The above argument demonstrates the difference between a causal relationship and a casual relationship. The argument above tries to claim that ice causes major organ failure. The reality is that the relationship is only casual. While it is true that ice is present in every one of the mixed drinks, were a scientific test to be run, it would show that people who drink other iced drinks do not develop those symptoms. [Note: I do not buy that drinking alcohol with ice causes any of the several problems listed.] In other words, just because an event, person, happening, disease, etc., etc., is found in the same context as another event does not mean that they are related. For instance, the reason malaria is named that is because it means “bad air.” The old belief was that bad air caused malaria. Malaria can be most easily contracted in certain wetland areas. Wetland areas have the tendency to have distinctive smells. Thus, one could conclude that the distinctive smells show that the air is “bad,” and that such is the cause of the disease. But, that is a completely wrong conclusion. Having said that, malaria is a disease that violates all the rules. National Geographic wrote:
Malaria is a confounding disease—often, it seems, contradictory to logic. Curing almost all malaria cases can be worse than curing none. Destroying fragile wetlands, in the world of malaria, is a noble act. Rachel Carson, the environmental icon, is a villain; her three-letter devil, DDT, is a savior. Carrying a gene for an excruciating and often fatal blood disorder, sickle-cell anemia, is a blessing, for it confers partial resistance to falciparum. Leading researchers at a hundred medical centers are working on antimalarial medicines, but a medicinal plant described 1,700 years ago may be the best remedy available. “In its ability to adapt and survive,” says Robert Gwadz, who has studied malaria at the National Institutes of Health, near Washington, D.C., for almost 35 years, “the malaria parasite is a genius. It’s smarter than we are.”
OK, so what does ice and malaria have to do with anything? Well, sadly, a lot of the arguments found on Facebook™ and on many political websites seem to be fond of committing this particular fallacy. I say fond because there is a long history of people deliberately concocting misleading stories for personal gain or for political advantage. Behind this particular fallacy is either sheer stupidity or a deliberate intent to lie. Let me give you a couple of examples:
A pretty common ad hominum argument in politics uses the tu quoque fallacy. If a person, usually a Republican, assumes a moral position about the benefits of family, faith, sobriety, and traditional marriage but is then caught smoking crack in a truck-stop gas station with three transsexual prostitutes and a spider monkey, people are quick to make judgments about that person’s political positions. Here’s the thing: if Einstein were caught practicing witchcraft, it wouldn’t invalidate his theory of relativity. As another example, just because Hillary Clinton makes a racist joke about Ghandi running a New York gas station, it doesn’t mean that Ghandi didn’t, in fact, run a gas station.
During the next few months, both Democrats and Republicans will engage in a long game of illogic. Neither party is innocent. Even worse is how many voters will use the illogical arguments in order to refuse to listen to arguments from the other side. Nevertheless, the real tragedy is how many Christians will lose their koinonia (communitarian fellowship) with their fellow Christian based not on adherence to Christian doctrine, but on loyalty to a particular political doctrine. If we agree on Christian doctrine but disagree on political doctrine, then there should be no issue of unity. If there is, it means that you have combined ungodly politics with godly doctrine. [Note: There are some exceptions to the previous statement, but they are few and limited.]
So, as the elections approach, let us be discerning and careful. If we agree with another on Christian doctrine but disagree on political philosophy, then there should be no barriers. Let us keep that carefully in mind.
Leave a Reply