Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students

 

Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(Originally published at The Stream; reprinted here with permission.)

 

If recent encampments and protests on university campuses have demonstrated anything, it’s that many of today’s university students are woefully ignorant about Israel and the Israel-Hamas war. Clearly, students have been bamboozled by anti-Israel propaganda and need actual schooling rather than woke indoctrination.

Surprise Quiz!

Here, then, is a surprise quiz. (I have added answers to minimize “triggering” those students who confuse vandalism and waving placards with studying and seeking truth.)

TRUE or FALSE?

1. October 7 didn’t happen.

False. The footage from the Hamas fighters’ bodycams, the testimony of survivors, and forensic investigation provide ample evidence that on October 7, 2023, Hamas brutally murdered more than 1,200 Israelis, injured many more, and took 240 hostages.

2. Israel was occupying Gaza immediately before October 7.

False. Israel gave Gaza its independence in 2005, hoping for peace. In turn, Gaza embraced Hamas — a terrorist organization — and over the past nearly two decades has launched thousands of rockets against Israel and constructed a vast underground war machine.

3. The Israel-Hamas war is about land.

False. See above answer (i.e., Israel gave Gaza back to Gazans in 2005).

Also, Gazans (more generally, Palestinians) have repeatedly rejected Israel’s offers of peace in exchange for land.

In fact, Gaza — led by Hamas — is fighting a religious war against Israel. Hamas is an Islamist terror organization that seeks to exterminate Jews and their Jewish state. Islamists see Israel as a satanic affront to the “true religion” of Islam. Israel is the “Little Satan” (and the U.S. is the “Great Satan”).

4. Israel is committing genocide.

False. Israel is fighting a war of self-defense — a war started by Hamas. And it is Hamas that is the genocidal regime.

In the Israel-Hamas war, Israel is targeting Hamas fighters and is not trying to wipe out Gazans. Hamas, on the other hand, targets all Israelis and wants to exterminate all Jews — whether women or men, children or aged, civilians or soldiers. That is genocide!

Yes, sadly, in targeting Hamas fighters Israel has killed many Gazan civilians. This is a tragedy. But for Hamas it’s a strategy.

Hamas hides behind (and below) Gazan civilians, knowing Israel is reluctant to kill civilians, yet also knowing Israel is morally obliged to risk killing Gazans to stop Hamas and thereby protect Israeli citizens. To Israel’s credit, the civilian-combatant death ratio is low when compared to other cases of urban warfare in recent history. And this is all the more impressive when we also realize that many Gazan casualties are due to the misfiring of many Hamas rockets.

Again: Israel is not committing genocide. Rather, Israel is engaging in self-defense against a genocidal Islamist-jihadist regime — a regime that deliberately sacrifices its own citizens so gullible Westerners will believe it is the victim, and thus not support the only democracy in the Middle East. (In view of the campus anti-Israel protests and the Biden administration’s waffling support for Israel, Hamas is playing its wicked game all too well!)

5. Israel’s military response is not proportional.

False. Class, please put down your placards and put on your thinking caps.

Proportionality in war is not mathematical equality (one side rapes and murders 100 people, so the other side rapes and kills 100 enemies in response — that’s gang warfare). Rather, it involves weighing, on the one hand, possible deaths on one’s own side if opposing military targets are not struck, and, on the other hand, possible deaths of civilians on the other side if the military targets are struck.

Hamas, which the majority of Palestinians (and Iran) support, has vowed to commit the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again in order to wipe Israel off the map and exterminate Jews. Therefore, Israel has been forced to defend itself against Hamas by striking Gaza.

And this is no easy task. Why? Because Hamas has spent nearly 20 years embedding its fighters in hundreds of kilometers of tunnels located under Gaza’s hospitals, homes, schools, and mosques. And this task is all the more difficult because Israel is attempting to target Hamas without targeting civilians, even though many of those civilians have helped Hamas build its war machine.

Therefore, Israel’s military response is proportional. Israel is doing what is needed to prevent a death cult — Hamas — from murdering millions of Israelis.

6. Israel is an oppressor.

False. Again, Israel is acting in self-defense. Again, Hamas brutally attacked Israel on October 7.

If any country is an oppressor, it’s Iran. Iran explicitly advocates for (and even shouts,) “Death to Israel” (and “Death to America”). Also, Iran supports and surrounds Israel with terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Via this “ring of fire,” Iran is attempting to exterminate Israel. That is oppressive!

