faith.

Whatever position one takes- whether evil excludes the existence of God, or free-will excludes the soveriegn unconditional election, or whether we are justified by or without works- emotional appeals does not prove or disprove an assertion. This is not to say that theists, Calvinists, and Protestants don’t engage in the same tactics. That is far from the case. I merely mention these three because they are ones that I happen to see so often.  Appeals to emotion are also used by complimentarians, egalitarians, cessationists, continuationists, and even (surprising, I know!) republicans and democrats.  We should not be driven by “cold logic,” but neither should we assume that something that is emotionally charged automatically proves an assertion.

Can we not stop this mindless rhetoric? Afterall, someone needs to think of the children!