Evasions Of The Law Of Rationalism -- No. 1
The writer of Proverbs admonishes his readers to "buy the truth and sell it not" (Prov. 23:23). How valuable and inspiring this is. To spend eternity with the Lord, men must come to consider truth to be of highest value. They must so value it that they will spare no pains, cost, or sacrifice to obtain it. And after they have obtained it, they must not allow themselves to be deceived into trading it for any consideration whatsoever; they must keep it in the face of every offer to trade.
It is the desire of the devil that men not obtain truth. But even if he fails in preventing the initial obtaining of truth, he does not despair; he yet seeks to snatch it away by offering the world of sensual pleasure in return. If this fails, the effort is often made to laugh men out of the truth. And even after this fails, there is yet another weapon at his disposal: to fallaciously reason men out of it. This simply means that many times men feel they have reasoned logically to a true conclusion, whereas the truth is they have merely been deceived, or have been guilty of an evasion of the "Law of Rationality."
The pattern for this series of articles has been set by Professor Lionel Ruby, who says, "Every person who is interested in logical thinking accepts what we shall call the 'law of rationality,' which may be stated as follows: we ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence." "Adequate evidence is evidence which is relevant to the conclusion to which it is directed." "When we say that one fact is relevant to another, we mean that there is a connection of some kind between them." This simply means that conclusions must be justified by evidence which is relevant (has connection with) to the question in such quantity and quality as to necessitate the conclusion.
Likely, there are very few people who would boldly challenge the validity of the law of rationality, but it is often evaded. Sometimes this is done deliberately. Sometimes it is done through carelessness or indifference. Some men allow other men to "sweep" them along to false conclusions just because they do not have enough energy and zeal for truth to make a real investigation for themselves. This happens to men in ordinary affairs of life. It happens to members of false religions. It happens to members of the Lord's church.
Men assert a belief; "P is true," they say. When others ask, "Why do you say P is true; what proof do you offer?" they are asking for evidence. They have every right to expect the other person to then give adequate evidence to support the proposition which he has just set forth. As Professor Ruby says, "This adequate evidence should be relevant to the question at issue, and it should be good and sufficient evidence." But many times, instead of such evidence, seekers after proof receive only an evasion of the law of rationality. The attention of the reader is now directed to such evasions. In the main, the outline suggested by Professor Ruby will be followed.
I. The Appeal To Authority This evasion is often called the "Argumentum ad Verecundiam," a Latin phrase "which means the 'appeal to reverence.' A revered authority or tradition is often regarded as infallible, so that anyone who disagrees is in some sense disloyal to that which ought to be revered."
1. Generally speaking, this evasion takes the form of: (1) a thing is felt to be true because some person, who is highly regarded as an authority, said that it is true, or (2) a thing is felt to be true because it is a revered condition. It often manifests itself in the assertion, "This is the way we have always done it." It is then felt that whoever does not do things just that way is disloyal!
2. What is wrong with this? Reverence for certain talented men or traditions is no substitute for evidential proof. Professor Ruby puts it thusly: "The point, however, is this: No belief is true merely because someone says so. It is true because of the evidence in its behalf. When we trust an authority, we merely place credence in the fact that he has evidence." In other words, a proposition should not be held to be true just because some highly revered person said that it was true or because "we have always thought that was true." Men must insist upon adequate evidence before accepting any proposition, and they must ever be open to the examination of any new evidence which may be presented.
3. Examples of this evasion. (1) In everyday affairs. Men once thought that the proposition "the earth is flat" was true. If they had been questioned about why they believed it to be true, likely they would have said, "Why everybody knows the earth is flat." But "everybody" was wrong. In fact, the masses of men have often been mistaken. The "voice of the people" is not necessarily the voice of truth.
(2) In religious affairs. Many men say, "One church is as good as another." When asked for proof, they often say, "Dr. Blank said that it is true," or, "Everybody knows that." Again, men say, "One is saved without being baptized." What proof do they offer? "Dr. Blank said it," or, "Everybody knows that." "John Wesley believed this."
And it is perhaps doubly sad to find this same evasion being used by members of the Lord's church. One says, "It is not right to preach to the church." What proof is offered? "Alexander Campbell said that you couldn't." "David Lipscomb said that you couldn't."
Again, we hear, "The Herald of Truth is a scriptural way of preaching the gospel." Why? "Because the elders at Highland Avenue said it is, and they are men to be highly revered." But a proposition is not true just because certain men said that it was, no matter how highly we may revere them, no matter how much they have served the Lord in days gone by. A proposition should be held to be true because there is adequate evidence to support it, not because certain men said it was true.
Again, the proposition is set forth, "Boles Home is a scriptural institution for caring for orphans." Why? "Because Brother __________________ said that it is," or, "Why, because that is the way we have always done it, or "everybody knows that it is right." But such assertions are no more proof of the scripturality of Boles Home than the assertions of B. H. Carroll are proof that Baptist doctrine is true. The fact that the elders at Highland Avenue feel that the Herald of Truth is right is no more proof of its scripturality than the assertions of the learned professors of a Baptist Seminary is proof that Baptist doctrine is true.
When members of the church accept a proposition as being true just because some highly respected preacher, or some set of elders, or some highly regarded congregation accepts it, they are merely putting faith in the idea that he, or they, have the evidential proof. Surely all can see that such an approach to a "study" of a religious question is wrong.
When congregations look about them and see many other congregations using the Lord's money to build banquet rooms and recreation halls in the meeting houses, and say, "Well, everybody is doing it; let us do it too — it must be right, or else they would not do it," they, in fact, have no proof at all, but are only trusting that the others do have the proof, or have acted wisely.
On the other hand, of course, it is equally true that a given proposition is not wrong just because a certain preacher, elder, or congregation says that it is wrong.
"The Herald of Truth" is not an unscriptural way of preaching just because someone said that it is wrong. If someone or some congregation rejects the Herald of Truth, without examining the evidence, just because some highly respected preacher opposes it, then it has fallen into the same error of those who accept a proposition just because someone said it was true. This is true with all of the previous points which have been raised in this article. Boles Home is no more wrong just because a highly talented preacher says that it is, than eating meat on Friday is wrong because the Catholic "Pope" says that it is.
May I make this appeal to brethren everywhere?
(1) Study the word of God for yourself! Accept nothing as a part of what you believe except what you yourself can see that the Bible teaches.
(2) Do not be afraid to question the practices of your brethren and of yourself. Recognize that it is possible that, while you rebuke your denominational neighbors for following the "traditions of men," you and your own brethren may also be doing some things because of mere tradition and reverence for a highly revered preacher or congregation. A practice is not right just because another congregation accepts it. Neither is it wrong just because another congregation rejects it.
(3) Determine that your practices can be called in question without rancor arising on your part. Determine that you shall study all such questions with candor — without pride, without passion, and without prejudice.
(4) Do not let yourself fall into the error of feeling that one of your brethren is "disloyal" just because he has called in question one of your practices.
Do not let yourself be guilty of the evasion of the law of rationality, "The Appeal to Reverence." "Buy the truth and sell it not." Remember truth has nothing to fear from investigation. The more you "rub" it, the brighter, it shines. — (More to follow.)