| Volume 31 |
AUGUST 2010
|
Number
1
|
|
Cause/Effect Arguments Understood By Gene Burgett
Tips About Cause/Effect Arguments There are four matters crucial to understand about the cause/effect format. First, in its most extreme form the cause/effect format claims to understand the unspoken motivations of another individual. In a context addressing divine inspiration, Paul claimed, “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11). Unless an individual actually declares what is on his mind, it is impossible for another individual to know with certainty his reasons and motives. Second, in a less extreme form, cause/effect reasoning is an effort to “connect the dots.” It is a claim that one piece of information is connected to another piece of information in such a way that one explains something about the other. Most often it is claimed that one piece of information is responsible for another piece of information. Third, it is crucial to understand that a set of facts is usually subject to several possible interpretations. We see this quite often in the creation-versus-evolution conflict. In the creation-evolution debate a set of facts serve as the effect, while various arguments are set forth to assert that creation or evolution is the cause that best explains the facts. Finally, it should be noted that cause/effect situations are rather tricky things. The history of human knowledge is littered with examples of what appeared to be obvious cause/effect relationships, while a later generation learns that the dots had not been correctly connected. Spontaneous Generation Let us look at a couple of examples of cause/effect claims. Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedic Dictionary defines spontaneous generation as, “The doctrine, now no longer held, of the generation of new organisms from putrid or decomposing organic matter assumed to be entirely devoid of life” (1295). The almost parenthetical phrase “now no longer held,” means that at one time it was commonly maintained that new organisms came from “putrid or decomposing organic matter assumed to be entirely devoid of life.” Today, the idea seems too ridiculous to be true. So, how did such a seemingly absurd idea come to be accepted? The answer can be seen in almost any cow pasture, or perhaps even our own garbage. It is not unusual to see manure or rotting meat covered with flies. In days past this led some to conclude that flies came from manure or rotting meat. This was a cause/effect assertion with decomposing organic matter acting as the cause, while flies served as the effect. Of course, we now realize that all manner of life make its home in things like rotting meat and manure. Neither rotting meat nor manure is “entirely devoid of life,” as was once thought. This gives us an example of how easy it is to wrongly connect the dots, declaring a cause/effect relationship that, on the surface seems apparent, but in actuality does not exist. Global Flood It is a fact that almost every culture in every corner of the earth has a flood tradition. Most all of these flood stories have much in common with the events described in Genesis 6-9. The best known, non-Biblical flood tradition is of Babylonian origin and is often called the “Gilgamesh Epic.” A few excerpts reveal striking similarities between this Babylonian flood story and the one found in the Bible.
How do we explain the facts before us? What is the relationship between the Genesis flood and the “Gilgamesh Epic,” and, for that matter, the many flood traditions from cultures all over the world? Some claim the Biblical account of the flood was borrowed from the Babylonian account. Merrill Unger avers that the claim that the Genesis writer borrowed from the author of the Gilgamesh Epic is “The most widely accepted explanation at the present” (69). This is a cause/effect explanation, claiming the Babylonian flood account is the origin (the cause) of the Biblical flood report. There is, however, another possibility. “The most widely accepted answer” spoken of by Unger also assumes there was not a global flood. The flood, it is claimed, is a myth, but what if there really was a global flood, as the Genesis (and Gilgamesh) accounts claim? Furthermore, while the explanation that Genesis borrowed from Gilgamesh may sound plausible, how does that assertion explain the fact that virtually every ancient culture has a flood tradition? Did they all borrow from Gilgamesh? Does it not make more sense that the source (or cause) of all these ancient flood traditions is that there really was a global flood? Note that what was set forth as a cause/effect argument is really a theory designed to explain the source of the Genesis flood account. Note also that the argument offers no Biblical proof of the assertion. The Trinity Let us notice another example of an assertion placed in the cause/effect format. Anyone who studies with a Jehovah’s Witness for very long learns that they do not believe the Bible teaches the Godhead is a trinity. Notice the following quote from a Watch Tower booklet titled Should You Believe in the Trinity?
The above quotation from a Watch Tower source makes a cause/effect claim. It is asserted that the doctrine that God is a trinity is the result of ancient pagan ideas seeping into Christianity. In other words, the trinity doctrine was borrowed from pagan religion, just like the Genesis flood tradition was allegedly taken from the “Gilgamesh Epic.” Please do not mistake this for a Biblical argument, the conclusion of which is, God is not a trinity. No Bible reasons have been offered in the above quotation. Rather, it is an attempt to “connect the dots,” and, as we have seen, a set of data is usually capable of alternative explanations. One alternate explanation is simply that the New Testament teaching that the divine nature is a trinity is totally independent of any pagan ideas of deity. This is certainly possible since the New Testament is strongly monotheistic in teachings, while the pagan religions referred to in the Watch Tower quote are polytheistic. Another explanation is that the pagan religions that have triad views of deity are merely reflecting the fact that God really is a trinity. The Bible is vague about the information God handed down to man prior to the time of Abraham. This is because the Old Testament is primarily concerned with the salvation of man, which would be accomplished through descendants of Abraham. It is obvious, however, that more information about God was known than what is contained in Genesis 1-11. It is entirely possible that at some point in the early history of the human race the doctrine of the trinity had been introduced by God. Finally, it should also be noted that the same kind of cause/effect argument Watch Tower likes to use in their claim that the New Testament doctrine of the trinity is borrowed from pagan religions, is one to which their view of the divine nature may be subjected. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is a created being. They claim they believe the Christ is divine, but He is not divine in the same way the Father is divine. Thus, their New World Translation states, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (Jn. 1:1-2). To those not familiar with Watch Tower theology, the previous quotation may look like a typographical error; please be assured that it is not a mistake. The word God appears in the above quotation from the New World Translation twice, the first time the word begins with a capital letter, and the second time the first letter is lower case. This is their way of representing their teaching that Jesus is deity, just not divine to the same degree as the Father. Jesus is a lesser god. Not only does the Watch Tower view of the Christ appear to be polytheistic, it looks suspiciously close to the pagan Greek theory of a demiurge. Gnosticism, a second century heresy fought against by Christians, taught that the world was created by a demiurge. This demiurge was a lower level deity responsible for the creation of the material universe. One might say a demiurge was not the God but “a god.” If I were to use their own words, I might claim that the Watch Tower view of deity came in after the apostles “when such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.” Conclusion The cause/effect format allows the writer to place his explanation on a set of data. No matter how plausible a cause/effect claim may appear, in the end, the only thing that proves a theological position to be true or false is an appeal to and handling aright of Scripture. Works Cited
Steady Progress, God Be Thanked
|
It is not unusual to hear or read the assertion that a certain individual or group of individuals borrowed a belief from another group. This assertion is often presented in a cause/effect format. It is important, however, for the Bible student to recognize that these cause/effect claims prove nothing. While such reasoning may have a kind of historical value, it should not be construed as an appeal to Scripture. In fact, even if one were to successfully prove that a religious body borrowed a doctrinal position from another religious group, it would not prove that the position is without Biblical merit.
