Ummm Dave, why do you think statements such as these are ad hominems, especially when there is an argument to vindicate the charge?
If there’s one word to summarize his method, it’s “equivocation.”
Other issues aside, Hahn is equivocating.
In reading these chapters we need to keep our eye on the constant gear-shifting, as he goes from what the Bible really says to his idiosyncratic interpretations and fallacious inferences.
Once again, this is sometimes true, but misleading:
Needless to say, his characterization of Roman Catholicism is utterly tendentious.
Is that supposed to be an argument? Is such a question-begging answer the best he can do?
These are clearly obvious, and many of the others are debatable. I'm sure your post wouldn't seem as impressive if you didn't exaggerate your case though, right?
How is it exaggerating to point out that charges of equivocating, deliberately misleading, etc. are not airtight annd involve a judgment that is not logically airtight or required?
There can be many possible explanations other than deliberately intending to lead readers astray. But because Hahn is a Catholic and Hays an infallible anti-Catholic, he MUST make the uncharitable value judgment.
I agree that some are debatable, because the line between rational argument and personal attack is often very fine. But some are unquestionable character attacks, such as:
"Hahn has no excuse to mislead the reader this way."
[deliberate misleading; in effect, conscious lying]
"This is quite deceptive, for none of these local councils or synods qualify as ecumenical councils. Another one of Hahn’s studied equivocations."
[showing that Hays equates equivocation with deception for this instance of describing one thing. And it is based on ignorance and incomprehension of fine points of Catholic authority, but that is another story]
"Observe the deceptive way in which he turns the exception into the rule."
[again the loaded uncharitable value judgment, where he could simply have pointed out a weakness in Hahn's argument, not his character and supposed motivations]
"Hahn poses as a representative of Catholic dogma, . . ."
". . . a retrograde convert and soapbox polemicist like Hahn over against mainstream Catholic scholarship."
[this is a common and quite obnoxious "Hays-ism" that I have noted more than once. He simply defines an apologist like Scott Hahn out of the "mainstream" {circular argument: wishing something to be true does not make it so} and pretends that they are pretenders {note the word "poses"} who don't truly represent the Catholic Church, which he groundlessly redefines as a liberal theological entity.
I know about this firsthand because he has used the same tactic with me: compared me to Hahn and dismissed me (like him) as a pseudo-evangelical who doesn't truly represent Catholic dogma.
Another of his tricks seen in this paper is to try to dismiss all lay apologetics as irrelevant and contra-Catholic {system}, when it is very clear that the Church highly encourages same (see Vatican II and several encyclicals and other statements: some of which I have collected on my Apologetics Index Page). ]
Also, statements of supposed gross scholarly incompetence (see my title) are borderline. There can be an incompetent scholar once in a while, but they usually are not; it is simply a matter of difference of opinion. Scott Hahn is simply not the clueless ignoramus that Hays paints him to be. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even have to say this.
So it comes down to whether it is actually a true judgment or not. If the person is not incompetent in actuality, then to keep saying that they are, and especially with insufficient evidence, is both an ad hominem fallacy and a lie and bearing false witness. It's both illogical and unethical, in other words.
So I say that Hays' methodology, insofar as he adopts these unsavory
(cont.)
. . . tactics (I'm not denying that he mixes some legitimate and good arguments in-between all the pitiable rhetoric; he often does), is both illogical and plain stupid. I want to make it plain: the method is stupid and unethical.
The person Steve Hays is not stupid at all; often unwise in his opinions, maybe (and often a sophist or special pleader in argument, in my opinion), but not stupid. He lowers himself when he adopts these tactics. It is what makes someone like myself decide not to waste much time dealing with his stuff.
Why would I bother if I will be defined from the outset as a liar and pretender who doesn't even represent my position accurately to outsiders? Who has the patience for that level of folly and condescension and falsehood?
One has to accept that their debate opponent (or dialogue partner, as it were) is what he claims to be, and that x = x, before any constructive discourse can occur.
Dave,
Here is what you originally stated was the purpose of the quotes you provided from Hays:
We often hear in anti-Catholic circles moaning and groaning about how given to personal attack Catholic apologists and Catholics in forums, supposedly are. I thought it would be quite instructive to note how many such elements are included in Reformed anti-Catholic apologist Steve Hays' review of Scott Hahn's book, Reasons to Believe. Ad hominem is, of course, a logical fallacy.
