Rhetorical Devices
"That's pure sophistry, Althalus."
"Of course it is. Sophistry's the basis of any good religion. Didn't you know that?"
The internet is a wonderful thing. Five clicks and you're down the rabbit hole. At least I didn't run into Keanu Reeves.
Sometimes people complain about nitpicking an argument, about not being able to see the forest for the trees, about Missing the Point. I think many arguments arise from accumulated differences in definition. The forest is made of trees. The details matter. "If you wish to converse with me, you must first define your terms." If two people (or, even more maddeningly, two groups of people) begin by talking about two completely different things without realizing it, that's an argument that's going to go nowhere in fantastically convoluted, recursive spirals. This can be frustrating when the two sides have legitimate differences of opinion that would be clarified (though not resolved) by rigorous debate. However, there is an up side: fascinating (and occasionally hilarious) rhetorical strategies, many of which rely on the very misunderstandings and vagaries that obscure meaningful conversation in the first place.
So. This is what you do if you want to "win" an argument (whatever the hell THAT means) with the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy:
1. Whatever your opponent accuses you of doing, accuse them right back.
It doesn't matter if it's true. When both sides are saying the exact same thing, it becomes a game of he-said-she-said, which means that emotion will dictate people's responses. And let's face it: no one is really interested in bringing the full force of logic to bear on the opposing argument. Sophistry is the name of the game.
Example:
There are some common terms that tend to crop up in critiques of Creationist works. One of these turns of phrase describes a typical Creationist technique as the "god of the gaps" argument. It goes something like this: contemporary scientific theory does not adequately explain X, therefore X is evidence of God's intervention in the material world. Of course, if X is subsequently explained by groundbreaking scientific research, the creationist position is adjusted accordingly. Wherever there is a "gap" in scientific knowledge (in other words, whatever interesting scientific problems are currently being researched) God is offered as a better explanation.
I was reading this book review and came across a Creationist quote which chided Francis Collins for committing the "Darwin of the gaps" fallacy. See what he did thar? It's important not just to boomerang the argument back at them, but to mirror the language as well. Especially if it's clever language.
2. Always use value-laden terms.
The classic example on this one isn't from the Creationist controversy at all. It's been years since anyone talked about abortion without using terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice." But you'll notice that these terms are rarely found together. If someone is "pro-life" then they are against "abortionists" or something similar. And if someone is "pro-choice" their opponents are "anti-abortion." It's a not-so-subtle psychological hint about who is wearing the white hat. The good guys are always for something; the bad guys want to tear something down, make baby Jesus cry, etc.
The very word "atheist" has negative connotations for most Creationists. They use it every chance they get, and associate it with evolution whenever possible. They also talk about Darwin a lot. Because they frequently describe Darwin's personal failings (atheist!), his name has negative connotations as well: associating his name with evolution associates the science with a villainous character and neatly sidesteps the changes that have been made to evolutionary theory since Darwin. And let's not forget about that scary word: theory. That's a classic. To a Creationist, a theory is the same thing as a guess, which is the same thing as a religion. And if it's a religion, then the Creationist view is equally valid. And by the way, there's Rule #1 again. If Creationism is a religion, then so is evolutionary theory!
3. Always accuse your opponent of being well-funded.
It is common knowledge that rich people are Evil. You would think that Creationists, being (by and large) economically conservative, would not vilify proponents of evolutionary theory on the basis of financial success, but here it is (from the same source linked above):
"The natural tendency is to rely on the testimony of a winsome, credible scientist like Collins. That's particularly the case when said scientist's school of thought is well-funded, while those from different perspectives search for crumbs."
I should point out that evolution enthusiasts (how's that for a value-laden term?!) slam Creationism for this all the time. But you expect that from the Liberal Conspiracy. Creationists, on the other hand, are supposed to be capitalist-friendly. Just goes to show that not everybody punches their liberal or conservative card in the same spots.
It's just that it's a great ad hominem. It's a simple, effective way to make yourself the underdog, bravely standing up to the bully waving his bags of cash around, knocking old ladies into the street and drowning puppies in seas of green paper...
This is probably a good time to mention some other effective ad hominem techniques.
4. Always ridicule your opponent for his rhetorical techniques.
WTFmeta-ed.
Also common knowledge: people who use rhetorical devices are Evil. Anyone who does not plainly speak their mind is a silver-tongued agent of the devil (metaphorically speaking...I hope). If you can portray your opponent as someone who is trying to pull one over on the reader, you don't have to deal with the logic of their argument.