But aren’t Israel’s Gaza border policies oppressive? Perhaps, though certainly not like that of Iran’s oppression via its proxies (including Hamas). Keep in mind that the efforts on Israel’s part to ensure secure borders between Israel and Gaza are a result of Gaza’s deadly actions against Israel. Remember the almost two decades of rocket fire? Remember the attack tunnels? Israel’s border policies protect Israel from Hamas.

7. Israel should agree to a permanent ceasefire before eliminating Hamas.

False. Hamas (Gaza’s leadership) started the war and so should lay down its arms, return all hostages, and agree to an unconditional surrender. If Israel agrees to a permanent ceasefire before Hamas surrenders and releases all hostages, Hamas will regroup and continue its promised genocidal war against Israel. Moreover, other terrorist groups around the globe will be emboldened by Hamas’s success.

As an Israeli spokesperson said: If there’s a fire, you don’t just put out 80% of it — you put out all of it. It’s the same for Hamas.

Think about it. We didn’t let Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan off the hook until they were thoroughly defeated. And rightly so.

8. Israel is an apartheid state.

False. Israel is a democracy in which Arabs and other minorities (and women) have full rights. There is no apartheid in the State of Israel.

At this juncture, a student might try to justify the apartheid charge against Israel by pointing to the West Bank. But this would be a(nother) mistake.

First, the West Bank is not Israel. It is a disputed territory, of which parts are controlled by the Palestinian Authority and parts by Israel (it’s messy).

Second, yes, Palestinians and Israelis are segregated in the West Bank. But segregation in the West Bank is done for security reasons, not apartheid.

This segregation is no doubt difficult for Palestinians, but it’s not an instance of apartheid (or racism). The segregation and Israeli occupation in West Bank is Israel’s response to the many past Palestinian attacks and suicide bombings against Israel.

Again, it’s not apartheid. It’s not discrimination or oppression based on race or ethnicity. Rather, it’s an attempt to restrain hostile actors. This is an important difference!

To see what real apartheid states look like — which includes discrimination and oppression based not only on race or ethnicity but also gender and sexuality — look at Israel’s neighbors and ask: Why are there so few (if any) Jews living in those countries? Why are women less than first-class citizens? Why does Gaza toss gay people off tall buildings rather than celebrate Gay Pride Month?

End of quiz. Class dismissed. Please leave your placards in the garbage can, clean up your mess on campus, and apologize sincerely to all Israeli and Jewish students on your way out the door.

---

For additional thought, see my article (also at The Stream) “The Problem of the Misleading Headline.”

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor (formerly at Providence University College, Manitoba, Canada) and author of the recent book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War. A PDF of this book is available for free at his blog APOLOGIA or the paperback can be  purchased at Amazon.

New article at The Stream

 

New article at The Stream

Dear readers of APOLOGIA,

I have a new article at The Stream (a Texas-based news and commentary site, with an office in Washington DC): “Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students.”

Al Perrotta, The Stream’s Washington bureau chief, describes my article as “a really delicious piece … that you must share with your college-aged family members and friends.”

Yes, please feel free to share my article!

Hendrik

 

Correction of mistakes, again

Correction of mistakes, again

Letter to the editor, by Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 9, 2024

EDIT/CORRECTION: My letter was not published in The Carillon (I don't know why). I thought it had been published there (maybe it will appear next week). My mistake. Nevertheless, below is my letter.

 

Rick Loewen in his recent letter to The Carillon (May 2, 2024) continues to accuse Michael Zwaagstra and me of justifying baby killing in the Israel-Hamas war. This accusation is serious—and false—so I feel obliged to reply.

Mr. Loewen fails to realize, as I argued in my previous letter (April 18), that Michael and I are not defending infanticide. Rather, we are discerning that the moral culprit of the death and destruction in Gaza is Hamas, not Israel.

In fact, Loewen’s latest letter completely ignores my point that Hamas started the war on October 7 by murdering 1200+ Israelis (including women and children), injuring many more, and taking 240 hostages. If this isn’t starting a war, what is?!

And Loewen completely ignores my argument that, although the death of Gazan civilians (including children) is a tragedy, for Hamas it’s a strategy. Hamas uses Gazan civilians as human shields (so-called “martyrs”), knowing Israel will inadvertently kill them while targeting Hamas—because Israel is morally obligated to protect Israeli men, women, and children from Hamas.

Why would Hamas do this? It’s because Hamas is a fanatical Jew-hating, genocidal, Islamist-jihadist terror group that has vowed to destroy all of Israel. (I’m not making this up. See the Hamas Charter.)

