The Polemical Two-Step

Both Adam Kotsko and Brandon have been discussing the "Atheist Two-Step":

1. Someone points out that the particular religious belief disproven by the doctrinaire atheist is not really held by anyone as stated.
2. The doctrinaire atheist then says that religion is so obviously stupid and pernicious that one can't be held accountable for detailed knowledge of it.

As I noted over at Brandon's site, though, this is neither new nor atheist; instead, it's a variant on a rhetorical strategy that crops up frequently in conflicts between religions, not just attacks on religion.  The Victorian anti-Catholic version goes something as follows:

1.  Someone points out that the particular Roman Catholic belief disproven by the doctrinaire evangelical Protestant is not really held by any Catholic as stated.

2.  The doctrinaire evangelical Protestant then says that Catholicism is not just obviously stupid and pernicious, but also deceitful at base--so it's not even possible to have detailed knowledge of the religion.  (Ergo, don't bother.)

I've been collecting examples of this strategy for my anti-Catholic sermons article.   Here are a few instances:

a) It is, in fact, this very mixture of good and evil, of truth and falsehood, which, constituting the danger of Romanism, constitutes also the difficulty of exposing it. To overthrow an argument where the premises are totally inadmissible, and the conclusions obviously false, is a very different matter from detecting a fallacy where the shades of error and of truth sometimes appear almost to amalgamate, and all the arts of sophistry are employed to blend them into one; wherein, moreover, there is, as I am bold to declare in respect of the Romish Church, such a continued shifting of the ground, that, with all her pretensions to unity of faith, it is next to impossible to know upon what place to take our stand, and say, Here is undeniably the Romish doctrine; here is something tangible, something in which, in all its parts, there is an uniformity of opinion and sentiment among the members of an infallible church. (John Henry Owen, Christ, Not Peter, the Rock of the Church..., in Lectures on the Points in Controversy Between Romanists and Protestants [1836], 10-11)

b) The advocates of popery are accustomed to charge protestant writers with  misrepresentations of their doctrine and practice on this point. The fact itself they cannot deny, but they say they render supreme homage to God only. They pray to God, they tell us, to bestow good things upon them; they pray to saints to intercede with God on their behalf, and thus procure the desired boon [...] There is a distinction, and we shall do well to keep it in mind; but were we to admit to the truth of these representations in their fullest extent, these charges would still remain,--that their practice is adapted to wean the mind from God, and lead them to transfer to others that love and confidence, and gratitude, which he alone deserves; that it ascribes to creatures the exercise of illustrious attributes which belong exclusively to deity; and that it is neither sanctioned by the command of the Most High, nor the example of inspired men. (William Groser, Popery Unveiled.  In Six Lectures [1843?], 66-68)

c) Having in my last address laid before you the real sentiments of the Church of Rome on the Worship of Mary, I now proceed to enquire on what foundation their views are based. But suffer me first to advert to the affected repudiation of those opinions on the part of her wily controversialists. They know full well that the people of this country are better taught than to believe such a tissue of absurdity. They, therefore, in the first place, deny the accuracy of our statements. Our answer is, here is “the Garden of the Soul.” It is your own book. You read in it a prayer to Mary “to negotiate man’s peace.” Is this inaccurate? Again; here is your Breviary. It is your own book. You read in it this address to Mary, “Thou art the only hope of sinners.” Is this inaccurate? Again; here is the Encyclical letter of the present Pope. You call him “THE HOLY FATHER.” Has he erred? You read in this letter, “The foundation of our confidence is in the Most Holy Virgin.” Is this inaccurate? Driven from this refuge the Romanist turns round and with the coolest effrontery asserts, “We do not mean what we seem to say, the Catholic judges of these things differently.” If this be so, we can never be sure that Rome holds any of the great Christian verities. For how can we tell? Perhaps she does not mean what she says. Convenient theory. But was there ever such a miserable subterfuge? Would sensible men submit to such a theory of interpreting words on any other subject? A merchant has given a bill of exchange for a certain amount. At the time of payment, he brings half, or as little in fact as he likes, saying, “I assure you, I did not mean all that these words seem to assert. I only intended to pay so much. The Catholic judges of these things differently.” No! It is all in vain. (John W. Grier, A Sermon on the Worship of Mary...Part Second [1851], 27-28)