With this many fallacies occurring in the review, I would contend that serious doubt is cast upon Hays' own competence.
My initial post was about your “exaggerating” or “padding the stats”, by putting valid critiques in the list of supposedly “personal attack” and “ad hominem”. Stating someone is equivocating is neither, especially if an argument is made to show that it is true, which Hays does. Now you respond by listing those things which maybe unsavory, but that only strengthens my point. Remember, my point was not that Hays didn’t say anything unsavory, but that you “padded the stats” or “exaggerated “ to make your case seem stronger.
Furthermore, if saying unsavory things is a reason to not critique someone’s argument then you should stop interacting with almost everyone on the internet and likewise no one should be interacting with you. You have even on occasion apologized for your personal attacks, which demonstrates it is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that you engage in them.
It is also ironic that you take great exception with Hays questioning Hahn’s competence because of what Hays perceives as Hahn’s fallacious arguments, yet in the quote above you question Hays competence, because of what you feel are his fallacious argument.
Thanks for keeping the discussion going.
Equivocation is indeed a moral issue. Just look at a dictionary definition:
equivocate
One entry found for equivocate.
Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
(Merriam-Webster online)
equivocate Show phonetics
verb [I] FORMAL
to speak in a way that is intentionally unclear and confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth:
She accused the minister of equivocating, claiming that he had deliberately avoided telling the public how bad the problem really was.
(Cambridge Dictionaries Online)
Granted, there is some variability in this term (like the word "lie"), but Steve Hays himself proved that he meant it in the sense of deception by defining it himself in one of his remarks:
"This is quite deceptive, for none of these local councils or synods qualify as ecumenical councils. Another one of Hahn’s studied equivocations."
Therefore, it is personal attack, because it is casting aspersions upon Scott Hahn's honesty and scholarly integrity. It's an open and shut case. You can hem and haw all you wish but it doesn't change the fact.
I already freely conceded that some of the lines I chose are debatable. Big wow. But there is plenty that is not debatable as personal attack and character attack and direct assaults on competence. One personal attack is too many. Obviously, the whole tenor of Hays' critique is extremely condescending and insulting, and I am objecting to that and wondering why it has to be that way: why can't folks simply disagree and give their reasons and leave personal insults and character attacks out of it?
You have even on occasion apologized for your personal attacks, which demonstrates it is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that you engage in them.
I never said I was perfect. At least I do apologize, unlike several apologists I know of who NEVER do. By and large, the scuffles I get into are either defending someone else against personal attacks (as here) or objecting to lies said about me that have no basis in truth. To defend oneself against slander is not slander itself. Sometimes I get too drawn in and fall into the sin myself. But it is relatively rare, and I usually figure out that I sinned and will make it right.
Furthermore, I am always open to discuss any such purported instance in my writing. If it is shown to me that I was unethical, I happily remove the material, retract it and apologize to the parties concerned. So if you have an example you would like to discuss further, feel free. I don't run from anything.
It is also ironic that you take great exception with Hays questioning Hahn’s competence because of what Hays perceives as Hahn’s fallacious arguments
But this is wha
(cont.)
. . . what you fail to understand. He is NOT just dealing with arguments; he is also (frequently) attacking Hahn's honesty.
yet in the quote above you question Hays competence, because of what you feel are his fallacious argument.
To some extent I did so. But I was justified in doing it, because if it is a clear case of someone engaging in personal attack, then he is committing both a sin and a logical fallacy. Since neither personal attack nor incessant illogical thinking reflects very well on one's argumentative skills, therefore, a credibility issues is necessarily raised at some point.
Highlighting of many fallacies committed brings competence (or at least ability) into question. Hays thinks he has shown this with Hahn. Whether he has or not is a separate issue from the wrongness of the personal attacks.
So Hays is clearly wrong in doing that, no matter what one thinks about the issues. That's open and shut. But what he accuses Scott Hahn of when he charges dishonesty is not open and shut at all; it is a cynical speculation and lack of the usual extended charity.
Moreover, Hays is subject to the extreme bias upfront of anti-Catholicism, so that he wants to see the worst, simply because his target is a Catholic. That doesn't help matters any, either.
One might also bring up the factor of Total Depravity. Once a Calvinist defines a person as unregenerate, then by their own doctrine, they must be liars and cannot have good intentions or motivations, because they are promulgating lies. Therefore, Hays feels perfectly within his rights, by his very theological beliefs, in speculating in this sinful way.
