Ad Hominem And Defending The Faith.

[treehugger]

I have provided 3 posts from another thread, these posts raise an interesting issue:

(I am not seeking to pick a fight with any poster quoted, I provided the 3 quotes for context.)

A snippet from something I published earlier:

Because LDS apologetics have successfully responded to

numerous anti-LDS arguments, the critics make the following claims in

an effort to dissuade investigators and struggling members from turning

to LDS scholars for help:

1. LDS scholars are not real scholars.

2. LDS scholars engage in ad hominem.

3. LDS scholars are too biased to be objective.

4. LDS scholars are really just paid apologists.

5. FARMS publications are not “peer reviewed.”

6. Non-LDS scholars reject the arguments of FARMS and other

LDS apologists.

7. LDS scholars have changed, and are continuing to change,

the Church and Church doctrine.

These claims have common goals: to prevent members or investigators

with doubts from (a) reading LDS scholarly material or (b) taking it

seriously. Those who study informal logic...refer to this as poisoning the well.

By casting doubt on LDS scholarship

from the start, some of those who encounter anti-Mormon material will

never turn to the LDS scholars for answers. Likewise, those who do

read—or have previously read—LDS scholarly material may be disinclined

to give credence to their arguments.

Shaken Faith Syndrome (2008), pgs. 83-84.

And here we see the anti-Mormon playbook in action....

Mike Ash

While most of those issues are clearly incorrect, wouldn't it be helpful if there was an increased attempt by the apologists to refrain from ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric, something that legitimately is offputting to many seeking answers? I am not saying by far that most, or even the majority do. But a VERY vocal minority of those even on your side can have far more a well-poisoning effect that those outside can do by accusation. An editorial policy of review that specifically has a point to keep the biting ad hominem rhetoric off of the reviews and articles, I think, would go a far way in helping such publications and productions to best fulfill their stated missions.

As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.

I am particularly interested in discussing William Schryers comment - I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications.

William Schrvyer indicates he does not see "significant" use, that indicates he does see some use.

For the point of discussion, is there a time and place for ad hominem in defending the Church. As I understand the meaning of Ad hominem it is too attack the person speaking instead of addressing the issues raised by the speaker. Is such a tactic for defending the faith justified?

(I can think of a few verses, from the scriptures which address satan as a liar, father of lies, and liar from the beginning.)

[treehugger]

The following post of Nomad seems appropriate for discussion here:

Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Do you believe in the restored gospel and the Prophet Joseph Smith?

Because I have found that the people who object to apologetics the most are, generally speaking, those who believe in those things the least. Funny that, isn't it?

....

Bye everybody. Have a great weekend.

The poster Nomad was responding too, was supportive of apologetics, but was not supportive of childish behavior.

Nomad, can you address why you felt the need to attack the beliefs of the poster and subscribe to the poster a position the poster clearly does not support i.e. it is clear the poster is not opposed to apologetics.

Secondly, does someone need to believe in the LDS Faith or even Jesus Christ inorder to believe that negativity, sarcasm and childish behavior is not conducive to adult discussion?

[William Schryver]

It appears to me that you do not understand the meaning of argumentum ad hominem.

None of the posts you cite in the OP is an example of it.

The post from Nomad you cite above is not an example of it.

Did you intend to imply that any of those posts constitute argumentum ad hominem?

[CASteinman]

What is the problem with ad hominem?

[William Schryver]

What is the problem with ad hominem?

I say one step at a time.

I don't believe treehugger understands the concept in the first place. I say let's do a proper definition of terms before we start asking whether or not there is a "problem".

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

It does nothing to further the discussion. It is an attempt to end discussion by drawing attention to the person making the argument, and away from the argument itself.

[treehugger]

It appears to me that you do not understand the meaning of argumentum ad hominem.

None of the posts you cite in the OP is an example of it.

The post from Nomad you cite above is not an example of it.

Did you intend to imply that any of those posts constitute argumentum ad hominem?

I say one step at a time.

