In my view, when someone handed out the school curriculum in New Zealand many must have misplaced the logic handout.
A first example
For evidence of this, all we have to do is go straight to the top, that is, the bane of all Kiwis' existence, the New Zealand parliament. The month before last, the New Zealand parliament debated the same sex marriage bill. (I hear a similar piece of legislation was struck down in Australia by some political manoeuvring). What was apparent to me most about the parliamentary debate in this country was mainly how bad it was. In my view there were no good reasons that I could discern from the negative side were given by anyone who objected to the bill.
The reasons I could discern included the following. Number one, I object for religious reasons. Number two, my constituency is majority against it so I am voting no. Number three, what we really need is a referendum. And in the case of the New Zealand First party, this was also shorthand for: look we are not voting in favour using the excuse we want a referendum and thus give us your vote, peoples of the conservative constituency. A marvellous speech was given in favour of a referendum by them but nothing was said against the actual bill.
From the pro side the issue was continuously equated with equality. And I don't even have a problem with this, just that this deserves a proper reply from the other side. At the very least the assumptions they make should be subjected to debate and questioned not glibly accepted.
Thankfully a debate later look place at Auckland University in which those against the bill we able to outline, what I thought were valid reasons, why they actually objected instead of just glib acceptance. But the fact these debates happen better outside the New Zealand parliament is I think a quite disgraceful reflection upon the ability of our parliamentarians.
A second example
The second example that spurred me on towards my study of logic recently actually took place in Britain. A debate was raging during a similar time during early August about how best to deal with drug taking and drug addiction.
On one side the comedian Russell Brand argued drug addiction should be treated as a disorder or a disease, and also seemed to be implying drug users were unfairly criminalised. On the other side stood Peter Hitchens, journalist, and bother of the late Christopher Hitchens, who was arguing for stronger penalties.
Whist Brand was superficially appealing I could sympathise with Hitchens cry that he was unable to argue a point with facts and without resorting to ad hominem attacks (ad hominem is a Latin term that just means you are attacking the person rather than what he is saying).
It seems to me this is a good illustration of were many of us are at. We are more easily swayed by someone such as Brand with pathos and ethos, or emotion and charisma, than we are by logos, or argument. Ideally we should aim for all three, but I think most of us in today's society lean more towards emotion and charisma as decisive in what we believe.
This is hardly surprising if you consider we live in a consumer culture that saturates us with emotion and charisma to sell us products and services. We are happier with a familiar language that also takes less time and effort than hard thinking. And the same is often true of our church models, they appeal to our visuals and emotions, with charismatic speakers. The slant affects everything, really.
Anchored
So here we are living in this culture and lapping it up. Swayed this way and that by the media and celebrity opinions. Perhaps we have lost the art of forming and recognising good arguments? Could we, would we know, a good argument from a bad one, despite who is giving it?
For to develop this skill is essential for good public outcomes and discussion on various issues, especially so for Christians, who want their opinions to be heard with rational justification in the public sphere and as more than just a religious novelty.
Luckily we already have a vanguard of intelligent Theologians, Philosophers, intellectuals, and professionals that occasionally make encouraging appearances now and again. But logic is for all people, an affirmation of our God endowed ability to reason that can be cultivated and educated the same as any discipline.
May we embark on being more reasoned in our discussions with others, and in presenting good reasons for our beliefs. I pray that others of you may also consider joining me in my current journey.
Peter Rope is a Financial Economics and Theology graduate from Auckland.
Peter Rope's previous articles may be viewed at www.pressserviceinternational.org/peter-rope.html