Instead of acknowledging that Hamas is the moral culprit, Loewen argues that Israel is an apartheid state, as if this alleged apartheid justifies Hamas’s brutal attack. But Loewen is once again mistaken.

Loewen points to the West Bank in which Palestinians and Israelis are, sadly, segregated. But the segregation in West Bank is for security reasons, not apartheid.

The West Bank is a disputed territory of which parts are controlled by the Palestinian Authority and parts by Israel. It’s messy and no doubt difficult for Palestinians, but it’s not racism or apartheid. The segregation and occupation is Israel’s response to past Palestinian attacks and suicide bombings against Israel.

At this juncture, it should be emphasized that the West Bank is not Gaza. We are talking about the war in Gaza, after all. So pointing to West Bank is a dodge. We should maintain our focus on Gaza if we wish to know why Gaza attacked Israel.

Perhaps this brief history lesson will help. Prior to 1967, Gaza was controlled by Egypt. In May of 1967, Egypt and its Arab neighbours were poised to invade and destroy Israel. But in the Six Day War of June, 1967, Israel pre-emptively defeated Egypt and its Arab neighbours. Subsequently, Israel occupied Gaza as a defensive measure against Egypt. But in 2005 Israel completely withdrew from Gaza and allowed Gaza to become its own independent state. The hope was for peace.

Sadly, in response to Israel giving Gaza its freedom and independence, Gazans embraced the genocidal, Jew-hating, Islamist-jihadist terror group known as Hamas. Then, over a period of almost 20 years, Gaza fired thousands of rockets at Israel and constructed a vast tunnel-based war machine to launch further attacks against Israel. This climaxed on October 7, 2023, when Hamas (and Gazans) invaded Israel.

All this to say: Islamist antisemitism, not apartheid, was the reason for Gaza’s brutal attack against Israel.

The fact remains, then, that Israel is a democracy whose minorities, including Arab citizens, have democratic rights. Sure, Israel is not a perfect state (no state is!), but it’s not an apartheid state.

I call on Mr. Loewen to agree to a ceasefire: Please stop spreading falsehoods about Israel, Michael Zwaagstra, and me.

P.S. Perhaps read my book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War. It’s available for free (in PDF format) at my blog APOLOGIA or it can be purchased inexpensively (in paperback) at AMAZON.

 

Correction of mistakes

Correction of mistakes

Letter to the editor, by Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, April 18, 2024

Thank you to columnist Michael Zwaagstra (The Carillon, April 4, 2024) for providing a positive review of my new book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War.

I wrote that little book because there is so much poor thinking about the terrible war between Israel and Gaza (led by Iran-backed Hamas), a war that is now (as I write this letter) threatening to expand directly with Iran.

Sadly, the need for my book was confirmed by a recent letter to The Carillon by Rick Loewen (Columnist justifies infanticide, April 11, 2024). Mr. Loewen makes three serious mistakes, which I wish to correct.

Mistake 1

Loewen says Hamas did not start the war with Israel.

Correction

On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists (and Gazan civilians) illegally crossed the Israel-Gaza border and brutally murdered 1200 Israelis, injured many more, and kidnapped over 200. If this isn’t starting a war, what is?!

Mistake 2

Loewen tries to redirect the blame for starting the war from Hamas to Israel by claiming Israel has been “imposing its brand of apartheid on the Palestinians for years.”

Correction

In fact, there is no apartheid. Israel is a democracy in which Arabs and other minorities have full rights.

Loewen should take a look at the short PragerU video Is Israel an Apartheid State? And he should take a look at the National Post article “It is not apartheid: A quick debunking of the most obvious lies about the State ofIsrael.” [Also see Yoseph Haddad's interview She said Israeli apartheid but doesn't know what apartheid means - Unbelievable! Epic Video‼️ For a deeper dive, also see Chosen People Ministries article Is Israel an Apartheid State?]

Mistake 3

Loewen accuses Zwaagstra—and, by implication, me—of justifying “baby killing.”

Correction

No, we are not justifying baby killing. We are discerning the moral culprit of the death and destruction in Gaza. The moral culprit is Hamas, not Israel. This takes intellectual effort, which is sadly lacking in Loewen’s letter.

Yes, in war many innocents are killed. This is a tragedy. But for Hamas it’s a strategy.

Hamas (who murdered Israeli babies on October 7th) hides behind and knowingly sacrifices its own civilians (including children) in its fanatical and genocidal war to exterminate Jews. In fact, Hamas has no qualms when its own rockets land on its own people (including a hospital) as long as it can lie to gullible Western media by saying the rockets are from Israel.

