May 11
Torture and tortuous arguments
In a comment Stephen continues to make his point about post-modernism based on the ethics of torture. I haven’t got time right now to offer a major argument on the whole post-modern debate. But I do want to point up what I see as the problem with Stephen’s position as I understand it.
(Note: I am aware that there are some people who try to argue that water-boarding and the like are not torture. I think that’s rubbish – proving just how un-post-modern I am by such a blanket statement. As far as I can see, Stephen and I agree with the premise that the US Government is engaged in torture.)
I hope this isn’t a caricature, but it seems to me the argument goes a little like this:
- Torture is wrong (initially as a strong objective statement)
- When the US starts engaging in torture, many Christians not only fail to condemn it, but actually condone it.
- There is no agreement among Christians on what seem such clear matters of right and wrong.
- Therefore there are no clear matters of right and wrong, since those who claim to have the truth show they can’t agree.
- Therefore, torture isn’t objectively wrong and Christianity isn’t objectively true.
I am baffled by this argument, since I can see several different options for stages 3 and 4 (combined), such as:
- Some Christians are seriously wrong, and need to be persuaded of the truth.
- Some people are inadequately Christian, because they give a higher allegiance to the State than Christ.
- Torture is always sinful, but there are some cases where it is the lesser of two evils, and this is a practical and political judgement as well as an ethical one. (I think there may be extreme cases where that possibility could be entertained. I don’t think the present circumstances even come close.)
I can’t see how or why disagreement among those who call themselves Christian automatically leads to an acceptance of post-modernism.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:44 am
doug–
i absolutely love how you employ syllogisms when it suits you.
strong letter to follow.
peace–
scott
May 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Scott, see also my comment on the previous thread
May 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I’m glad to see we’re in agreement (at least partial agreement) on the immorality of torture.
I would never make an argument that follows the logic you ascribe to me. I understand you’re saying that’s my argument, whether I present it as such or not. But it’s a bit of a straw man, in my opinion. It’s an easy exercise to put words in someone’s mouth and then rebut them. Better if you dealt with the arguments that I’m actually presenting.
I can’t see how or why disagreement among those who call themselves Christian automatically leads to an acceptance of post-modernism.
Your concluding sentence, quoted above, is more to the point. The problem is, what do Christians agree on? A non-Christian commenter on my other blog put it this way:
OK, it’s a bit tongue-in-cheek, but he has a point, I think. The core doctrines of the faith are hotly contested among Christians. The most urgent public policy issues of our generation are hotly contested among Christians. Agreement among Christians is found only on the most insipid sort of doctrines.
Postmodernism acknowledges that reality by saying that all truth — better, truths plural — are local and contingent. Saying that a certain doctrine is objectively true (your position) doesn’t count for squat, if the very people most invested in the doctrine (fellow Christians) can’t arrive at a consensus on it.
My argument, which you steadfastly avert your eyes from, is that “local and contingent” accurately describes what is. For example:
• Roman Catholic churches in Latin America are heavily indebted to liberation theology, whereas Pope Benedict (ostensibly the leader of their churches) thinks liberation theology is a crock.
• Rev. Jeremiah Wright applies a prophetic critique to America and sees a violent history rebounding on America’s own head; but white Christians (who have a different historical experience) elsewhere in America (i.e., in different locales) are livid over Wright’s analysis.
• Leading Anglicans in the USA and Canada are prepared to ordain homosexual clergy, whereas Anglicans in Africa are prepared to excommunicate them rather than accept their stance.
What I see is, local and contingent variants of Christianity — just as postmodernism presumes. This is a much stronger argument than the one you put in my mouth.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Stephen. I’m very glad you didn’t mean what I said you meant. On the other hand, what I said you meant was what I thought you meant. In fact, I still think it describes your argument better than you would like it to.
I think we agree about the diverse range of Christianity/Christianities on the ground, as empirical description. Where we disagree is how to respond to that diversity.
I think post-modernism is caught in a similar version of the logical contradiction at the heart of all cultural relativism. Your statement, that post-modernism says “that all truth — better, truths plural — are local and contingent” exemplifies this. It encodes a non-local expression and disguises a meta-narrative about the nature of reality.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
[...] join?doug on Cynics for Christ: want to join?Peter Kirk on Cynics for Christ: want to join?doug on Torture and tortuous argumentsStephen on Torture and tortuous [...]
May 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
[...] try to dazzle me with their fancy intellectual footwork. (I’m certainly suspicious when people say, “Stephen argues so-and-so” and put arguments to me that I never expressed.) I’d [...]