Caleb Harrelson
[Originally published as If you don’t affirm this, then…]
It has become popular in secular and progressive Christian circles to make statements like this:
- If you are affirming of ______
- Then bad things won’t happen as a direct or indirect result.
- You are not affirming of ________
- Therefore, bad things are happening as a direct or indirect result.
Since I run an apologetics ministry and I’m a Classical Conversations (CC) Challenge Director (middle-high school ages), where we study logic and identify fallacies, I feel this is a good opportunity to put this claim to the test.
First, let’s break down the Hypothetical Syllogism Argument and its symbolic form:
- If you are affirming of A, then B
- Not A
- Therefore, not B
Below is the symbolic form alongside the translated version of it:
- If “you are affirming of ______” (A)
- Then “bad things won’t happen as a direct or indirect result” (B)
- “You are not affirming of ________”(not A)
- Therefore, “bad things are happening as a direct or indirect result” (not B)
I will present my argument as a dialogue between the “logic student” and the “honest progressive” who makes this claim. This format will make it easier for me to show the exchange between ideas and pushback. I will break down what each term means as we go.
Logic Student: By what standard should I determine if A is good to affirm? Is there a direct logical implication of not A and not B? Also, can you clarify more what “A” represents?
Honest Progressive: Society, feelings of happiness, and self-fulfillment are the standard for determining whether “A” is good to affirm. Also, “A” means: Loving their “true self” and finding happiness is the essence of existence…for “the end of all being is the happiness of man” (Paris Reidhead, not a humanist, but describing what humanism states).
In other, words expressive individualism is our highest aim and thus is defined as ” the belief that each person must act based on expressing his or her core feelings and intuition, and in so doing they become “authentic,” or, to put it another way, they become really themselves.” (Trueman, Nov, 2021, Tabletalk).
Logic Student: Society and self are highly subjective standards. How do you know which “self” and which “society” is the best or correct standard to determine what is good? By what standard do you know which one is correct?
Or is it possible there is an objective and unchanging standard that corresponds with how we are designed? Since we are designed by God, shouldn’t we go by his standards? Since he is perfectly good, the standards given to us via his word, Scripture, are the best and only standard we creatures should build our lives around.
What if I don’t affirm that “A” is true and good? If A is not good to affirm, shouldn’t we also consider if “not B” is directly caused by doing “not A”? Can you clarify what “B” is?
Honest Progressive: B represents bad things that don’t happen when we are loving and tolerant. To put it another way, when “not A” doesn’t happen, then people won’t get hurt! If you are a “not A” person, then you are threatening the lives of people!
Logic Student: Ok, yes, I’m aware that bad things are happening. However, how do you define terms like “bad” and “love?” What is your standard for determining those?
Honest progressive: Whatever doesn’t cause harm to others is “good,” and love is just “when someone feels accepted for who they are.” Or “love means affirming whatever journey a person wants to be on.” (Faithfully Different, Crain, pg. 56)
Logic Student: Wait a minute…is that a universal statement that “whatever doesn’t cause harm to others” is “good?” Are there exceptions to that?
Can you think of examples in life where something was painful but was still good for you? Like a surgery or getting disciplined by your parents for “bad” behavior. Your view of good seems both pragmatic (doing what works for you) and subjective. The same with your understanding of love.
Since there are good reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead, I’m going to go with his definition of love. In Matthew 22:36-40, he says:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
My friend Natasha Crain makes an important observation about Jesus’ words:
“Note that Jesus said loving God is the greatest commandment. This implies that any other commandments should be obeyed within that context. What it means to love others, therefore, depends on what it means to first love God. If we take the Bible to be His Word, we can know what it means to love God because He has revealed who He is, what He has done, and how we are to respond in relationship and obedience. To love others, therefore, means to want what God wants for them based on what He has revealed in the Bible” (Faithfully Different, Crain, pg. 94)
Honest Progressive: Very interesting. You have given me a lot to think about. Perhaps I haven’t thought very much about how I define love and goodness. However, I would like to hear more about why you think the resurrection and the Bible are true. I don’t accept Jesus and his Bible as true…
Logic Student: I’m glad you are thinking about these things. It’s important that we build our lives around what is true and good. Yes, let’s talk about the resurrection of Jesus sometime. This video is a good place to start.
Going back to your original syllogism; your argument was stated as such:
- If A, then B
- Not A
- Therefore, not B
We should revisit whether your argument is even valid. You are making a hypothetical argument, which is “a statement that affirms an outcome based on a condition” (Introductory Logic, 227). The basic form is clear when you state “If A, then B.”
However, the question remains: is your full argument valid?
Honest progressive: Of course it is! And who cares about logic? Why are you getting all technical with me? Can’t you see that “not B” is happening? We must affirm A! If we don’t then…..
Logic Student: Hold on. You are using logic right now! Granted, I believe your use of “logic” leaves much to be desired.
Honest progressive: What do you mean? I think it’s very obvious that my logic is clear, and you only disagree with me because you are a bigot and one of those ‘conservative Christians who believe in the Bible.
