Critiquing: Is Church Just a Man-Made Way to Control People?

June 10, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Church Control — Human Influence — Psychological Manipulation — Free Thinking — Personal Autonomy

---

Introduction

The content in the PDF, titled “Is Church Just a Man-Made Way to Control People?”, addresses questions about the perception that the Bible and church are man-made tools to control people and explores how to respond to claims that Christianity may be true for some but not for others. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlight any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims, and stress the need to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

The central argument in the content is that the church is not merely a tool for control and that its teachings have inherent value and truth. Several points need scrutiny for logical coherence:

Genetic Fallacy:

The content argues that dismissing Christianity based on the motivations behind why people might join a church is a genetic fallacy:

“You fault something based on its origin, not based on its content.”

This is a valid point, as the truth of a belief system should be evaluated based on its content and evidence rather than the motivations of its adherents. However, the content fails to fully address the reasons why some might view the church as a controlling institution beyond the genetic fallacy argument.

Inconsistent Application of Psychological Manipulation:

The content addresses the notion that people join the church because they cannot think for themselves and need others to do their thinking:

“Why would a religion be faulted… because it attracted unattractive people… who would find acceptance because that was one of the rules, love one another?”

This argument overlooks the broader context of how organizations, including religious ones, can use psychological manipulation to maintain control over individuals. It dismisses the potential for manipulation by emphasizing the church’s inclusive nature without addressing the ways in which this inclusivity could be exploited for control.

False Dichotomy:

The content presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that rejecting the church’s teachings equates to rejecting all forms of moral guidance and structure:

“What’s the alternative? Do your own thing? That’s, I mean, he doesn’t want to be controlled. So that means he’s going to do whatever.”

This simplification ignores the possibility of individuals finding moral and ethical guidance outside of religious institutions. There are numerous secular frameworks for ethical behavior that do not rely on religious doctrine.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

Several cognitive biases and logical fallacies are evident in the content:

Confirmation Bias:

The content selectively interprets the motives and beliefs of those who critique the church to reinforce its own perspective. It assumes that critics are primarily driven by a desire for autonomy without considering more nuanced reasons for their skepticism.

Straw Man Fallacy:

The content sets up a simplified version of the opposing view by equating it with extreme actions:

“It’s called necromancy in the Old Testament. It’s completely forbidden.”

This oversimplification misrepresents the nuanced differences between covering a shift for a wedding and for an abortion, leading to an easy dismissal of the opposing perspective.

Appeal to Authority:

The content relies on authoritative figures to substantiate its claims without providing detailed reasoning or evidence:

“As C.S. Lewis has pointed out… first you have to show that a person is wrong before it makes any sense to explain why he’s wrong.”

Citing authorities without presenting their arguments in detail weakens the credibility of the claims.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

“The world is literate principally because of Christian missionaries.”

“If Jesus’ claims were sound… this isn’t man made.”

“You think it’s merely man made? Why would you think it’s merely man made?”

These claims are presented without detailed reasoning or evidence, relying instead on rhetorical assertions.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content should provide evidence and reasoning to substantiate its claims. In logical argumentation, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Therefore, the content should offer more than assertions; it should present evidence from historical, sociological, and philosophical analysis to support its conclusions.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To evaluate any alleged promises of God mentioned in the PDF, one could employ the following methods:

Empirical Observation:

Observing and recording instances where specific promises or predictions are claimed to be fulfilled. Analyzing these occurrences for consistency, specificity, and statistical significance can provide insights.

Historical Analysis:

Investigating historical records to verify the accuracy of events described in religious texts. Cross-referencing these records with independent sources can help establish the reliability of the promises.

Philosophical Inquiry:

Engaging in philosophical analysis to explore the logical coherence of the promises. This includes examining the underlying assumptions and implications of the promises in the broader context of religious and ethical thought.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. This principle, often referred to as epistemic proportionality, ensures that beliefs are held with an appropriate level of certainty based on the strength of the evidence:

Evidence-Based Belief:

Evaluating the strength and reliability of the evidence before forming a belief. Strong, consistent evidence should lead to a higher degree of belief, while weak or contradictory evidence should result in lower confidence.

Critical Examination:

Continuously re-evaluating beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments. This process involves remaining open to revising beliefs when presented with compelling evidence that challenges existing views.

Avoiding Overconfidence:

Recognizing the limitations of one’s knowledge and avoiding overconfidence in beliefs that are not strongly supported by evidence. This humility in belief formation is essential for logical coherence and intellectual honesty.

---

In conclusion, while the content aims to provide a coherent argument against the idea that the church is merely a man-made way to control people, it exhibits several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more balanced approach would involve engaging with opposing interpretations, providing evidence to support claims, and aligning beliefs with the available evidence. For further discussion and a deeper dive into these arguments, feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section.