An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Hmm, don't evangelicals tend to be fond of Godwin's Law in lieu of any apparent knowledge of genuine intellectual fallacies? O the irony! ;-)
Assume you posting this on Rosh Hashanah wasn't unintentional, but not sure if that's better. The fact that, of all the people being interviewed, there aren't a lot of variations of the popular opinion (not one I necessarily agree with) that "terminating a foetus is not directly analaogus to burying Jews alive" calls into question the video's veracity. Talk about cherry-picking. And If evangelisation was as easy as a 2 step progress from accepting that the Holocaust was wrong then there'd be a lot more Christians (and a lot less abortion?) in the world, surely?
Wow, Ryan. That thought process took some time. Actually, admitting the Holocaust was wrong isn't one of two steps to becoming a Christian. It was an effective way to move people toward the first step in becoming a Christian–recognizing you are a sinner. The second step is recognizing you need a Savior (as enlightened by the liar, thief, etc. section). And then you are ready to repent, believe and receive. Rather than cherry-picking, I thought there was a good representation of reactions; rejection, denial, delay, and acceptance. Not sure what it would have taken for you to believe in the veracity of the film, as several refused to give up the right of women to terminate their pregnancies even though they thought shooting Jews was wrong. I thought this was a powerful, well thought out presentation. The blond girl made me cry as the truth of her lostness dawned on her. I only hope the opportunity for eternal life was taken.
Not refusing to stop believing in abortion *whilst conceding that it is analogous to burying Jews alive* (which makes the "pro-abortion" side look evil) is not the same thing as taking issue with the analogy. I'd argue that the latter response would be more common than the former. It would have been appropriate for someone also to object that , given the connection between the blood libel and the Shoah, this kind of witnessing is……distasteful at best.
"Apologetics" are or should be buttresses for "conclusions" necessarily reached on spiritual rather than intellectual (let alone pseudo-intellectual) grounds. The problem with crap analogies (or, worse, intellectual fallacies like Lewis' Trillemma) is that, for all the bums-in-pews that you might get in the short term, in the long term you have the throwing the baby out with the bathwater problem. People start thinking that if (for example) Alpha's arguments are utterly shoddy then by implication Christianity per se must be unfounded. I do find it ironic when , for example, creationists concede that the "controversy" is a religious debate. Evolution is scientific fact, so if someone thinks that the only valid form of Christianity is the creationist kind then they will, if intellectually honest, realise they can't be a Christian anymore. I'd ask how the likes of Philip E Johnson sleep at night, but plainly someone in the business of denying that HIV causes Aids (!) isn't exactly a stranger to sacrificing lives to a delusional ideology.
Although I find this video very powerful, I actually sort of agree with Ryan about the dangers of some types of argument.
I am an ardent/staunch/lunatic (delete as applicable) pro-lifer, but even I am a little uneasy about the parallel between abortion and slavery/racism. From the non-theist perspective, it is not obviously absurd to make distinctions about human personhood based on the presence or absence of – say – consciousness or individual personality, in the way that it is obviously absurd to make distinctions between adult human beings based on their ethnic background.
I think I sort of agree with Ryan about whether this kind of presentation of the issues is really helpful in the long-term (although it is a very effective video).
I am an ardent/staunch/lunatic (delete as applicable) pro-lifer, but even I am uneasy about the parallel between abortion and slavery/racism. From the non-theist perspective, it is not obviously absurd to make moral distinctions about human personhood based on the presence or absence of consciousness, in the way that it is obviously absurd to make moral distinctions between adult human beings based on their ethnic background.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.