Remember Gaza’s al-Ahli hospital? Western media, believing Hamas, blamed Israel. But the rocket came from Gaza, not Israel.

Remember Israel’s Barzilai hospital? Probably not. Much Western media was silent about the fact it was struck by at least three direct rocket hits from Hamas.

Because of the horrible images of dead Gazans supplied to us daily by Western media, we might be tempted to think Israel’s military response is not proportional. But this misunderstands proportionality, which is what Hamas wants. (This has been called the CNN Effect, employed by Hamas, whereby the horrific images of bloodshed play on the oft-emotion-based moral reasoning of Western observers, thereby thwarting sober-minded moral discernment.)

Proportionality in war is not mathematical equality (one side rapes and murders 100 people, so the other side rapes and kills 100 enemies in response). Rather, it’s complex: It involves weighing, on the one hand, possible deaths on one’s own side if opposing military targets are not struck, and, on the other hand, possible deaths of civilians on the other side if the military targets are struck.

Because Hamas, which is supported by the majority of Palestinians (and Iran), has vowed to commit October 7th over and over and over again—to wipe out Israel—Israel has been forced by Hamas to defend itself against Hamas by striking Gaza. And this is no easy task, because Hamas has spent nearly 20 years embedding its fighters in hundreds of kilometers of tunnels located under Gaza’s hospitals, homes, schools, and mosques. And this task is all the more difficult because Israel is attempting to target Hamas without targeting civilians (even though many of those civilians have aided Hamas in building its war machine). To Israel’s credit, the civilian-combatant death ratio is low when compared to other cases of urban warfare in recent history.

Hamas knows that Israel has a duty to protect Israeli citizens from annihilation and Hamas knows that many Gazan civilians will be killed in the process, yet Hamas launched its October 7 attack on Israel and continues to wage war on Israel, continues to hold Israeli hostages, and continues to hide behind Gazans.

Michael Zwaagstra’s and my work is, then, not a justification of baby killing, as Loewen alleges. Rather, it’s a justification of not allowing a death cult—Hamas—to murder millions of Israelis and sacrifice Gaza in the process.

In other words, proportionality in war involves careful reasoning, which is, in Loewen’s letter, missing in action.

On the notion of proportionality in war, which needs careful examination—not superficial or biased examination à la Loewen—I encourage a look at my book. The pdf version is free and can be downloaded at my blog APOLOGIA. [The book is also presented, chapter by chapter, as instalments on my blog.]

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba.

 

Careful thinking

Stefonknee Wolscht: 52-year-old father of 7, now a 6-year-old girl with "parents"

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, April 14, 2016

Careful thinking

Please think carefully about the following three theses.

1. “Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.”

For this thesis to make moral sense depends on what one believes “a better person” is. It also depends on what one believes is behaviour that is good or what a better person ought to do.

Ted Bundy (rapist and murderer of 20+ women) believed that “a better person” is one who is daring and willing to rape and murder.

In other words, ideas have consequences, so the idea, i.e., what is believed, matters.

As philosopher David Horner points out, “what we believe will determine how we behave, and ultimately who we become.”

Of course, beliefs not acted upon don't amount to much. To paraphrase the Apostle James: belief without behaviour is dead.

But we should also add the whole counsel of Scripture (and reason): behaviour without belief is blind.

My point: To ensure that our behaviour amounts to something truly good also requires accurate beliefs about what is truly good. (So orthopraxis/ right behaviour implicitly presupposes right belief that orthopraxis is truly good.)

2. “It matters not who you love or how you love, it matters only that you love.”

Yes, this seems loving.

But pause and think: “I love you,” said the married businessman to his good-looking female secretary, as the businessman abandons his young children along with his wife who is dying of cancer.

“I love you,” said the cannibal to his dinner; “I love you,” said the pedophile to the child; “I love you,” said the sadist to his torture victims.

Clearly, we must define “love.” Love has a moral structure and truth content.

Jesus, who Christians believe is God come to Earth as a human being, taught that love is of utmost importance, and He modeled love for us. Significantly, Jesus also taught that He didn't abolish the truth of the moral law—in fact, He intensified it. (Yes, Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, but He also told her to leave her life of sin.)

3. “What I feel is who I am.”

A presently popular idea is that personal identity—i.e., what I am—is wholly a personal matter, a matter merely of subjective feeling/ intuition.

Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner basically holds this view. He feels he is a woman so he is a woman—and so he has had plastic surgery to “feminize” his face and throat, has had hormone therapy for growth of breasts, and may undergo surgery to remove his testicles plus use (mutilate) his penis to construct a “vagina.”

