Reaping what you sow

Last night at my small group we looked at Luke 1, (specifically the passage about Elizabeth being barren). This started a discussion about reaping what you sow and determining which bad events in life are the result of punishment and which are of testing. On the way home I started thinking about this a bit more and realized that there’s an easy way to explain Luke’s point (and Jesus’ in John) using simple laws of logic.Logic tells us the way we can appropriately think about the world. Logic is rooted in the nature of God, meaning that even God obeys laws of logic. That may surprise some of you, but it’s really no different from saying that God couldn’t make 2+3 = 97. This isn’t a limit on God in any way, just the way any rational being’s mind works. For example, imagine I say something like, “If it is raining outside, then the streets are wet.” If you look outside and see that it is raining then you’ll know that the streets are wet. To make it easier to see the structure of this argument we can put it into what is called standard form.

1. If it is raining outside, then the streets are wet.
2. It is raining outside.
3. Therefore, the streets are wet.

This type of reasoning will always guarantee the conclusion. If premise 1 is true, then any time it is raining the streets will be wet. However, sometimes people reason incorrectly like this:

1. If it is raining outside, then the streets are wet.
2. The streets are wet.
3. Therefore, it is raining outside.

Why is this a case of poor reasoning? Because there is no guarantee that the conclusion is true. The streets might be wet because someone isn’t very good at aiming their lawn sprinklers. The conclusion might be true, but there is no guarantee. Okay, now that we’ve gone over a bit of basic logic, we can see that even Jesus used this type of reasoning. But first, let’s revisit what we know about the principle of sowing and reaping. There are many references to this principle throughout Scripture, so I’m going to assume you know what I have in mind. We can present the principle the same way we presented the argument about the streets being wet when it rains.

1. If you sow bad things, you will reap bad things.
2. When you sin, you sow bad things.
3. Therefore, at some point you will reap bad things.

Here again, this will always produce a true conclusion if premise 1 is true. Now, recall that in John chapter 9 the disciples and Jesus come across a man born blind. They asked Jesus whether it was this man’s sin or his parents’ sin that caused him to be born blind. The disciples understood the principle of sowing and reaping. If you sow bad things, you’ll reap bad things. But, they were guilty of fallacious reasoning and Jesus pointed it out to them. We can put this into the same form as we did above.

1. If you sow bad things, you will reap bad things.
2. The man’s being born blind is a bad thing.
3. Therefore, either the man or his parents sowed bad things.

To refute the disciples argument, Jesus gives them a counterexample. He responds that it was neither the man’s sin nor his parents’ sin, but that he was born blind so God could be glorified. Jesus recognized that their argument does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion and he provided an example showing that it doesn’t. Just as it might be true that because we know the streets are wet that it is raining, it might be true that being blind is the result of sowing bad things. But Jesus’ point is that there is no guarantee. It could be that I don’t know how to use a sprinkler very well and it could be that God had another reason for the man being born blind.In conclusion, we know from Scripture that we reap what we sow (both good and bad). But that does not mean we can determine why someone is going through what they are. It could be that it is the result of the principle of sowing and reaping or it could be because God desires that he be glorified and revealed to his creation.

Barry Bonds and Bad Arguments

Just in case you’ve been under a rock the last couple of years, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding Barry Bonds. He recently hit his 755th home run which ties him with Hank Aaron for the all time mark, and will soon hit 756. These last few weeks, listening to sports talk radio has been a virtual smorgasbord of bad reasoning. Since I’m about to start teaching a critical reasoning class in the fall, I thought I’d take a few minutes to highlight a few examples of bad reasoning that have been quite prevalent lately.

On ESPN Radio, I recently heard Amy Lawrence make an argument that went basically like this:

“Barry Bonds has never failed a steroids test. There is no proof that Bonds used steroids, so you can’t tell me that he did. In fact, if you say Bonds did use, then you’ve got to also say that everyone else used. We don’t have evidence that Alex Rodriguez didn’t use steroids so we can’t know that he didn’t.”

Now I don’t want to just sit here and bash on Lawrence because a lot of other people have made similar arguments, but this one is particularly bad because of the second argument about Rodriguez inserted at the end. Here’s why her argument is bad on a variety of levels.

1. Lawrence assumes that the only type of evidence is scientific evidence. If I think you’ve cheated in some way, then, according to Lawrence, the only way I can prove it is if there is a scientific test I can administer that’ll come back with certain results. The problem with this should be obvious. We make judgments all the time without scientific evidence. A couple gets divorced because one has good reason to think the other is cheating. No scientific evidence needed. A parent grounds the oldest child for tormenting the younger one. No scientific evidence needed. In both cases, all that is rationally needed is good reasons to think the spouse is cheating or the older child is being a brat.

   Now, are there other types of evidence available that gives us good reason to think Barry Bonds cheated? Of course. First, just look at the guy. The old eye test does wonders. Men over 35 don’t magically grow larger heads. He doesn’t just have a more muscular body, his head has actually gotten bigger (and you just thought it was his ego). That’s part of what human growth hormone (HGH) does to you. Secondly, there’s a book, The Game of Shadows, that details his usage with transcripts from informants, patterns of usage, dosages, etc. that clearly indicate he was using. Of course, the authors could’ve made it all up, but I haven’t heard one word from someone contradicting the evidence they provide. Finally, and the most damning in my opinion, is the fact that he admitted to using steroids under oath. Even if he didn’t know “the cream” and “the clear” were steroids (both of which he admitted to using), that doesn’t mean he didn’t use them. (“I’m sorry officer, I didn’t know this grass I was smoking is marijuana” usually doesn’t work.) The question shouldn’t be if he was using steroids, it should be if he knew he was using steroids.