I don't believe treehugger understands the concept in the first place. I say let's do a proper definition of terms before we start asking whether or not there is a "problem".

How about we address the OP, which is What role if any does ad hominem play when defending the LDS Faith? The OP indicates that there are complaints of apologist using ad hominem. By your own admission, it can be concluded that you see the use of ad hominem but that you do not find it use significant. The question is, what purpose does ad hominem play when defending the Church and how do we as Latter-Day Saints justify it use.

[mapman]

To clarify, you are asking whether it is appropriate for apologists to examine the motives and beliefs of individuals in addition to their published arguments, right?

[CASteinman]

How about we address the OP, which is What role if any does ad hominem play when defending the LDS Faith?

I presume we are always talking about being honest. I am not referring to mere lies and smears.

I would say it serves three purposes and not necessarily all three at once. Sometimes one, sometimes the other:

1. It labels the opponent according to their bias, making the nature of their objection clearer.

2. It addresses their authority and capability to express valid opinions.

3. It dismisses them as being unworthy of ongoing, meaningful dialog.

[why me]

I think that the problem is that the critics can use ad hominems all the time on their boards. What is unfortunate is that doubters expect the lds to do better and not use such tactics. And yet, many doubters fall under the spell of the critic ad hominems without realizing it and embrace them into their belief system.

If I am correct, something is not right.

[TrespassersW]

For the point of discussion, is there a time and place for ad hominem in defending the Church.

I'm reminded of a story from my mission...

Apparently, in one area a local pastor loved to embarrass the missionaries in public. Whenever he would see them we would call to them loudly and say "Elders! Are you wearing your magic underwear?"

Finally, one missionary who had only recently been transferred in replied to the pastor loudly, "Man, what kind of pervert are you, asking about my underwear?"

According to the story, the pastor was shamed, and he stopped bothering the missionaries.

I don't advocate personal attacks in reasoned discussion. But, on occasion (and this can be true on either side of the aisle) someone can behave childishly, with no interest in the legitimacy of what they are saying. In these cases, reasoned analysis is typically fruitless, and I make it my policy to just ignore them. But every once in a while, I confess, I yield to the temptation to point out the childishness of their behavior. I try to limit this to times when I believe that a little shame will cause them some introspection. Or when it will be _really_ funny.

[Calm]

(I can think of a few verses, from the scriptures which address satan as a liar, father of lies, and liar from the beginning.

Discussing factors that may affect the credibility of the individual in regards to claims he is making is relevant as would be discussing, for example, if a witness has been paid for his testimony at a trial.

Discussing where someone's ideas came from is also considered appropriate for scholarship review.

[Calm]

Or when it will be _really_ funny.

Oh, the temptation can be great, for sure.

[Pahoran]

I'm with Will on this: let's start by agreeing a useful definition of ad hominem as our starting point.

I would suggest that the seven points quoted from Mike Ash in the OP represent examples of ad hominem; ironically, they are used by critics against those who defend the Church of Jesus Christ.

Of course, Mike does not cite sources; he is describing arguments he regularly encounters rather than a specific set of charges made by a specific critic. But I don't think there's any question that these accusations are made.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Brant Gardner]

It really is similar to the Mormons aren't Christian issue. Neither side can quite understand why the other doesn't get what they mean. I really would like to see ad hominem retired for a while. There is a little ad hominem on both sides, but very little in the technical sense. I have seen both sides chastise those who attempt it.

What is the issue behind the imprecise use of ad hominem is that we are often impolite to those with whom we differ--and sometimes downright rude. Unfortunately, we only seem to see the complaint about such rudeness when it crosses our group boundaries. Inside the group, there is very little restraint against what can, at times, be very ugly language about someone (with little effort made to distinguish between the person and his/her ideas). We all hate it when it is directed at our friends, and think it is brilliant when directed at those we perceive as enemies.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't think we need to hear anything more from Brant Gardner on this or, for that matter, any other subject. He has bad taste in rap music.

[Pahoran]

I don't think we need to hear anything more from Brant Gardner on this or, for that matter, any other subject. He has bad taste in rap music.