But if my feelings about myself and my identity are trump, what follows?

It means that we must not only accept Jenner's view to be true, but also the claims of “otherkin.”

Otherkin are people who self-identify as—i.e., who feel they actually are, at least in part or wholly—non-human. A young Norwegian woman recently made headlines because she feels she is (and lives as if she is) a cat. Others feel they are foxes, dragons, etc.

If feelings about self and identity are trump, we should also accept the claims of the “transabled.”

Transabled are people who feel that they are impostors if their body is in full working order, so they seek to amputate a limb or otherwise mutilate or disable themselves.

A young American woman felt she would be whole if she were blind, so, with help from a sympathetic psychologist, blinded herself with drain cleaner.

But, surely, the truth is that you are not in fact an impostor if your body is in full working order.

Also, there is a case of a 52-year-old Canadian man who feels he is a 6-year-old girl—i.e., he feels he is transgendered and transaged.

Clearly, the view that feelings about identity are trump lands us in obvious absurdities and falsehoods.

Overall lessons: Love is important. So is truth. So is careful thinking.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)


For additional thought:

I have noticed time and again that many intelligent people don't understand the nature of the logic that appears in the third portion of my above article (and in several of my other columns).  The logic being used in the third portion of my article is called reductio ad absurdum. In a reductio ad absurdum argument, we assume, temporarily for the sake of argument, that the view under investigation is true (in the present case, we assume the truth of "what I feel is who I am," i.e., that personal identity—what I am—is wholly a personal matter, a matter wholly of subjective feeling/ intuition, i.e., my feelings about myself and my identity are trump). We approach the view in question with the attitude, "Okay, let's say it's true. What follows logically?" If the logical consequences of the view's assumed truth are false or logically contradictory, then it follows that the view under investigation is false or at least deeply problematic. (Because valid deductive argument disallows the possibility of true premises and a false conclusion, the known falsity of the conclusion/ consequences gotten by valid deductive argument means that we also know the premise/ view can't be true.) In other words, the examples (above) are not arbitrary, disconnected, or "all over the map." They are the logical consequences of the view under investigation. If we accept the truth of feelings being trump over reality, then the truth of the examples should all follow. But clearly they aren't all true. The proper response/ conclusion, then, should be this: the view that feelings are trump over reality is false.

For further reading:

• Hendrik van der Breggen, "Reductio ad absurdum"
• Paul McHugh, "Johns Hopkins psychiatrist: It is starkly, nakedly false that sex change is possible"

Various thoughts (again)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, November 12, 2015

Various thoughts (again)

Sometimes I sit on our deck, quietly puffing on my pipe, and I think. What follows are some of my thoughts. They're somewhat disconnected and perhaps disconcerting—read at your own risk.

● The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba is asking the public for feedback on "Physician Assisted Dying." Here's a wee bit of feedback from me. Yes, I'm pretty sure we all want physician assisted dying: please don't abandon us as we die, please provide clean sheets, food, and morphine as death takes its course. Thank you. Oh, wait, sorry, I misunderstood: you're actually wondering if I'd like for you to kill me? Maybe the college should be asking the public for feedback on Physician Assisted SUICIDE. Just saying.

● The Supreme Court of Canada says physician assisted suicide (er, I mean, "dying") will be legal as of February 6, 2016. Doesn't this reflect poorly on all our efforts on suicide prevention? Are only some suicides worth preventing? National Suicide Prevention Week (revised): Monday to Thursday only?

● The survey from Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons tells us that "Physicians must not impose their moral or religious beliefs about physician assisted dying on patients." Hmmm. Isn't the college imposing the moral belief that life is no longer the default position and so the patient must choose to live or die? (Intellectual health warning: Somebody is having their philosophical cake and eating it too.)

● Physician assisted suicide imposes a terrible burden on the vulnerable. If life is no longer society's default position, then the most vulnerable—the elderly, terminally ill, disabled—must justify their continued existence. This is plain nasty—a kick in the teeth.

● "Progressive" is sometimes a euphemism for "slippery" or "slither."

● Glamour Magazine has named Cecile Richards "Woman of the Year." Yes, this is the woman in charge of Planned Parenthood, the organization that's been killing unborn babies and selling baby parts. And, yes, this magazine awarded the same title to the man Bruce/ "Caitlyn" Jenner. Clearly, glamour ain't what it used to be.