   All this doesn’t just apply to Lawrence, these are all mistakes many people make when discussing the Barry Bonds and steroids issue. Next we’ll see a less common mistake (less common because it’s much worse).

2. Amy Lawrence suggests that if we say Bonds used steroids without “evidence,” then there’s no way to prevent someone from saying the same thing about Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod). This is a really bad argument because it boils down to nothing more than an argument from ignorance. The argument goes something like this:

   “We don’t know that A-Rod didn’t use steroids. Therefore, we can’t say that he didn’t.”

   In my critical reasoning class I teach the students that one way of refuting an argument is by logical analogy. Pretty much, you come up with a different argument that has the same structure that leads to an obviously wrong conclusion. So, let’s do that with Lawrence’s bad argument about A-Rod.

   “We don’t know that giant invisible martians don’t live on the moon and control everything we do. Therefore, we can’t say that giant invisible martians don’t live on the moon and control everything we do.”

   Same argument structure, crazy conclusion. So, we’ve seen that each part of her argument is flawed, but there’s another problem with the big picture.

3. In arguing about Bonds, Lawrence sets up a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is an argument that tries to make a person choose 1 of 2 options when there is really more than those 2 options. Here’s how she committed this fallacy.

   Option 1: We don’t say Bonds used steroids.
   Option 2: We do say he used steroids & have to say the same thing about A-Rod.

   Lawrence leaves out the fact that we can say Bonds used steroids even though we don’t have a positive steroid test because we have other good reasons to say he did use them. The reasons we can say Bonds used steroids do not apply to A-Rod (doesn’t look abnormally large or have a growing head, but instead looks like a professional athlete would look given his workout regimen, there’s no detailed book giving other reasons to think he used, and he’s never admitted to unknowingly using in court).

So, thank you Amy Lawrence for providing me with many great examples of poor reasoning. After first hearing these really bad arguments I thought I’d just put in a CD whenever you fill in for someone, but now I think I’ll stay tuned in to see what other examples of poor reasoning you provide.

Arguments, Truth, and the Church

At some point we all need to learn how to evaluate that which we believe and ascertain whether or not our beliefs are worth holding. In talking with a friend a while back, we decided that many within the Church have a general distrust of reflection and critical evaluation and so never examine their own beliefs. This is quite an unfortunate phenomenon and has especially troubled me the last few months. More recently, I’ve come to believe that one of the major causes for this sad state of affairs is fear. Many people are afraid that they are wrong and that the positions they hold will be exposed as fallacious. Exacerbating the problem is the place of importance these positions typically hold. However, all is not lost. This fear of being wrong (or of argumentation in general) can be removed once people begin to understand that it is a good thing to discover the ways in falsehood has crept into our belief system.First, we need to have a better understanding of what an argument is. When I talk of arguments or argumentation, I most certainly don’t mean the screaming and yelling matches that you had with your siblings (hopefully just when you were younger!). What I do mean is the methodical laying out and examination of one’s positions. This alone can resolve tensions between two apparently different positions. If you tell me, “God is omnipotent and so can create square circles” and I say “God is omnipotent and yet cannot create square circles” you are likely to accuse me of not really believing in God’s omnipotence. But, once I present my argument in a more structured way, you will likely see why I affirm God’s omnipotence and yet deny his ability to create square circles.Now that we’ve seen what I’m not referring to, we can talk about some tips for considering other people’s arguments. First, it is imperative that you listen to the person state his position and remain open to the idea that you are wrong and not him. This humility is likely to create an environment where you are actually trying to understand his position and not just look for a way to squeeze in your thoughts about why he is wrong. Second, learn how to state the other position in a way that is acceptable to the other person. This forces you to ‘get’ their position. Once I understood why someone would be a Calvinist, I stopped thinking they’re just crazy. If you can only restate the position in a ridiculous or question-begging way, then you’re not actually dealing with that position but instead a caricature of something someone holds dear. I think these are simple practices that we should always try to keep in mind no matter who we are dealing with, but I think they are mandatory when discussing issues within the Church. Christ prayed for his Church to be one, and today we are far from that. As we obtain truth about God and his relationship with us, we will see denominational differences begin to fade.You’ve no doubt noticed a lot of talk about ‘truth’. At this point you might even ask why should we bother with this outdated notion of truth. Why not just keep on marching along in what we already know? Well, because if we deny that there is truth that we can obtain, it seems we also deny that we have the ability to know God and about him. John Polkinghorne has said, “If God is the god of truth, then the more truth we have, the greater understanding we have; the more we are learning about God.” Understanding that knowing truth is knowing God will do wonders to alleviate the fear of being wrong. Why is that? Because being ‘right’ is just simply overrated. Once you know that you’re right (or think you know), you no longer need to learn any more about your own positions or about those of others. If you are humble enough to recognize that you might be wrong, then you’ll continue to seek the deeper understanding that ultimately results in a deeper knowledge of God.Not only should we be open to the idea of being wrong, if we come to learn that we indeed are wrong, we should rejoice. False beliefs ultimately lead us astray from the God of truth, and so we should be glad when we are able to remove them from our lives. So, if in reading this you find that I’m mistaken about certain things, great! Please, take the time to point out my errors to me so I may seek to remove them and find that which may appropriately take their place. Blessings.