Logic Student: Why are you calling me names? I’m not sure how that supports your position. Also, are you familiar with the definition of bigot? The dictionary describes this as, “a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”
Name calling is an ‘informal fallacy’ (error in reasoning) of ‘ad hominem‘ as it dismisses what I am trying to say by attacking my character. It’s not dealing with the actual argument. Also, it is committing the ‘genetic fallacy’ to try to discount a position because of the origin/source of the one making it, such as by the claim that people, “only believe that because you are a Bible believing Christian.” It’s a fallacy because it doesn’t deal with the actual argument.
One could go so far as to say that, according to the definition of bigot, that a person who uses such tactics acts like one who holds their position ‘unreasonably’ by refusing to dialogue with me calmly and reasonably.
Honest Progressive: I see your point. I’m sorry. I’m just so concerned that more people aren’t hurt!
Logic Student: I don’t want more people to be hurt either! That’s exactly why I want to think carefully through every issue and make sure it’s approached using valid arguments. In fact, in the words of the book, Introductory Logic, God:
“…created man with the ability to reason” as he said “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 1:18). He did this so that we could communicate with him and one another. This enables us to love and obey him.” Indeed, formal logic is UNAVOIDABLE for all people and it is “the science and art of reasoning well” (Introductory Logic, 1).
If we are bad at logic, we are bad at thinking and will end up hurting ourselves and others. So, it’s important to understand some basic logic categorical terms. I’m quoting from my Introductory Logic book to help explain:
The categorical statement after the if is called the antecedent” and “the statement after the then is called the consequent (Introductory Logic, 227-228).
Here’s the deal: I believe you are committing a logical fallacy with your main argument. It’s called the “fallacy of denying the antecedent.” It’s called that “because the antecedent (“B”) of the hypothetical statement is denied in the second premise.”
The book explains this fallacy via another example of this fallacy:
“If I study, then I will get good grades.
“I did not study.
“Therefore, I will not get good grades.” (ibid, 230)
Do you see the problem with this argument? It’s a “non sequitur, meaning it does not follow.” (ibid, 230)
To expand our understanding further, the book gives another example:
- If you were a gorilla, then you would have two legs.
- You are not a gorilla.
- Therefore, you do not have two legs.
Honest Progressive: Oh, wow. Thanks for explaining that. I’m going to have to think about this some more.
Logic Student: I hope you do! We both recognize that it’s sad and not good that “not B” is happening. However, we differ on how we understand the argument of the cause. To do this carefully, we have to ask, ‘Does not affirming A logically imply not B?
“Here is the bottom line…
If “expressive individualism” or “humanism” is false (including ‘progressive Christianity’ versions that try to meld humanism with Christianity), then we should start with a God-centered and Scripture-driven focus on where to find meaning, purpose, and identity.
When we start with a false assumption about reality (humanism), it will logically lead to more confusion and pain and a reductionist view of reality that forces everything (even our reading of Scripture) to fit into the box of this humanist worldview. Anything that sticks out, such as design, purpose, self-denial, or parameters and definitions for love and relationships, must be “cut off” cause it doesn’t fit into this humanism-Christianity box.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that anyone who doesn’t affirm statement A is the direct culprit of causing pain. It’s also a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy (after this, therefore because of this), but we don’t have time to unpack that one right now. (Watch this video for more on this fallacy.)
This isn’t to say that there haven’t been people who have rejected “A” yet wrongfully caused pain (statement B) to others. However, it must be stated clearly that “Not affirming A” does not logically imply or lead to “B.”
Additionally, I believe there are good reasons that Scripture (properly understood and applied) should be our ultimate and final authority. And nowhere does Scripture say that we must affirm a false belief (i.e., an idol) in order to truly love and reach someone.
Humans get themselves in trouble when they try to build an entire identity around something like “A” being true and good instead of building their identity around their Creator and determining what the Scriptures affirm is good. If you start with a preexisting belief first, you can easily end up twisting Scripture to make it say what you want to be true.
Nancy Pearcey makes a great point about how loving God’s design is good for us. In her book, Love Thy Body, she talks about how the Christian worldview actually promotes a great love for the body God has given us and a high view of his design and purpose. Here is a great quote expressing the dangers of affirming “A” (from the original argument) as true and good:
“This is a devastatingly reductive view of the body. Young people are absorbing the idea that the physical body is not part of the authentic self—that the authentic self is only the autonomous choosing self. This is ancient Gnosticism in a new garb. Policies imposing transgender ideology on children as early as kindergarten are teaching them to denigrate their bodies—to see their biological sex as having no relevance to who they are as whole persons. The two-story dichotomy causes people to feel estranged from their own bodies.” (Pearcey, Nancy. Love Thy Body (p. 196). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)
“Here is what Scripture does make clear…
“All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and all who repent of their sin and believe in the Lord Jesus (Rom. 10:9) will be “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24).
The Scriptures clearly affirm we are to forsake sin and build our identity on Christ alone:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)
In closing, I encourage you to check out the testimony of Rosaria Butterfield on how she came to reject affirming that A is good and instead embraced a Christ-centered identity for her entire life.
Honest Progressive: Great! Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to me. Most people I have talked with seem to just throw around slogans to shut people up instead of engaging in thoughtful dialogue. I may not agree with everything you said, but I promise I will think over all of it seriously. I’ll start with watching that video and reading the Bible for myself to see if it can be trusted.
