Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
May 15, 1958
NUMBER 3, PAGE 4-5b

And Now, Anti-Logic!

Editorial

Herschel E. Patton, Shelbyville, Tennessee

Mr. Sydney J. Harris writes a column which appears in the Nashville Banner. It seems that he wrote an article in which he said, "Physicians protect each other more than members of any other profession do." He received a number of letters from people objecting to his article in which he declares every one of the more than twenty common fallacies in thinking and arguing are found. He says: "In 'rebuttal' to this contention, I received scores of letters (most of them from doctor's wives) asserting that:

Doctors work terrible hard, at all hours of the day and night.

Many patients don't pay their bills promptly, or at all. Just as many lawyers and architects and dentists do bad jobs, too.

I am just a columnist 'out to make a fast buck.' "

After listing several other such comments, Mr. Harris went ahead to say "Now each and every one of these contentions and allegations might be true — but none of them has anything to do with the theme of my column. They are all glaring logical fallacies, and don't even attempt to answer the problem I posed.

"Unfortunately, this is the way most of us reason when any of our pet beliefs have been stepped on hard. Instead of meeting the accusation headon, we side step, or we counter-attack on some other front."

Back during the restoration movement, Thomas Campbell had set forth the famous motto, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent." "Quite naturally then, when Campbell first spoke these words, and paused, there was a solemn hush that fell across the assembly that showed the intensity of the emotions of the hour. Campbell sat down. A Scottish bookseller, Andrew Munro, a rather sentimental person, was the first to break the silence. 'Mr. Campbell,' he said, `if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end to infant baptism.' Campbell replied: 'Of course, if infant baptism be not found in the scriptures, we can have nothing to do with it.' Thomas Acheson then arose and cried: 'I hope I may never see the day when my heart will renounce that blessed saying of the Scripture, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Saying that he burst into tears. James Foster, who even in Ireland had been opposed to infant baptism, arose and cried out: 'Mr. Acheson, I would remark that in the portion of Scripture you have quoted, there is no reference whatever to infant baptism.' "

On this occasion, it seems that Mr. Acheson would have had the people believe that Thomas Campbell was renouncing that passage of Scripture. Mr. Acheson, as Mr. Foster pointed out, was not meeting the issue but replying with a counter charge.

Years ago when believers were divided and alienated over the Missionary Societies, those who were sincerely opposed to the Society were charged with not believing in evangelism — as being opposed to preaching the gospel to heathen. Instead of meeting the arguments presented by those opposed, many advocates of the Society chose to reply with a counter charge, which actually amounted to a false charge.

Today, many honest, sincere brethren are objecting to institutional orphan homes and federalization in doing the work of the church. Instead of meeting the arguments presented, many choose to reply with a counter charge: "You don't believe in caring for orphans" — "In preaching the gospel by television and radio" — "How many orphans have you taken in?" etc.

Brother Thomas Warren thinks that institutional homes and "Herald of Truth" have been proven scriptural by his "Constituent Element" argument, which he calls "an argument by use of syllogisms." There have been many articles written by various brethren, and debates held, in which they have pointed out what they believe to be errors in Bro. Warren's logic (syllogism). Of course, these articles have not been seen by those who do not read the Gospel Guardian, and such, perhaps, think nothing has ever been written along such lines.

Now, in the February issue of "The Spiritual Sword," a paper edited by Bro. Warren, comes a piece entitled "Anti Objection to Logic Is Sheer Foolishness." Yes, Bro. Warren thinks that those who see error in his logic are actually opposed to logic. He says: "They have denounced syllogism by ridiculously calling them 'SILLYgisms.' " No, Bro. Warren, they have not denounced syllogisms — only your syllogism, and others like it, which they regard as illogical for several logical reasons.

Indeed, the "logical fallacies" mentioned by Mr. Harris, continue to exist among men — even some who profess to be very logical. Oppose someone's logic (syllogism) and you don't believe in logic — oppose the institutional home and you don't believe in little homeless children — oppose the Missionary Society and you don't believe in evangelization — oppose infant baptism and you don't believe the Scripture which says, "Suffer little children" etc.