Critiquing: #103 — Vaccines, Mandates, and Civil Disobedience

February 3, 2022 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Key Terms: Christian Vaccine Resistance — Government Mandates — Civil Disobedience — Ethical Responsibility — Faith and Science

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode demonstrates a generally accurate portrayal of historical and biblical contexts. However, the assessment of contemporary Christian attitudes towards vaccines lacks nuance and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, which reduces the overall reliability of the claims made. Specific data points, such as statistics or direct quotes from reputable studies, would have strengthened the accuracy of the content.
Degree of Coherence	C	The discussion follows a logical structure but suffers from significant digressions that weaken the clarity and impact of the argumentation. The conversation jumps between topics, which disrupts the logical flow, making it challenging for the audience to follow the core arguments. This lack of focus detracts from the coherence of the episode.
Absence of Fallacies	D	The content contains several logical fallacies, particularly when discussing the justification of government mandates and the ethical responsibilities of Christians. The appeal to authority and false equivalence fallacies are prominent, undermining the strength of the arguments presented. This weakens the episode’s overall persuasiveness.
Degree of Evidence	D+	The episode offers limited empirical evidence to support its claims, relying instead on personal anecdotes and generalizations. The lack of cited studies or robust data makes it difficult to assess the validity of the arguments, particularly regarding the vaccination stances of Christian communities. This significantly reduces the credibility of the discussion.
Degree of Testability	D	The episode presents arguments that are difficult to test or verify, particularly those based on theological interpretations and moral imperatives. Without empirical data or a clear method for validation, the arguments remain speculative and largely untestable, limiting their practical application.
Rational Confidence	C	The confidence expressed in the arguments corresponds only moderately to the evidence provided. The lack of substantial evidence and the presence of logical fallacies weaken the rational confidence that can be placed in the episode’s conclusions. A more rigorous examination of the claims would be necessary to bolster confidence.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Logical Fallacies in Government Mandate Discussion

The episode suffers from significant logical fallacies, particularly an appeal to authority and false equivalence. The appeal to authority fallacy is evident in the assumption that Christians must obey government mandates simply because they are issued by a governing authority. This is problematic because it overlooks the necessity of critically evaluating those mandates, particularly when they may conflict with ethical or moral principles.

“It is wise for God’s people to say this is the structure that God has put me in. I don’t particularly like this law… but this is what the law says.”

This quote exemplifies the uncritical acceptance of authority without addressing potential moral conflicts, which is a dangerous precedent when considering the role of civil disobedience in Christian ethics.

The false equivalence fallacy is apparent in the comparison between the legal mandate to wear seat belts and the moral obligation to accept vaccination. These two situations differ significantly in terms of ethical complexity, personal autonomy, and the potential consequences of non-compliance. The comparison oversimplifies the ethical debate surrounding vaccination, reducing the credibility of the argument.

2. Insufficient Evidence for Claims on Christian Vaccine Resistance

The episode’s discussion on Christian resistance to vaccines lacks the empirical evidence necessary to substantiate its claims. The assertion that a significant portion of evangelical Christians in the U.S. are vaccine-hesitant is presented without supporting data, making the claim appear anecdotal rather than grounded in fact.

“Polling shows that Christians and more specifically evangelical Christians are some of the least likely to get vaccinated.”

This statement would be more persuasive if accompanied by specific survey results, detailed demographic analyses, or references to studies that have rigorously examined the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy within these communities. The lack of such evidence weakens the argument and leaves it vulnerable to criticism.

3. Testability and Empirical Verification

The episode struggles to provide testable claims, especially when discussing the intersection of faith and science. Theological assertions, such as those concerning divine intent or the moral implications of vaccination, are inherently difficult to verify empirically. This makes the arguments speculative and reduces their applicability in broader ethical or scientific discussions.

“It does us no credit as Christians of any sort to say, ‘No, no, no, because we’re Christians, we don’t need that.’”

While the ethical stance against vaccine resistance is clear, it lacks the empirical foundation needed to be compelling in a rational debate. The absence of data-driven arguments or testable hypotheses undermines the strength of the position taken in the episode.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: The Ethical Duty to Vaccinate

• Premise 1: Christians are commanded to love their neighbors.
• Premise 2: Vaccination reduces the spread of disease and protects the community.
• Hidden Premise: Loving one’s neighbor entails taking actions that prevent harm, even if those actions require personal sacrifice.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Christians have an ethical duty to get vaccinated.

Counter-Argument: While the argument appeals to the Christian principle of loving one’s neighbor, it overlooks the complexity of ethical decision-making regarding personal autonomy and bodily integrity. The argument assumes that vaccination is the most effective and morally imperative way to protect others, but this assumption may not hold in all cases. For instance, some individuals may have legitimate health concerns about vaccination, or they may prioritize different aspects of ethical living, such as spiritual or emotional well-being. Furthermore, the argument fails to address potential adverse effects of vaccination and the ethical implications of mandating medical interventions. To strengthen the argument, it would be necessary to consider these nuances and provide a more comprehensive ethical framework that balances communal responsibility with individual rights.

Argument 2: Obedience to Government Mandates

• Premise 1: Christians are instructed in Romans 13 to obey governing authorities.
• Premise 2: Government mandates, including those related to public health, fall under the authority Christians are to obey.
• Hidden Premise: Government mandates are presumed to be morally aligned with Christian principles and intended for the common good.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Christians should obey government mandates, including those regarding vaccines.