This often leads to talking about some secret (or not so secret) agenda. Because people with a Plan are Evil. If you ascribe your opponent's strategy to a larger, more sinister goal, the evilness of that goal bleeds into the smaller argument they are currently making.
Proponents of evolution typically do this by referencing the "Wedge document." This was written some time ago as a sort of manifesto for the Discovery Institute. It describes their anti-evolutionary agenda (see how evil it sounds when you put it like that?) as part of a larger plan to overthrow methodological materialism. So, because they have a broader goal, their specific goal is suspect.
Again, the same review I linked above: contains the first reference I have ever seen to the evolutionist "wedge."
"Theistic evolutionists are the pointed end of Darwinians' wedge strategy: By making evolution "theistic" Darwinians hope to divide Christian against Christian."
That's Rule #1 right there. Also #2: who the hell refers to themselves as a "Darwinian?!" Answer: nobody. It's Creationist name-calling. (Yes, yes. I do it too: every time I use the words "creationism" and "intelligent design" interchangeably.) And look at the way we are encouraged to ignore the fact that theistic evolution (a term which is not defined, of course, so here's a definition: evolution happened and God exists BAM) is a CHRISTIAN invention. The implication here is that, because some atheists have written about theistic evolution, they came up with it. Therefore, any Christian who accepts this concept is a PATSY for the liberal atheist AGENDA. And agendas are EVIL. Etc.
But what I find particularly amusing about this example is the implication that Christians need any help dividing. Are atheists really to blame for the nine thousand denominations that exist worldwide? We argue more with each other than we do with everyone else on the planet combined. If you don't believe me, Google "transubstantiation." Go ahead. I'll wait. (I really won't.)
I suppose these rhetorical tricks stick out more when they are used to support opinions I disagree with. I certainly don't mean to imply that Creationists are the only people on the planet who use shamelessly illogical rhetorical tricks to convince people of their point of view. Neither do I mean to imply that rhetoric is always bad. On the contrary, rhetoric is inescapable. It's like philosophy: if you think you don't have one, it just means you're unaware of what it is. I guess I just find it interesting the way these blatant ploys surface when people engage such controversial topics.
"Of course it is. Sophistry's the basis of any good religion. Didn't you know that?"
The internet is a wonderful thing. Five clicks and you're down the rabbit hole. At least I didn't run into Keanu Reeves.
Sometimes people complain about nitpicking an argument, about not being able to see the forest for the trees, about Missing the Point. I think many arguments arise from accumulated differences in definition. The forest is made of trees. The details matter. "If you wish to converse with me, you must first define your terms." If two people (or, even more maddeningly, two groups of people) begin by talking about two completely different things without realizing it, that's an argument that's going to go nowhere in fantastically convoluted, recursive spirals. This can be frustrating when the two sides have legitimate differences of opinion that would be clarified (though not resolved) by rigorous debate. However, there is an up side: fascinating (and occasionally hilarious) rhetorical strategies, many of which rely on the very misunderstandings and vagaries that obscure meaningful conversation in the first place.
So. This is what you do if you want to "win" an argument (whatever the hell THAT means) with the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy:
1. Whatever your opponent accuses you of doing, accuse them right back.
It doesn't matter if it's true. When both sides are saying the exact same thing, it becomes a game of he-said-she-said, which means that emotion will dictate people's responses. And let's face it: no one is really interested in bringing the full force of logic to bear on the opposing argument. Sophistry is the name of the game.
Example:
There are some common terms that tend to crop up in critiques of Creationist works. One of these turns of phrase describes a typical Creationist technique as the "god of the gaps" argument. It goes something like this: contemporary scientific theory does not adequately explain X, therefore X is evidence of God's intervention in the material world. Of course, if X is subsequently explained by groundbreaking scientific research, the creationist position is adjusted accordingly. Wherever there is a "gap" in scientific knowledge (in other words, whatever interesting scientific problems are currently being researched) God is offered as a better explanation.
I was reading this book review and came across a Creationist quote which chided Francis Collins for committing the "Darwin of the gaps" fallacy. See what he did thar? It's important not just to boomerang the argument back at them, but to mirror the language as well. Especially if it's clever language.