● IVF (in vitro fertilization) involves morally dubious practices and risks: (a) destruction of multiple human embryos (human beings) to get one that "sticks" (in the uterus); (b) possible abortion of excess children if more than one embryo sticks; (c) ongoing frozen "leftovers"; (d) egg harvesting at risk of women's health ("eggsploitation"); (e) increased demand for surrogate mothers ("breeders"); (f) severing of ties to one or more biological parents when anonymous donor sperm or eggs are used; (g) turning of children into commodities. IVF? LOL (lots of lament).

● Science and physicalism/ materialism should be distinguished. Why? Because science—a method (methods) of inquiry—and physicalism/ materialism—a metaphysical philosophical view—might not wholly overlap. We should be open to going wherever the evidence takes us. Maybe a non-physical entity or being (e.g., an intelligent agent/ mind) is a better explanation of the data?

● To dismiss historical investigation of Jesus' miraculous physical resurrection because one thinks that nature's regularities make such a special act by God maximally improbable is to assume that nature's regularities express the whole of God's intentions regarding God's actions, or it is to assume that God doesn't exist. But this is question-begging. (Question-begging is a mistake in reasoning: it's to assume as proven that which is at issue; it's to assume the conclusion in the premises; it's to assume the outcome of an investigation before doing the investigation; it's to put the cart before the horse; it's to commit a philosophical sin—an abuse of reason.)

● Enlightenment/ autonomous reason was an abuse of reason. The problem wasn't reason per se; the problem was the faulty, arrogant assumptions. Abuse or misuse is not a good reason for disuse.

● Jesus is the Logos and the Truth. Think carefully, for Christ's sake.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Reductio ad absurdum

Photo: Jurassic World (2015)

APOLOGIA        

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, August 6, 2015

                

Reductio ad absurdum

               

Reductio ad absurdum is an argument strategy that employs logic to tease out the truth that another argument or claim is flawed. How? By reducing it to absurdity.

Let's look at this argument strategy in general terms, and then let's illustrate with a couple specific examples.

In a reductio ad absurdum argument, we assume, temporarily for the sake of argument, that the view under investigation is true. We approach the view in question with the attitude, "Okay, let's say it's true. What follows?" If the logical consequences of the view's assumed truth are false or logically contradictory, then it follows that the view under investigation is false or at least deeply problematic.

Here is an example from contemporary popular moral thought.

Consider the view that ethics is mere feeling, i.e., what's right and wrong is fundamentally a matter of subjective opinion or taste—there is no real right or wrong.

Let's say this is true, for the sake of argument. What follows logically?

If ethics is mere feeling, i.e., mere subjective opinion or taste, then right and wrong mean "I like" and "I don't like," respectively. Ethics becomes essentially similar to our attitudes to, say, food.

Just as I like chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla, you like vanilla rather than chocolate. No big deal. We're both right.

Cake: yum! Kale: yuck! Good: yum! Bad: yuck! This is the ethics-is-mere-feeling view.

But if the ethics-is-mere-feeling view is true (as we'll assume for the sake of argument), then another claim follows logically as true: just as Jane likes helping people and seeing them flourish, Joe likes torturing people and seeing them writhe in pain. So, if it's true that ethics is mere feeling, then Jane and Joe are both right ethically. No big deal.

Surely, though, that Jane and Joe are both right is clearly false (we know this via moral-rational insight). Hence, the assumption that ethics is mere feeling is flawed.

Here is another example from contemporary popular metaphysical thought (metaphysics has to do with the reality of being).

Let's say that personal identity, i.e., what I am, is wholly a personal matter—again, a matter merely of subjective feeling. My feelings about myself and my identity are trump.

Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner basically holds this view. He feels he is a woman so he is a woman—and so he has had plastic surgery to "feminize" his face and throat, had hormone therapy for growth of breasts, and may yet undergo genital surgery to remove his testicles plus use his penis to construct a "vagina."

But if the view that my feelings about myself and my identity are trump is true, what follows?

It means that we must accept the claims of "otherkin" as true. Otherkin are people who self-identify as—i.e., who believe they actually are, at least in part or wholly—non-human. They believe they are cats, foxes, dragons, etc. If feelings are trump, then they are non-human in fact.

Moreover, it means we must accept the claim of Adrian Van Oyen, who in a YouTube "coming out" video, claims to be a dinosaur. Yes, a dinosaur. And, according to Van Oyen, if you don't accept him for who he is, you are "transdinophobic."

(Note: Van Oyen's two-minute video is a stunt, ending with an image of a "facepalm" to the forehead; nonetheless, it makes an insightful philosophical point.)

