Critiquing: How Should I Interact with Someone Who Wants Sound-Bite Answers?

February 2, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Communicable Attributes — Moral Expectations — Sound-Bite Interactions — Patience in Conversations — Maintaining Focus

---

Introduction

The content titled “How Should I Interact with Someone Who Wants Sound-Bite Answers?” provides insights on addressing complex theological questions and dealing with individuals seeking brief, simplified responses. Below is a critical evaluation of its logical coherence, emphasizing the consistency of arguments, identification of logical fallacies, and highlighting any cognitive biases present. This critique is framed from the perspective of a critical thinker without referencing specific worldviews.

---

Overview of Arguments

1. Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes

The content begins by addressing why God might expect humans to be perfectly moral despite not expecting them to possess omnipresence, omniscience, or omnipotence. This distinction is made between communicable attributes (those humans can theoretically emulate) and incommunicable attributes (those unique to God).

2. Moral Perfection and Human Capability

The argument posits that while humans are not expected to embody divine omnipotence, they are required to be morally perfect. This expectation is justified by claiming that God created humans initially in a state of moral innocence, capable of following divine law.

3. Strategies for Sound-Bite Answers

In dealing with requests for sound-bite answers, the content suggests techniques like asking questions, seeking permission to explain, staying on track, and addressing interruptions, to effectively communicate complex ideas.

---

Critical Analysis

Logical Consistencies and Inconsistencies

Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes

The distinction made between communicable and incommunicable attributes is logically sound. The content correctly identifies that certain divine characteristics, such as omnipresence and omniscience, are beyond human capability. However, the leap from this distinction to the expectation of moral perfection presents a logical inconsistency. The content states:

“God’s moral perfection means that he can do whatever he wants and whatever he desires to do will be good” (p. 1).

This implies an inherent goodness in God’s actions that does not necessarily translate to human capability, given human limitations. The argument fails to adequately justify why moral perfection, an aspect of divine nature, should be an expectation for inherently fallible beings.

Moral Expectations and Human Capability

The assertion that humans were created in moral innocence but are expected to achieve moral perfection is another area of logical tension. The content mentions:

“When God created humans, he did not create them with moral perfection, meaning here that they were intrinsically good in a way that they were not capable of doing evil” (p. 1).

This statement acknowledges the initial state of innocence but overlooks the complexities of human nature and the impact of free will. The expectation of moral perfection post-fall appears inconsistent with the admission of human fallibility and the inherent capacity for wrongdoing.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

False Dilemma

The content occasionally employs a false dilemma, presenting an oversimplified choice between complete moral obedience and separation from God. For instance:

“A moral category is something that separates us from God because of his righteousness. So because he’s just, he has to punish evil” (p. 2).

This framing ignores potential nuances in moral development and the possibility of gradual improvement or partial compliance.

Ad Hominem and Straw Man

The suggestion that people who seek sound-bite answers are often not genuinely interested in understanding complex issues can be seen as an ad hominem attack. For example:

“Some issues cannot be reduced to a sound bite. That’s all I could offer” (p. 2).

While true in many cases, this stance risks dismissing legitimate inquiries by assuming a lack of genuine interest or capacity for understanding on the part of the questioner.

Cognitive Biases

The content displays a confirmation bias in its approach to explaining divine expectations. It assumes the correctness of its theological framework without adequately addressing alternative perspectives or the possibility of inherent flaws in its assumptions.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Unsubstantiated Claims

Several claims in the content lack sufficient evidence or logical grounding:

“We will be made immutably good” (p. 1).

This claim about a future state of moral perfection lacks empirical support and is presented as a matter of faith rather than a substantiated fact.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Any claim, especially those with significant implications, requires substantiation. The content should provide more rigorous reasoning or empirical evidence to support assertions about divine expectations and human moral capabilities. Unsubstantiated claims weaken the overall argument and reduce its persuasive power.

---

Potential Methods to Test Alleged Promises

While the content makes various theological assertions, it fails to provide testable methods for verifying these claims. To enhance credibility, the content could suggest empirical or experiential means to assess the validity of its promises. For example:

• Longitudinal Studies: Observing the long-term effects of adhering to moral teachings on individual well-being and societal harmony.
• Psychological Assessments: Evaluating the psychological impact of striving for moral perfection on mental health and personal development.

---

Mapping Degree of Belief to Evidence

A key aspect of rational thinking is aligning one’s degree of belief with the available evidence. The content should emphasize the importance of critically examining the evidence supporting any belief, rather than accepting assertions at face value. Encouraging readers to seek robust, empirical support for their beliefs would foster a more rigorous and reflective approach to theology.

---

Conclusion

The content “How Should I Interact with Someone Who Wants Sound-Bite Answers?” presents several logical arguments and practical strategies for engaging in theological discussions. However, it suffers from logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. A more rigorous approach, grounded in empirical evidence and logical coherence, would enhance its persuasiveness and credibility.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments and perspectives in the comments section.