Counter-Argument: This argument rests on the assumption that government mandates are always morally justified and in alignment with Christian teachings, an assumption that is historically and theologically problematic. There are numerous instances where governments have enacted laws that are unjust or that conflict with fundamental ethical and religious principles (e.g., apartheid, totalitarian regimes). The argument fails to consider the role of conscience and the possibility that obedience to human authority might contradict divine mandates. A more robust argument would critically examine the conditions under which civil disobedience is not only permissible but morally required, emphasizing the need for discernment and the primacy of ethical principles over legal compliance.

Argument 3: The Role of Civil Disobedience in Christianity

• Premise 1: Christians are called to follow God’s law above human laws.
• Premise 2: When human laws contradict God’s law, Christians must choose obedience to God.
• Hidden Premise: Certain government mandates may contradict God’s law or ethical teachings as interpreted by Christian doctrine.
• Conclusion: Therefore, there are circumstances where Christians are justified in engaging in civil disobedience.

Counter-Argument: While civil disobedience is an important aspect of Christian ethical practice, this argument presupposes a clear and uncontested understanding of God’s law, which may not always be the case. Different Christian traditions and interpretations can lead to divergent views on what constitutes a contradiction between divine and human law. Additionally, the argument does not fully address the potential consequences of civil disobedience, including social unrest, harm to innocent parties, and the undermining of legitimate authority. To make a more compelling case, the argument should include a nuanced discussion of the criteria for justified civil disobedience, considering both the ethical imperatives and the practical outcomes of such actions. This would involve a deeper engagement with historical examples, scriptural exegesis, and the potential risks and benefits of resisting unjust laws.

◉ Is God’s Eye on the Sparrow & the Christian?

Examining the Promises of Divine Protection and the Reality of Christian Life

The New Testament is replete with verses that promise divine protection to those who believe. Christians are assured, time and again, that God watches over them, protects them, and even ensures their well-being. Some of the most cited promises include:

• Matthew 10:29-31: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
• Psalm 91:11 (often referenced in Christian contexts): “For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.”
• John 10:28-29: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.”
• Philippians 4:19: “And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.”
• 2 Thessalonians 3:3: “But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one.”

The list goes on, each verse reinforcing the idea that Christians are under the special care of a benevolent, all-powerful deity who ensures their safety and well-being. However, the harsh reality of life, particularly in the modern world, reveals a strikingly different picture.

First, consider the behaviors of Christians themselves. Despite these divine assurances, Christians, much like their non-believing counterparts, purchase insurance—health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, property insurance, and more. This is not a marginal practice but a widespread and deeply ingrained behavior. If Christians truly believed that an omnipotent God was watching over them, why would they need such worldly protections? The very act of buying insurance betrays a lack of faith in the divine promises they profess to believe. It suggests that, deep down, even devout believers recognize that they are subject to the same risks and uncertainties as everyone else.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Does the act of purchasing insurance indicate a subconscious acknowledgment that God’s promises are not reliable? If Christians truly trusted in divine protection, the insurance industry would likely see a significant drop in customers among believers. Yet, we see no such trend, which points to a cognitive dissonance between what is preached and what is practiced.

Second, let’s examine the empirical evidence. If God’s protection were a reality, we would expect to see Christians experiencing significantly lower rates of accidents, morbidity, and mortality compared to non-believers. After all, if an omnipotent deity is actively protecting a group of people, this should manifest in observable outcomes. However, statistical data fails to support this expectation. Studies have not shown that Christians enjoy better health, suffer fewer accidents, or live longer than non-Christians. On the contrary, data often show that Christians are just as likely to face misfortunes as anyone else.

The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a particularly revealing case study. During a global crisis that indiscriminately impacted millions, including countless devout Christians, where was the divine protection? Churches became hotspots for the virus, and religious gatherings contributed to its spread. Many believers, including clergy, succumbed to the disease, just as non-believers did. This was a perfect opportunity for God to demonstrate his faithfulness to his promises—yet no such divine intervention occurred. Christians died at similar rates as the rest of the population, and no credible data suggests that their faith provided any tangible protection against the virus.

This dissonance between the promises of the New Testament and the reality observed raises a critical question: Did God break his promises, or is there no promise-making God to begin with? The answer, from a rational standpoint, seems clear. If these promises were real and binding, they would be reflected in the lives of believers. The lack of evidence supporting these divine assurances strongly suggests that they are either misinterpretations, fabrications, or the product of wishful thinking. The notion of a protective deity is rendered implausible by the very realities that Christians experience and the statistical data that contradicts their sacred texts.

In conclusion, the promises of divine protection in the New Testament are not supported by empirical evidence or the lived experiences of believers. The need for insurance, the lack of statistically significant differences in life outcomes, and the devastation of events like the COVID-19 pandemic all point to the conclusion that these promises are either hollow or nonexistent. The cognitive dissonance between Christian doctrine and practice, as well as the absence of divine intervention in times of crisis, makes a compelling case against the notion of a promise-making, protective God.

---

Thank you for engaging with this essay. I welcome further discussion on this topic in the comments section below. Let’s explore these ideas together and examine the implications they may have on our understanding of faith and the world.