Surely, however, the alleged truth of the thesis that my feelings about myself and my identity are trump lands us logically into obvious absurdities and falsehoods. Regardless of what a man feels, he is in reality not a dinosaur, nor a cat, nor a woman.

Feelings are not trump. Reductio ad absurdum.

Objective truth and reality are trump.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

ADDENDA

A. Here are a couple  interesting reductio-ad-absurdum-related bits located here because of space limitations in the main body of my column:

1. If my feelings about myself and my identity are trump, then we should also accept the claims of the "transabled." The transabled are people who feel that they are imposters if their body is in full working order, so they seek to amputate a limb or otherwise mutilate/ disable themselves. But the truth is that you are not in fact an imposter if your body is in full working order. Again, the alleged truth of the thesis that my feelings about myself and my identity are trump lands us logically into obvious absurdities and falsehoods.

2. The Bible is no stranger to logic (which makes good sense because God is the Logos). In fact, the reductio ad absurdum is employed in the New Testament. Paul preaches the resurrection of Jesus (which he and others know to be true) and Paul addresses those who say there is no resurrection of the dead. He argues "if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised" (1 Cor. 15:13). But Paul adds that he testifies to Christ being raised: "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead" (1 Cor. 15:20a). That is, Paul and others know this to be true. D.J. Hill, in New Dictionary of Apologetics, concludes: "So, Paul shows that the assumption that there is no resurrection leads to the contradiction that Christ has both been raised and not raised from the dead." In other words, in view of the known fact that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, the claim that there is no resurrection reduces to the absurd.

B. For further discussion of reductio ad absurdum arguments, see:

1. Julian Baggini & Peter S. Fosl, The Philosopher’s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods, 2nd edition (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 121-122.

2. D. J. Hill, “Reductio Ad Absurdum,” in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, edited by W. C. Campbell-Jack & Gavin McGrath (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2006), 602-603.

Philosophical black holes: Internet memes

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 14, 2015

Philosophical black holes: Internet memes

The internet is a breeding ground for memes (a meme is a saying or image that spreads rapidly over the internet as internet users re-post the saying or image). Some memes promote what I call Philosophical Black Holes, i.e., philosophical ideas that, if not carefully considered, suck unsuspecting readers into intellectual darkness.

Let's take a critical look at three popular memes.

Meme 1. “Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behaviour does.”

Pause and think: for these claims to make moral sense depends on what one believes “a better person” is. It also depends on what one believes is good behaviour or what a better person ought to do.

Didn't serial killer Ted Bundy believe that “a better person” was one who is daring and willing to rape and murder? He did.

Surely, then, we should seek out and believe what's right, true, excellent, and good. Not any behaviour will do. In other words, ideas have consequences, so the idea—i.e., what is believed—matters.

We should of course concede that beliefs not acted upon don't amount to much. Nevertheless, for behaviour to amount to something good requires accurate beliefs about what is the good. To paraphrase the Apostle James (and adding a dash of Immanuel Kant): belief without behaviour is dead, but behaviour without belief is blind.

Beliefs do make you a better person, if you believe—and subsequently act upon—whatever is right, true, excellent, and good.

Meme 2. “It matters not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love, or how you love, it matters only that you love.”

Here's a criticism that cuts to the chase: “I love you,” said the cannibal to his dinner. “I love you,” said the pedophile to the child. “I love you,” said the Marquis de Sade to his torture victims.

Clearly, love has moral boundaries. Love isn't mere subjectivity/ feeling, contrary to what popular culture tells us. Love—true love—has a defining moral structure.

Meme 3 is a doozey: “We live in a society where people can't survive if they're not judging the next person. If you're proud of who you are and don't give two [cents] what anyone thinks, share [this post].”

This meme seemingly presents an attitude against judging others.

But look carefully at the last sentence.

The last sentence makes the implied judgment—yes, judgment—that if I don't share this post, then either (a) I am not proud of who I am or (b) I give two cents about what others think (or both). So, if I don't share the post, I have a problem.

On the other hand, if I do share the post, then I have a different problem. Contrary to what I'm agreeing to in the post, I obviously do care what people think.

How so? By sharing the post, which claims I don't give two cents about what people think, I show that I do give two cents: I obviously want people to think I don't give two cents about what they think! Also (if I'm honest), I probably won't be proud of myself for pretending not to give two cents when in fact I am giving two cents.

So if I don't share the post, there's something wrong with me; and if I do share the post, there's something wrong with me.

In other words, under the pretense of encouraging people not to judge others, the author of this meme is encouraging people to judge others—as are those who re-post it!