Here's another instance of Hays making the charge that both Scott Hahn and myself are essentially deceptive, hypocritical figures who can't even figure out what a Catholic is:
----------------------------
2.I also draw a distinction between the laity and the clergy. Someone like Rahner, Raymond Brown, or Benedict XVI is going to be far more self-consciously consistent about his theological commitments than the average layman.
There are Catholic laymen who, because they’re involved in group Bible studies with their Evangelical friends and coworkers, end up with a personal theology that is more Evangelical than their church.
3.Apropos (2), many Evangelical immigrants to Rome bring along a certain amount of contraband theology stashed away in their luggage.
As I’ve observed in the past, they are often far more conservative than cradle Catholics or the clergy. Indeed, they’re often at odds with their adopted denomination.
So guys like Dave Armstrong and Scott Hahn present an artificially Evangelicalized version of Roman Catholicism.
Consider Hahn’s use of covenant theology to defend and explicate Catholic dogma. This is clearly a carryover from his Presbyterian past.
He’s grafting elements of one theological system onto elements of an opposing theological system.
So they end up with a sterile hybrid theology that isn’t consistently Catholic or Protestant.
4.The reason that an apologist like Hahn is successful in bringing Evangelical fence-straddlers over to the Rome fold is precisely the because he has erected an Evangelicaloid bridge between the two traditions.
When Evangelicals read about his version of Catholicism, it looks uncannily familiar. A family resemblance. They’ve seen it before. The shock of recognition. A long lost son. Twins separated at birth. This is what we always believed!
5.When they present Catholicism, the outside surface of the door has a heavy coat of Evangelical paint, while the inside surface of the door has a Catholic coat of paint.
Kind of like the Gingerbread house in Hansel and Gretel—with Evangelical icing, sprinkles, gum drops, M&Ms, marshmallows, and candy canes on the outside, along with a yummy aroma from the chimney.
(9-14-06)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...-n-da-
hood.html
In the discussion thread, Hays states:
I don't read Catholic popularizers and lay apologetes to learn about Catholic theology.
I read them to study the bad arguments for Catholicism.
For my knowledge of Catholic theology, I go higher up the food chain to the likes of Ratzinger or Rahner.
------------
So he disses apologists on the grounds that they are pretenders and not even consistently Catholic, yet he wants to define official Catholicism as liberal:
----
1. For me, Christology includes the work of Christ as well as the person of Christ. Both are equally important.
2. Likewise, if a denomination becomes sufficiently liberal, then it's apostate as far
(cont.)
. . . as I'm concerned.
3. I'd include liberal ethics as well as liberal theology in my definition.
4. The RCC turned its back on the Gospel with the Council of Trend.
5. In addition, Vatican II codified modernism.
6. Contemporary Catholic scholarship undercuts NT Christology. And the same scalpel can be applied to historical theology.
Steve Jackson mentions Kasper and Brown. We could add Fitzmyer and Schillebeeckx.
When seminarians and college students are taught this stuff, there's nothing to prevent the RCC from going the way of the other liberalizing and dying mainline denominations.
-------------
So he won't listen to apologists who are orthodox but he will read liberals and pretend that they represent catholic dogma. Very convenient, isn't it? He creates his own conception of what he wants to think about a group and then interprets everything that fits into his preconceived notion as "Catholic" and all that doesn't as "pseudo-evangelical."
Obviously, this is a vicious circle. And it is a prime reason why I waste little time with Steve Hays. He can't even get to first base in comprehending what Catholics really believe. My task is not to teach theological kindergarten. That is for someone else to do. Once Hays figures out what we actually believe, then maybe he can come back and we'll talk and have a constructive dialogue.
I responded at the time to this nonsense:
Neither Fish Nor Fowl: My "Hybrid" (??) Post-Conversion Faith (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ybrid-
post.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1932727/
#114364
More along the same lines:
Randy, like Hahn and Armstrong and other conservative converts to Rome, is trying to carve out a little niche within the church. Theirs is a church within the church. This is not Roman Catholicism, but an inner schism--a homegrown chapel within the Church of Rome.
. . . There’s quite a difference between a group which pays lip-service to the magisterium while going its own way, and one that publicly defies the magisterium. My allegation is that Armstrong is schismatic in the first sense, not the second.
