Initial definition and Introduction
At times, discussions over the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are clouded by the guilt by association fallacy. I'll start with a simple google search, "guilt by association fallacy." And the definition given is the following. "A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything." I'm trying to keep this easy and accessible. As an example of the above, consider the following argument.
Hitler Illustration
Hitler, especially during the holocaust in WW2, was evil. The atrocities of that event were undeniably evil. Hitler and those that followed him deserve to be justly criticized for their crimes. Given how evil he and his minions were, do we want to emulate them and their evil? The answer is obviously "no." I've personally been to Washington DC and walked through the Holocaust museum. It was a very sobering experience. The above establishes the "demonized group" part of the definition.
Now suppose you wanted to make an argument that clocks were a necessary part of daily life, and that we need them to function. Now imagine an opponent stating that Hitler also used clocks, and he was evil, and the clocks were used in gas chamber protocols. Therefore, your argument for clocks and the keeping of time is wrong.
My response here is rather simple. The problem is two-fold. (1) The guilt by association goes too far. (2) The guilt by association rests upon a conflation of dissimilar things (category error). First, the guilt by association goes too far. If everything associated with Hitler and the holocaust is discredited by virtue of its association with evil, then we also ought to distance ourselves from everything Hitler did. Hitler drank water; he slept; he woke up; he ate food; he breathed; he expelled waste from his system; he used his mind; he had feelings; he walked; he used his eyes to see things. The list here is nearly endless. The problem is that if everything associate with Hitler and the holocaust is discredited by virtue of its association, then we must reject eating, sleeping, drinking, breathing, thinking, etc. In short, if we are to be consistent with the guilt by association, then the argument goes too far. And we are then forced to cease existing (to totally distance ourselves), or we are all forced to be hypocritical (impossible to distance). Second, the guilt by association fallacy rests upon a conflation of dissimilar things (category error). The failure here is simple. One has failed to distinguish between the evil perpetrated by Hitler and the means by which Hitler existed. The means by which he existed (eating, drinking, breathing, etc.) are something that one can utilize for evil, and they are something that one can utilize for good. Certainly, Hitler's subordinates may have used clocks to time the gas chambers, but this does not mean that the clock is being used the same way when a Christian uses a clock to get to a church service on time. This also makes a distinction between different people. What may be true of one group of people is not necessarily true of another group, even if a superficial similarity is stated.
Superficial Similarities
Hitler used clocks, and you use instruments to keep time. Therefore, you are evil and not to be "listened to about anything." However, we have not considered the dissimilarity concerning the motivation behind the Holocaust and the motivation behind your use of a time keeping device. If we move past the surface level, then the argument collapses. You, most likely, do not use your time piece with the same motivations and priorities as Hitler. Your belief system differs in radically important ways from the associated individual.
And here we get to the more controversial portion of the post. When non-Calvinists point to Greek fatalistic/materialistic philosophies and try to draw the connection to Calvinism, the Calvinist sees extremely superficial similarities. I've also see atheists pointed to as endorsing a worldview void of free will; therefore, Calvinists are wrong because they deny free will like the atheist. Again, if we get past the superficial similarities and examine the reasons for denying libertarian freedom, then the non-Calvinist argument collapses. Did the Greek philosopher and atheist justify their views by reference to the Bible? No, the atheist probably denied it by reference to naturalism, which the Calvinist does not hold. The Greek philosopher also justified his view, probably by means of his metaphysical understanding of reality being materialistic. And the Calvinist can point out that certainly, we do have the material in God's universe, but we also have the immaterial. It is precisely the immaterial that depicts the heart, and now we have demonstrated the clear difference of categories and thus the difference of views. The Calvinist has a different understanding of what determines the will; the Calvinist has a different system of authority (the Bible rather than autonomous thought); the Calvinist has a different metaphysics despite superficial similarities. The Calvinist also holds that God has ordained the means as well as the end, and thusly human action and choice-making is not only necessary but also an indispensible aspect of life that has direct bearing upon the future. Thus, fatalisitic indifferentism is eliminated with strong motivations for the utilization of means (prayer, witnessing, thinking, making arguments, loving others, etc.) for the conversion of the unsaved.
The argument may morph at this point. The opponent of Calvinism may point to Greek philosophy, not as an association but as an inevitable causal influence upon Calvinistic interpretation. However, this is profoundly hard to prove. One has to do more than just simply present a guilt by association to justify causal control of past thinking with current the current thinking of different people governed by different principles. All I have to say is "good luck" to the person trying to make that kind of case. One has to do more than just associate with superficial similarities to prove a causal influence.
The list here could go on and on, but I think that this begins to deal with a rather common argumentation tactic. Thoughts?
