The Straw Man
From the wikipedia entry:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted. [emphasis mine]
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it
Probably the most often observed logical fallacy in the Christian blogosphere is that of the straw man. It typically appears in the form of:
- Person A said X, but what they really mean is Y. (where Y is easily refuted)
- Person A said X. In other words, Y. (where Y is easily refuted)
- Person A said X. Isn’t it horrible that Person A denies Z (where Z is easily supported, but X does not necessarily correspond with an opposing viewpoint to Z)
Straw man arguments are not necessarily intentionally deceptive. Sometimes a straw man is unintentionally set up when a writer tries to paraphrase what another person has written, because they truly do not understand what the other person meant.
If you are paraphrasing another person, the key question to ask is:
Would the person I am paraphrasing read my paraphrase and say ‘Yes, that is what I meant’? If the answer is “no”, then I am creating a straw man and bearing false witness against my neighbor.
In approaching and dealing with potential ’straw man’ arguments, it is first important to be clear on what ‘X’ is (what Person A said) and whether or not ‘Y’ is acceptably analagous to ‘X’. If the writer is conscientious and has unintentionally built a straw man, he or she should recognize it as such and relent. However, if it is clear that ‘X’ does not have to mean ‘Y’ and/or the original author would not interpret their statement of ‘X’ as being ‘Y’, then the critic should be recognized as acting in bad faith.
Example 1:
[Y]ou need to understand that his embracing of mystery is Emergent-speak for the practice of contemplative mysticism.
Here, the critic has taken one concept from the emerging church (the allowance of and embrace of mystery within the scripture) and attributed it to a specific, unrelated practice (contemplative mysticism).
Example 2:
At Mosaic, godliness means following your dreams for God, and obedience means taking the necessary risks to accomplish this.
Here, the author has taken a statement from the Mosaic church and has re-defined words to mean something other than what their plain meaning, and the meaning of the community, intends. In short, he twists their words to create a lie about them.
Example 3:
According to McKnight, to most in the Emerging movement, “how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes.” In other words, Emerging Christians tend to think good works generally trump sound doctrine.
Here, we actually have two fallacies combined. First, McKnight’s commentary on -praxis and -doxy is taken out of context and treated at a singular thought. Secondly, and here is the straw man, Scot McKnight’s eisogeted commentary is further extrapolated to something that he would not agree with (in this particular example, Scot McKnight replied in the comments section that this was exactly the case, removing any doubt of the straw man’s creation.)
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 am
Regarding Example #1.
This is not a straw man argument because the critic has not made an arbitrary or ambiguous comparison of one thing to another known thing. They are not arguing from the known to the unknown. Rather, he is making an emphatic statement; a statement that depends upon the definition of “emergent-speak”. There’s a world of difference there. I think that what you think you see there is actually called a non-sequitur.
If they had said, “the embrace of… is the same as…” and then went on to attack “as”… THEN you would have the straw man argument.
But they did not do that.
They stated that the one was “emergent-speak” for the other. They claimed “equivalency” and you will first have to disprove the equivalency. And even then, you will still not have a straw man argument. The issue has to be first settled as to whether or not the one actually IS “emergent-speak” for the other before you can go any farther.
If it is, then the critic’s criticism is perfectly valid (assuming that “contemplative mysticism” is worthy of criticism).
Example #2. What if it doesn’t matter what the words actually mean, but rather what the speaker intends them to mean?
Think on it for a while. It’ll come to you. Maybe…
Example #3: “How a person lives is more important than what they believe.” There’s no “context” to take it out of. It’s a plain, self-contained statement that is either true or false. There’s no possible context into which it could be dropped that would change it’s “meaning.” It is, again, an emphatic statement. It’s is immune from the “effects” of context. The question is, quite simply, did the dude say “how a person lives is more important than what they believe?” If they said that, then how is that significantly different from “good works beat sound doctrine?”
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
KW -
1) The article from which Example #1 was taken does exactly what you’ve suggested WOULD make it a straw-man (attacking the “as”), and “embracing of mystery” is NOT the same as “contemplative mysticism”, thus the straw-man.
2) in Ex #3, it’s NOT a self-contained statement - it lifted sans context from a larger work which defines the implied meaning as something other than what Silva painted it to mean…
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 am
The straw man has been a widely used argumentative vehicle. However, in these latter days, Ihave found the Tin man to be much more effective. I am not sufficiently versed as of yet to attempt the Lion.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
K W
To disprove the “equivalency” is easy. Many of the things that are mystery are not even relation to “contemplative mysticism”… or at least how the ODM’s redefine historical Christian mysticism.