Overall lessons: To avoid letting memes suck you into Philosophical Black Holes, read carefully. And, to help others not get sucked into such holes, read carefully before you re-post.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Genetic Fallacy

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, April 7, 2011

Genetic Fallacy

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning or argument. Some fallacies are so common that they have been given their own names. Today we will look at the genetic fallacy.

Philosopher J. P. Moreland explains the genetic fallacy as follows: "This fallacy occurs when someone confuses the origin [genesis] of an idea with the reasons for believing the idea and faults the idea because of where it came from (for example, because of who said it or how the idea first came to believed) and not because of the adequacy of the grounds for the idea."

For example, consider this argument (said by a critic of objective moral truth): You learned about right and wrong from your parents, so your beliefs about the reality of right and wrong should be dismissed.

In reply, let's say it's true that I learned about right and wrong from my parents. We should notice, however, that from this truth it does not follow logically that what I learned should be dismissed as false.

My parents also taught me that Ottawa is the capital city of Canada, that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius (under normal atmospheric conditions), that the Holocaust happened, and that 2+2=4. Surely, whether we should think that a belief is true depends on whether there are good reasons for believing it, not merely on where or from whom it was learned.

C. S. Lewis writes the following as a general reply to those who are inclined to commit the genetic fallacy (Lewis had in mind the Marxists and Freudians of his time): "[Y]ou must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [of argumentation] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly."

So the question that's missed or dismissed by the critic is this: Regardless of whether my parents taught me about right and wrong—regardless of how I "became so silly"—do I have good reasons for thinking that moral truths actually exist? The fact is that I—we—do. (Take a look at philosopher Paul Chamberlain’s book Can We Be Good Without God, available in many libraries, or take a look at chapter 2 of my PhD dissertation, available online.)

The genetic fallacy would have us ignore this fact right from the get go.

Now consider another example (a criticism of Christianity, which is popular in our present postmodern era): You are a Christian because you grew up in a Christian country, but if you grew up in a Muslim country you'd probably be a Muslim—so your religious beliefs should be dismissed.

Okay, let's say it's true that I grew up in a Christian country, and let's say it's true that growing up in a Christian or Muslim country makes it probable that I would be, respectively, a Christian or a Muslim. These are interesting truths. But they're beside the point.

Whether one's Christian or Muslim beliefs should be accepted or dismissed depends on whether there are good reasons for those beliefs, not merely on where or from whom the beliefs were learned.

So the question that's missed or dismissed by the critic is this: Regardless of where I grew up—regardless of how I "became so silly"—do I have good reasons for thinking that Jesus is God and Muhammad isn't? The fact is that I—we—do. (Take a look at philosopher William Lane Craig’s books Reasonable Faith or On Guard, available in most bookstores, or take a look at the rest of my PhD dissertation.)

Again, the genetic fallacy would have us ignore this fact right from the get go.

Moreland clarifies the problem that lurks at the heart of the genetic fallacy by drawing much-needed attention to an oft-missed distinction. In answering the question—Why do you believe in x?—the genetic fallacy gains traction because people tend to confuse a psychological-sociological originating "why" with a rational-justifying "why."

To be sure, answering the why question in terms of personal or social origins is interesting and important from the point of view of psychology and sociology. Personality quirks and motives plus social and cultural contexts can and do influence what we believe—and it's good to be aware of this. (Think of Joe whose ego is so huge that he believes he can never do wrong, or think of Jane who is racist because she grew up in a society that promotes the view that one race is inferior to another.)

Nevertheless, and this point is crucial, answering the why question in terms of whether the belief is actually well grounded in truth and reason is a different, independent question—and answering this question allows us to assess the logical and truth-related merits of the psychological and sociological influences. (By discerning truth, we can know that both Joe and Jane are mistaken.)

Why do you believe in x? Answers to the psychological-sociological “why” may provide grounds to suspect that belief in x is problematic, but answers for the rational-justifying “why” must be dealt with first.

The genetic fallacy occurs, then, when one thinks that the psychological and sociological factors in an idea's discovery are the whole story when in fact there's another, more fundamental story—one that has to do with the testing and justification of the idea via truth, evidence, and critical reasoning.

What's silly is the genetic fallacy.

P.S. For further reading on the genetic fallacy, I recommend C. S. Lewis's essay "Bulverism" which can be found in his book God in the Dock. (Lewis's book is available in most libraries and bookstores; his essay is also available online).

Update: Here is a very short video interview with William Lane Craig on the Genetic Fallacy: The One Minute Apologist.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)