2. Always use value-laden terms.
The classic example on this one isn't from the Creationist controversy at all. It's been years since anyone talked about abortion without using terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice." But you'll notice that these terms are rarely found together. If someone is "pro-life" then they are against "abortionists" or something similar. And if someone is "pro-choice" their opponents are "anti-abortion." It's a not-so-subtle psychological hint about who is wearing the white hat. The good guys are always for something; the bad guys want to tear something down, make baby Jesus cry, etc.
The very word "atheist" has negative connotations for most Creationists. They use it every chance they get, and associate it with evolution whenever possible. They also talk about Darwin a lot. Because they frequently describe Darwin's personal failings (atheist!), his name has negative connotations as well: associating his name with evolution associates the science with a villainous character and neatly sidesteps the changes that have been made to evolutionary theory since Darwin. And let's not forget about that scary word: theory. That's a classic. To a Creationist, a theory is the same thing as a guess, which is the same thing as a religion. And if it's a religion, then the Creationist view is equally valid. And by the way, there's Rule #1 again. If Creationism is a religion, then so is evolutionary theory!
3. Always accuse your opponent of being well-funded.
It is common knowledge that rich people are Evil. You would think that Creationists, being (by and large) economically conservative, would not vilify proponents of evolutionary theory on the basis of financial success, but here it is (from the same source linked above):
"The natural tendency is to rely on the testimony of a winsome, credible scientist like Collins. That's particularly the case when said scientist's school of thought is well-funded, while those from different perspectives search for crumbs."
I should point out that evolution enthusiasts (how's that for a value-laden term?!) slam Creationism for this all the time. But you expect that from the Liberal Conspiracy. Creationists, on the other hand, are supposed to be capitalist-friendly. Just goes to show that not everybody punches their liberal or conservative card in the same spots.
It's just that it's a great ad hominem. It's a simple, effective way to make yourself the underdog, bravely standing up to the bully waving his bags of cash around, knocking old ladies into the street and drowning puppies in seas of green paper...
This is probably a good time to mention some other effective ad hominem techniques.
4. Always ridicule your opponent for his rhetorical techniques.
WTFmeta-ed.
Also common knowledge: people who use rhetorical devices are Evil. Anyone who does not plainly speak their mind is a silver-tongued agent of the devil (metaphorically speaking...I hope). If you can portray your opponent as someone who is trying to pull one over on the reader, you don't have to deal with the logic of their argument.
This often leads to talking about some secret (or not so secret) agenda. Because people with a Plan are Evil. If you ascribe your opponent's strategy to a larger, more sinister goal, the evilness of that goal bleeds into the smaller argument they are currently making.
Proponents of evolution typically do this by referencing the "Wedge document." This was written some time ago as a sort of manifesto for the Discovery Institute. It describes their anti-evolutionary agenda (see how evil it sounds when you put it like that?) as part of a larger plan to overthrow methodological materialism. So, because they have a broader goal, their specific goal is suspect.
Again, the same review I linked above: contains the first reference I have ever seen to the evolutionist "wedge."
"Theistic evolutionists are the pointed end of Darwinians' wedge strategy: By making evolution "theistic" Darwinians hope to divide Christian against Christian."
That's Rule #1 right there. Also #2: who the hell refers to themselves as a "Darwinian?!" Answer: nobody. It's Creationist name-calling. (Yes, yes. I do it too: every time I use the words "creationism" and "intelligent design" interchangeably.) And look at the way we are encouraged to ignore the fact that theistic evolution (a term which is not defined, of course, so here's a definition: evolution happened and God exists BAM) is a CHRISTIAN invention. The implication here is that, because some atheists have written about theistic evolution, they came up with it. Therefore, any Christian who accepts this concept is a PATSY for the liberal atheist AGENDA. And agendas are EVIL. Etc.
But what I find particularly amusing about this example is the implication that Christians need any help dividing. Are atheists really to blame for the nine thousand denominations that exist worldwide? We argue more with each other than we do with everyone else on the planet combined. If you don't believe me, Google "transubstantiation." Go ahead. I'll wait. (I really won't.)
I suppose these rhetorical tricks stick out more when they are used to support opinions I disagree with. I certainly don't mean to imply that Creationists are the only people on the planet who use shamelessly illogical rhetorical tricks to convince people of their point of view. Neither do I mean to imply that rhetoric is always bad. On the contrary, rhetoric is inescapable. It's like philosophy: if you think you don't have one, it just means you're unaware of what it is. I guess I just find it interesting the way these blatant ploys surface when people engage such controversial topics.