George Eldon Ladd was likely one of the best evangelical theologians of the twentieth century and yet he was devastated by a bad review. When Norman Perrin, a University of Chicago – thus elite – professor wrote a scathing review of Ladd’s magnum opus, Ladd was so wrecked he fell into alcoholism. Ladd wanted “a place at the table,” to be recognized by his peers, even the liberal ones, as part of the scholarly, sophisticated club. When he didn’t get it, he couldn’t cope.
Christian academics often crave the acceptance of the scholarly guild. They didn’t study long hours for the money. They did it either for the glory of God or for their own glory. And, if it’s the later, the worst thing you can do to them is tarnish their idol (i.e. their ego). They’ll do almost anything to get the recognition they covet, even vote for Kamala Harris while claiming to be “pro-life.” If they get the message that all the really smart, sophisticated people, are supporting the cause they’ll find some way of reasoning themselves into doing it.
Lower Abortion Rates?
Take Michael Austin, president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, for example. On September 20, 2024, Mike issued a statement, in which he wrote, “Given the historical correlation between lower abortion rates with Democrats being in the White House, there are pro-life reasons to vote for Harris.” That is, because, he claims, fewer babies were killed under Democrat presidents than Republican ones, then he’s going to support the candidate and party that explicitly champions the killing of babies with no restrictions. Keep in mind, this is a professor of philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University, specializing in moral philosophy. Yet his statement is self-evidently stupid. An undergraduate should be failed for writing such nonsense.
Correlation and Causation
First, as every beginning logician knows, correlation is not causation. During the summer, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning. But ice cream doesn’t cause drowning. Second, the historical fact is that from 1973 to 2022, all presidents worked under the burden of Roe v. Wade which did not allow legal protections for the pre-born. There has not been a Republican administration that restricted abortion to which we can compare to a Democrat one that didn’t. Roe didn’t allow Republicans to restrict it. Hence, there is no modern data comparing administrations that restricted abortion to those that did not since they all had to allow it. Republican administrations were never allowed to implement all their policy preferences on abortion. So, Austin’s “correlation” is non-existent. Third, it’s obvious that the way to protect innocent people, like the pre-born, is to protect them. Some sophists like to argue that’s not so and point to prohibition. But the dozen years of prohibition actually lowered per capita alcohol consumption for the following 60 years. It takes a great deal of sophistry to argue that criminalizing an activity actually encourages it. Quite the opposite. The law teaches. The question, then, is how can a so-called intellectual be so dumb?
“The Best and the Brightest”
One of the defining characteristics of American liberalism is their pretensions to be “the best and the brightest.” They are, they think, the intelligentsia. They appeal to people who imagine themselves to be smarter than they truly are. Consequently, they are easily conned by claims that smart people believe . . . whatever fashionable, new idea: that men can become women; marriage can be redefined; that legalizing all abortions results in fewer abortions, among other hokum. Once the message is conveyed that this is what the smart people believe, academics will stand in line to sign up, including some evangelical ones. Christian “intellectuals,” craving the approval of their secular peers will go along with whatever “the best and the brightest,” the intelligentsia, the cool kids are saying. They tremble at the thought of a University of Chicago professor reproaching them. They want that place at the elite table.
“Safe, Legal, and Rare“
Mike Austin proclaims “I am pro-life” while advocating voting for the most radically pro-baby-killing major party candidate in American history. No more disingenuous claims, like by Bill Clinton, that their goal was to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” while doing nothing to actually make it rare. Now it’s an age of “shout your abortion,” and Kamala Harris is leading the charge while self-professed “pro-life” evangelical philosophers think they are clever for falling for it.
Avoiding MAGA Stigma
It’s “sophistry”: seemingly plausible yet misleading reasoning mustered for the purpose of appearing wise and insightful while actually being neither. Otherwise knowledgeable engage in sophistry in order to pander to the elite crowd, to avoid the stigma of being seen as a MAGA neanderthal, to say what it takes to get a thumbs-up from the Norman Perrins of the world. Even presidents of evangelical philosophical associations espouse re-electing the administration that gave us a transsexual assistant secretary of health, raging inflation, uncompromising championing of abortion, and an all-around idiocracy and do so thinking it’s because they’re smart.
But it’s not because they’re smart.
It’s because they’re weak.