. . . You can get away with an awful lot in Catholicism as long as you don’t openly challenge the system.
(5-12-05)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2.../05/
schism.html
Yet Steve wants to cover his rear end with statements like:
"I have never said or insinuated that I know more about Catholicism than Armstrong or Hahn or Keating."
He won't let us speak on behalf of our church, yet he doesn't claim to know more than we do about our Church. Right.
(4-14-05)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...to-
experts.html
And again, the same droning, emptyheaded theme:
[W]hat we have here is a bottom-heavy defense of a top-heavy institution. But if a layman can make a case for the Magisterium, who needs the Magisterium? I
(cont.)
. . . Isn't the raison d'être for the Magisterium the correlative denial of the right of private judgment? So in what sense is Karl Keating or Scott Hahn or Dave Armstrong an authoritative voice in defense of Catholicism?
. . . In a sense, then, Armstrong and his cobelligerents have never really converted to Catholicism at all. Instead, they've founded their own little private Victorian Catholic cult, with Newman, Knox, Belloc, Chesterton, and Tolkien as their patron saints--whereas the real Roman Catholicism is represented by the likes of Rahner and Raymond Brown. Theirs is not official Catholicism, but a treehouse for child actors. This is Oreo cookie Catholicism--Popish on the outside, but schismatic on the inside.
(7-19-04)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...rch-
across.html
Does Hays ever actually get around to what Catholic teaching actually is as opposed to just naming sides?
I suppose he does once in a while. Generally, he seems to want to leave the impression that Catholic dogma is a caldron of conflicting doctrines and ideas, just as in, well, Protestantism! He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that any liberalism in Catholicism has not been dogmatically established. I object to his overall skewed presentation and severely biased, off-kilter method.
Dave,
Do you think teaching of Brown and Fitzmyer concerning such ideas the lack of historicity of the infancy narratives are contrary to Catholic teaching?
I find it interesting that he reviewed Scott Hahn's book but didn't review Pope Benedict's book. He says he goes to Ratzinger to find out what Catholicism is really about. Beckwith read Introduction to Christianity and Truth and Tolerance. He came away with the idea that Ratzinger was an evangelical. That was the basis for his claim that he did not stop being an evangelical when he stopped being a protestant. So I guess not everyone reads Ratzinger thinks he is so far from Scott Hahn.
BTW, I had forgotten about that quote where Steve put me in the same category as Scott Hahn and Dave Armstrong. I was quite flattered when I read it again.
Do you think teaching of Brown and Fitzmyer concerning such ideas the lack of historicity of the infancy narratives are contrary to Catholic teaching?
Of course. I've written about those guys (so have eminent writers, like Msgr. George A. Kelly). I know where you're going with this (because you always do) so spare me.
Your premise is fallacious. If you want to learn Catholic doctrine, read Trent, Vatican I and II, Denzinger, and the Catechism. Catholics don't operate with a magisterium of theologians and scholars, as Protestantism does. One day you and your buddy Steve Hays will grasp this rather simple point.
Do you think teaching of Brown and Fitzmyer concerning such ideas the lack of historicity of the infancy narratives are contrary to Catholic teaching?
I think Pope Benedict's aproach to such issues is hard for protestants to understand. He believes that the truth that is ataught by the church can also be rationally defended. He would prefer to let the argument go and see the traditional Catholic teaching prevail. He has the ability to interact with their scholarly opinions and show why orthodoxy is at least as reasonable.
Protestants are much quicker to kick people like this out of the church. They don't view truth as something that can withstand critical analysis. They think more like there are many views and we need to keep members of the other camps out of our fellowship.
Good point Randy, and it reminds me of Chesterton who noted that the enemies of Christianity couldn't voice a complaint about it without complaining the opposite later. So we are constantly told that the Church is awful for its totalitarian control over the minds of the faithful, but then we get criticism that the pope doesn't personally ferret out every Catholic with a dorky theory and hold his feet to the fire.
Yep. I heard a Mark Shea talk locally a few years back, where he noted a long list of mutually contradictory things that Catholics are excoriated for. Here's another example.
Robert Hugh Benson wrote a whole paper on this a long time ago. I'll look for the name when I have time but it was frightenly contemporary for a 100 y/o piece.
Please do; that sounds great.
Commenting by HaloScan