Some Protestants are even blunter in arguing that Catholics are simply liars, and therefore their assertions about doctrine should be ignored:

d) Any comment, Sir, upon the contrast which is here presented between the assertions of the preacher and the doctrines of his church, would be mere waste of time. If Protestants are again disposed to return to the faith which their forefathers solemnly abjured in the fires of martyrdom, it is their own concern, and I will not impugn the motives of any man who may feel disposed to prefer the council of Trent to the New Testament. It is not to the endeavour to convince that we object, but to the attempt to deceive; and while we are ready to acknowledge that liberty of conscience is the sacred prerogative of morally accountable beings, we would sear the brand of public reprobation deep in the forehead of the church that can shelter the preposterous and revolting anomalies of a corrupted Christianity under the disguise of an accommodated and delusive phraseology.  ("Wishart," A Critique Upon the Sermon Delivered at the Opening of the New Roman Catholic Chapel, at Hull... [1829], 6)

e)...But there is no change in Popery.  The system is the same, intrinsically, inherently the same.  It may assume different aspects to carry different purposes, but this is itself a part of Popery: there is the variable appearance of the chameleon, and the invariable venom of the serpent.  Thus in Ireland, where the theology of Dens is the recognized text-book of the Roman Catholic clergy, they will tell you when there is any end to be gained, that Popery is an improved, and modified, and humanized thing: whereas, all the while, there is not a monstrous doctrine, broached in the most barbarous of past times, which this very text-book does not uphold as necessary to be believed, and not a foul practice, devised in the midnight of the world, which it does not enjoin as necessary to be done.  (Henry Melvill, Protestantism and Popery [1839], 11)

And, of course, some writers think that Catholicism is obviously idiotic, which makes arguing with it not even remotely worthwhile--let alone researching it any further:

f) So much childish mummery is mingled with the superstition, that the mere perusal of the offices at once suggests the idea that in them indeed “there is but a step from the sublime to the ridiculous.”

[...]

Remark upon the foregoing is needless; the puerilities are enough to disgust men of common sense, while the Bible-taught Christian looks in vain through the New Testament for the office, or the childishly superstitious duties of the Romish Subdiaconate.  ("C. A.," “Romish Orders for the English Protestant Church,” The Christian Guardian and Churchman’s Magazine 1 (November 1850): 489-93.)

g) ...We may walk through the great Romish Repository, and take up everything in our hands—Image-worship, Relic-worship, Saintship, Penances, Indulgences, Absolution; all lying before us; and though disguised with antique dust, and heaped in studied confusion; all tangible. Here, controversy, in its usual sense of logic and learning, is superfluous. In all the volumes of popery which have come within my reach, I have never seen an argument, that would not discredit the brains of a child. (George Croly, The Popish Primacy.  Two Sermons on the Conversions to Popery.  And the Coming Trial of Nations... [1850], 19)

One might take note of what John Henry Newman had to say about the "Prejudiced Man."

 

Comments

[Brandon]

Thanks; this was both very interesting and very helpful.

[Tom K.]

Some Protestants are even blunter in arguing that Catholics are simply liars....

That, in a slightly more refined form, was pretty much what led to Newman writing Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

I think, when Kingsley wrote, "I am henceforth in doubt and fear, as much as an honest man can be, concerning every word Dr. Newman may write," that stung him as much as an English gentleman as a Catholic priest.

[Arnold]

There's a gorgeous example of the Atheist Two-Step in a recent article by Dawkins:

If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have foregone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise.

But turning to the substance of your post, Miriam -- I wonder, are these anti-Catholic preachers really doing their own version of the Atheist Two-Step? I'm not sure. The essence of the Two-Step, it seems to me, is the refusal to engage with one's opponents' writings, on the grounds that these are untrustworthy or irrelevant to the point at issue. But at least two of the passages you quote (c and e) are doing precisely the opposite -- i.e. they are citing their opponents' writings in order to use them as polemical ammunition. The Two-Step, taken to its logical extreme, would result in a highly anti-textual form of argumentation: we don't need to read Popish books because we already know (a priori) that Popery is wrong. But surely there's nothing anti-textual about nineteenth-century religious polemic: it's deeply engaged with written sources; it's all about finding proof-texts to support your own position and refute your opponents. Indeed, one might well wish that nineteenth-century Protestants had been a little less textual in their approach, less concerned with 'Popery' as a doctrinal system and more willing to look at Catholicism in practice.

[Colin Slater]

I like the analogy a lot. It's a two-step, so it's a dance. And at a dance, you have someone opposite you doing the exact same thing, only it looks like it's backwards!

1. Atheist attempts to attack some general version of god, say "A supernatural being who created the world and interacts with it".

2. Doctrinaire theist scoffs, points out "But that's not the religion I believe in," without producing a better definition of god.

From a quick reading, I think this sort of argument is what (a) mentions briefly. Makes for an interesting comparison.

[CJColucci]

I think Colin Slater has it right. The usual run of critic says (usually quite rightly) that there are other types of religious belief that the atheist in question knows little about and does not address. The critic does not then say what those beliefs are, explain how they lead to a different conclusion, and challenge the atheist to rebut an actual argument. Maybe this version should be called the "theist side-step."

[Bob]

I suppose this will seem arrogant of me, but I think efforts by atheists to argue rationally with believers *are* a kind of dance, in that it may be pleasant to do but is otherwise a complete waste of time. What changes people's minds -- and then only very occasionally -- is seeing that others who beieve differently are rather admirable in one way or other.

[Rod]

People from any two different schools of thought or faith can not argue to any purpose if they do not share axioms. The religious point of view will always seem absurd to atheists and atheism will always seem absurd to the faithful. No amount of debate will change that.