At times, discussions over the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are clouded by the guilt by association fallacy. I'll start with a simple google search, "guilt by association fallacy." And the definition given is the following. "A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything." I'm trying to keep this easy and accessible. As an example of the above, consider the following argument.
Hitler Illustration
Hitler, especially during the holocaust in WW2, was evil. The atrocities of that event were undeniably evil. Hitler and those that followed him deserve to be justly criticized for their crimes. Given how evil he and his minions were, do we want to emulate them and their evil? The answer is obviously "no." I've personally been to Washington DC and walked through the Holocaust museum. It was a very sobering experience. The above establishes the "demonized group" part of the definition.
Now suppose you wanted to make an argument that clocks were a necessary part of daily life, and that we need them to function. Now imagine an opponent stating that Hitler also used clocks, and he was evil, and the clocks were used in gas chamber protocols. Therefore, your argument for clocks and the keeping of time is wrong.
My response here is rather simple. The problem is two-fold. (1) The guilt by association goes too far. (2) The guilt by association rests upon a conflation of dissimilar things (category error). First, the guilt by association goes too far. If everything associated with Hitler and the holocaust is discredited by virtue of its association with evil, then we also ought to distance ourselves from everything Hitler did. Hitler drank water; he slept; he woke up; he ate food; he breathed; he expelled waste from his system; he used his mind; he had feelings; he walked; he used his eyes to see things. The list here is nearly endless. The problem is that if everything associate with Hitler and the holocaust is discredited by virtue of its association, then we must reject eating, sleeping, drinking, breathing, thinking, etc. In short, if we are to be consistent with the guilt by association, then the argument goes too far. And we are then forced to cease existing (to totally distance ourselves), or we are all forced to be hypocritical (impossible to distance). Second, the guilt by association fallacy rests upon a conflation of dissimilar things (category error). The failure here is simple. One has failed to distinguish between the evil perpetrated by Hitler and the means by which Hitler existed. The means by which he existed (eating, drinking, breathing, etc.) are something that one can utilize for evil, and they are something that one can utilize for good. Certainly, Hitler's subordinates may have used clocks to time the gas chambers, but this does not mean that the clock is being used the same way when a Christian uses a clock to get to a church service on time. This also makes a distinction between different people. What may be true of one group of people is not necessarily true of another group, even if a superficial similarity is stated.
Superficial Similarities
Hitler used clocks, and you use instruments to keep time. Therefore, you are evil and not to be "listened to about anything." However, we have not considered the dissimilarity concerning the motivation behind the Holocaust and the motivation behind your use of a time keeping device. If we move past the surface level, then the argument collapses. You, most likely, do not use your time piece with the same motivations and priorities as Hitler. Your belief system differs in radically important ways from the associated individual.
And here we get to the more controversial portion of the post. When non-Calvinists point to Greek fatalistic/materialistic philosophies and try to draw the connection to Calvinism, the Calvinist sees extremely superficial similarities. I've also see atheists pointed to as endorsing a worldview void of free will; therefore, Calvinists are wrong because they deny free will like the atheist. Again, if we get past the superficial similarities and examine the reasons for denying libertarian freedom, then the non-Calvinist argument collapses. Did the Greek philosopher and atheist justify their views by reference to the Bible? No, the atheist probably denied it by reference to naturalism, which the Calvinist does not hold. The Greek philosopher also justified his view, probably by means of his metaphysical understanding of reality being materialistic. And the Calvinist can point out that certainly, we do have the material in God's universe, but we also have the immaterial. It is precisely the immaterial that depicts the heart, and now we have demonstrated the clear difference of categories and thus the difference of views. The Calvinist has a different understanding of what determines the will; the Calvinist has a different system of authority (the Bible rather than autonomous thought); the Calvinist has a different metaphysics despite superficial similarities. The Calvinist also holds that God has ordained the means as well as the end, and thusly human action and choice-making is not only necessary but also an indispensible aspect of life that has direct bearing upon the future. Thus, fatalisitic indifferentism is eliminated with strong motivations for the utilization of means (prayer, witnessing, thinking, making arguments, loving others, etc.) for the conversion of the unsaved.
The argument may morph at this point. The opponent of Calvinism may point to Greek philosophy, not as an association but as an inevitable causal influence upon Calvinistic interpretation. However, this is profoundly hard to prove. One has to do more than just simply present a guilt by association to justify causal control of past thinking with current the current thinking of different people governed by different principles. All I have to say is "good luck" to the person trying to make that kind of case. One has to do more than just associate with superficial similarities to prove a causal influence.
The list here could go on and on, but I think that this begins to deal with a rather common argumentation tactic. Thoughts?