Since there is no way to form a coherent English sentence containing the phrase "rap music" it is clear that Dan can't possibly know anything about Ancient Near Eastern texts.

This, incidentally, is what I've always understood the ad hominem fallacy to entail. And I cannot recall seeing such an argument used by LDS defenders.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Oh man! Those both deserve Rep Points.

BTW guys, ad hominem generally relates to unrelated subjects... so there is a bit of a gray zone for the issues often talked about in apologetic work/critical work. It isn't 100% clear whether they are ad hominem, all of the time.

[ERayR]

For the point of discussion, is there a time and place for ad hominem in defending the Church. As I understand the meaning of Ad hominem it is too attack the person speaking instead of addressing the issues raised by the speaker. Is such a tactic for defending the faith justified?

(I can think of a few verses, from the scriptures which address satan as a liar, father of lies, and liar from the beginning.)

Abinadi didn't mind getting up close and personal with the anti's and apostates of his day.

Mosiah 12:25-29

Edited May 14, 2012 by ERayR

[Bob Crockett]

On my high horse again.

Arguments about logical fallacies are fruitless. These arguments provide no guidance because (1) everybody uses logical fallacies when it suits them and it seems expedient and (2) most seem to dispute what is, and what is not, a logical fallacy. So, why argue about the medium instead of the message. Pointless.

Saying rude things about somebody's person is not a nice thing to do, but even the best seem to do it.

But, saying rude or insulting things to or about somebody while being anonymous is one of the most despicable things in the blog world. So, when I say rude or insulting things to somebody on a blog or board at least I can pat myself on the back and feel better than everybody else for using my real name.

[DBMormon]

First - Ad Hominem is beneficial in some circumstances. One example - Dr. Walter Martin. He was completely dishonest about who he was and what his credentials were. I think it is perfectly appropriate to tear one down by revealing who they really are if direct factual evidence is provided. By showing him for what he was it takes away all credibility he tried to use as a bully pulpit in getting his views accross.

Edited May 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[treehugger]

Abinadi didn't mind getting up close and personal with the anti's and apostates of his day.

Mosiah 12:25-29

eraye what you fail to realize is written in verse 1 of chapter 12.

-------

it seems Bob C is correct, no one agrees on what it is. William Schyver admits he sees it usage and Paharon claims he does not see its usage.

-------

As for Walter Martin, does his false or misrepresented credentials mean everything he says is suspect? As in once a misrepresentation always a misrepresentation? I am not defending Walter Martin.

Edited May 14, 2012 by treehugger

[ERayR]

eraye what you fail to realize is written in verse 1 of chapter 12.

-------

it seems Bob C is correct, no one agrees on what it is. William Schyver admits he sees it usage and Paharon claims he does not see its usage.

-------

As for Walter Martin, does his false or misrepresented credentials mean everything he says is suspect? As in once a misrepresentation always a misrepresentation? I am not defending Walter Martin.

Is it Ad Hominem to point out when someone is being dishonest?

If someone lies about their credentials anything they say has to be suspect. It is not necessarily wrong but without definative proof it can not be relied on.

Edited May 14, 2012 by ERayR

[Pahoran]

Is it Ad Hominem to point out when someone is being dishonest?

If someone lies about their credentials anything they say has to be suspect. It is not necessarily wrong but without definative proof it can not be relied on.

Strictly speaking, that argument -- pointing out that someone has lied about their own credentials and arguing therefrom that he probably cannot be relied upon to tell the truth in other matters -- fits the definition of argumentum ad hominem. It is arguing "to the man."

However, if it is used to call into question matters where "the man" expects us to trust him to honestly report something, then it could indeed be valid. Those who wish to pose as being too noble to lower themselves to such demeaning behaviour as to actually ask whether someone is a credible witness, might prefer to look the other way; because it is and remains a fair question to ask.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

Abinadi didn't mind getting up close and personal with the anti's and apostates of his day.

Mosiah 12:25-29

Nor did Jesus, our Master

John chapter 8.