In fact the fallacy is even greater than this, as it states then that belief in the mystery or the church, the new man as the Jew and Gentile are now “one man”, the mystery of the Trinity and on and on are things that sometimes are just beyond understanding, (though not all of those things) yet even in say, not fully understanding the Trinity, we can embrace the mystery of it. They same as things like “Christ crucified for me.”
So, often the redefinition of things like “contemplative mysticism” as the ODM’s have done throws out much of historical Christianity and makes men like Athanasius of Alexandria who gave us the Canon of Scripture and the Nicene Creed in to suspect as heretics themselves for he also gave us St. Anthony who was a desert mystic monk.
So to go as far as the ODM’s do we must then toss out much of sound doctrine and what we base that sound doctrine on.
The real fallacy is that the ODM’s have brought the Bible into suspect itself by tossing all “contemplative mysticism” into the evil RCC pile to be burned.
To me it is out of ignorance of the historical Christian church… it is the not understanding that Augustine and St Bernard, and Thomas Aquinas and on and on were also “mystics” and in that line, we find Luther and Calvin… so even the Reformation becomes suspect as to it being influenced by desert Christian mysticism. Again, I really don’t care if the ODM’s use a straw man argument or not. It is that they toss the baby out with the bath water and in their ignorance ravish historical Christianity without realizing what they are even doing. Ignorance can be overcome, yet to do so, often one must acknowledge their pride that they do not know as much as they think and may need more education that having listened to Walter Martin tapes and writing a few articles on Mormons. In fact there are some great “free†courses available online that teach historical Christianity.
iggy
February 24th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Kirby: There’s no “context†to take it out of. It’s a plain, self-contained statement that is either true or false.
Chris: in Ex #3, it’s NOT a self-contained statement…
If you will excuse me for shamelessly plageurising: “An argument is not simply contradiction. It’s not merely saying ‘No it isn’t'…”
“Yes it is…”
“No it isn’t”
All you’ve done is contradict me. The dude says, quite plainly, and I quote, “how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes.†If the quote is accurate, then it’s an emphatic statement. There IS NO context. (Again, assuming that the quote is what the guy actually said). If it is, it stands completely upon it’s own merit as it is not appealing to authority. If he had said, “The bible says that it’s more important how you live than how you believe”, then maybe. Not so here.
And simply saying “no it isn’t” isn’t gonna get us anywhere.
And DON’T come back with “yes it is!” I didn’t pay for an argument!
(I can hear it now… “AHA… if you didn’t pay, then…”)
February 24th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Iggy,
I think I see your point, and if I’m understanding you right, then I would have to say I agree with at least that one part that I understand. In fact, there’s a scripture that from years and years ago, I could swear I read in the Bible and then could never again find - even with an online Bible with a search button! It was something about God, in the last days, was going to do “a mysterious work” - it made it sound like it was something that no one was going to expect, that would take everyone by suprise…
But in any case, we would have to be in agreement if we are talking about “mystery” meaning that there are aspects and attributes of God that we can never fully grasp or understand - not in this life, nor in the life to come. God is FAR larger than our ability to comprehend will ever ascend to.
However, I’m still stuck on my original question. Is the guy’s concept of “mystery” as I described equivalent to the “practice of ‘contemplative mysticism?’
After all, THAT is what is being claimed here. Is it true or not?
All you have done in your response is to define various OTHER types of “mystery” (of the Church, of the Trinity, etc). But the writer suggested that he simply embraced “mystery.” (period). That is, nondescript mystery. Vague, indistinct mystery. That’s a very different thing from admiting the mystery of GOD or of the TRINITY or of (what I think you suggested was a mystery) Christ’s crucifixion.
Mystery wrapped up in the things of God, yet that are still directly attributed to him are one thing. But “mystery” without specific relation or definition is, well, a mystery. And that is NOT of God. There may be atributes of God that are mysterious, but God Himself is NOT a mystery. He has revealed himself quite plainly in as far as it is necessary for man to comprehend what is important to know.
Nondescript, nonspecific, general “mystery” is alien to God who has revealed himself in Christ Jesus. Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” That kinda quells any notion of “general mystery.”
And now, if you will excuse me, I’ve had quite enough of the word “mystery” for at least the next few months.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Kirby, #3 was written at a time that we were examining that particular quote, to which I’ve now added a link to the entire article by McKnight, so that the reader CAN examine that a straw-man was created in this situation…
February 24th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Kirby,
If all we can understand is the “mystery” then we need embrace it until more is revealed… that is what the bible defines as “hope” and “faith”..
John 20:29. Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
1 Peter 1: 8. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9. for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
Romans 8: 22. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25. But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
If you do a study on the word mystery, Paul is speaking of the mystery he is called to reveal. what is truly cool is that we live in that mystery… in that we must embrace it and live in it.
iggy