Category Archives: Theological Argumentation

Thoughts of a Solitary Walker V: The Logic of Extremism

Leave a reply

My mind ranges far and wide on my solitary walks. Today I want to bring you into a recent internal conversation that focused on clarifying the notion of extremism. One can become an extremist in any area of thought: theology, morality, metaphysics, politics, and many others. What is extremism? How do “extreme” positions become plausible to those who come to hold them? How do you know if you are an extremist? Is there any objective way to determine what positions are extreme? Or, are extremes “in the eye of the beholder”? Is the label “extremist” simply one more rhetorical weapon in a struggle for cultural control?

The Nature of Extremism

I have seen people move gradually from what seemed to me moderate theological, moral, theological, and political positions to extreme ones. During this process their entire system of beliefs and even their personalities change. How does this happen? Many factors come into play. Changes in psychological, physical, and political conditions can facilitate changes in beliefs. But I am not going to address these factors. I want to focus on logic.

I focus on logic because whatever other factors influence our beliefs, we always assert our beliefs as true. And once the mind latches on to a belief as true, two mental processes get triggered. First, the mind begins automatically to unfold the implications of that belief. This process is driven by the logical law that says that the valid implications of a true proposition are themselves true. Second, the mind becomes very sensitive to propositions that directly or by implication contradict that belief. We cannot believe that two contradictory assertions are both true at the same time.

The Path to Extremism

Once we embrace a belief as true for whatever reason, rational or irrational, our minds begin the process of extending its reach and defending it against rival beliefs in the neighborhood. If it weren’t for challenges from other people, our minds might be content to adjust a few of our other beliefs in the immediate vicinity. Clearing a little space around our beloved belief might reinforce it enough to put our minds at ease. But when we are confronted with competing beliefs, we must make a choice. We can modify our treasured belief to take into account the force of its competitors or we can double down and deny any truth to the alternatives. The second option is the path to extremism! Happily, most people don’t follow this path all the way to the extreme. I won’t say they are lazy. Perhaps they are simply pragmatic enough not to be bothered by their inconsistency and arbitrariness.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

The first mistake extremists make is assuming that any belief/proposition can embody “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Extremists will not allow any other truth claim to modify their axiomatic belief because any change in that belief would imply that it was not originally “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A dispiriting prospect of endless modification and compromise would loom before them. Extremists treat beliefs as if they are either wholly true or wholly false. And if it’s discovered to be partially false it must be in fact wholly false. The logical law of the excluded middle would seem to support them, that is, for any proposition P, P is either true or false. There is no middle ground between true and false. When dealing in abstract symbols such as P and Q, which are bereft of existential content, no one can doubt the law. But in ordinary human language it does not work. Concrete existence cannot be translated clearly and without loss into language. Words and sentences are always imprecise and incomplete.

Gravitational Logic

We noted above that the move to extremism can take the straight path of the logic of implication—sometimes called “the slippery slope”—or a zig zag path of reacting to contradictions, sometimes called “dialectical logic.” Both of these logics tend toward extremism. But I think there is also another form of logical adjustment by which one may minimize the temptation to extremism. For lack of a better term, I call it gravitational logic.

Consider the way the entire universe consists of one gravitational field in which every point and particle is in communication with every other. The closer objects are to one another the more powerful the attractive force and the further apart, the less. But no matter how far apart, the gravitational interaction between two physical objects never reduces to zero. Likewise, the more massive an object, the more gravitational force it exerts. Any change in one place affects the whole and every point within it to some degree.

Let’s apply the analogy of the universal gravitational force to logic, the science of relationships among propositions. Every assertion about any state of affairs within the universe simultaneously asserts something about the whole universe, even if it mentions only one thing explicitly. This must be true because every particular thing in the universe exists only in relation to every other thing and the whole. To change one’s belief about one state of affairs requires adjustment in every other belief. The closer (logically) one belief is to another or the larger (that is, more general its scope) the more adjustment will be required.

The moon’s gravity affects the ocean tides on earth twice as much as the Sun because, though much less massive, it is much closer to earth. And the harmony or tension between two moral beliefs will be much more apparent than harmony or tension between a moral belief and belief about the geology of Australia. Moral beliefs live in the same neighborhood and speak about things within the same space. And yet, beliefs about morality, history, cosmology, and geology speak about the same universe and condition each other however slightly.

Avoiding Extremism without Falling into Relativism

In my view, this analogy helps us avoid extremism without falling into a morass of relativism and never-ending compromise. First, because in our world everything is related to everything, there can be no statement in human words that embodies the ideal of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” There is always more to learn and some adjustments to be made. Extremism is thus deprived of its basic premise. However, because beliefs live in regions, neighborhoods and even local streets—such as morality, natural science, metaphysics, history, etc.—we can assert with confidence the reliability of our beliefs as long as we take the lay of the adjacent land into account and stumble on no unanswerable objections. Though it is not impossible, we need not worry that a belief about a state of affairs in another galaxy will defeat or severely modify our beliefs about matters nearer to home.

Next Time: Shall we experiment with some beliefs to see how this works?

The Slippery Slope Argument: Always Fallacious?

3 Replies

The slippery slope argument appears often in political, theological, and ethical debates. Simply put, it argues that accepting one questionable idea leads to a downward slide to worse and worse ideas and finally to an abyss of absurdity. It burdens the first idea with the weight of the last. Political progressives use it. Political conservatives use it. Theological liberals and theological traditionalists love it. And all parties criticize each other for making it! When it supports our side we think it brilliant and when it doesn’t we reject it as fallacious. Which is it?

Both the admiring and dismissive reactions to the slippery slope argument (SSA) are evoked by the claim that the cascade of ideas moving from bad to worse to absurd are linked by necessary relationships so that accepting the first leads inexorably to the last. The paradoxical tendency of the argument to provoke both reactions lies in its confusing combination of very different kinds of relationships used to map the descending cascade: logical, psychological, sociological, and individual tastes and preferences. An SSA is strongest when it relies heavily on logical relationships. Such an argument begins with clear definitions and principles, true premises, and progresses with valid inferences to its conclusions. In politics, theology, and morality purely logical arguments are too abstract to get the job done. In these areas where so much more than truth is at stake—money, pleasure, power, and honor—rarely can people on different sides of a debate agree even on definitions, principles, and foundational premises; and without clarity and agreement on a common beginning point, each move’s validity will be called into question.

Confusion is compounded when psychological and sociological connections are presented as if they were logical inferences. Our understanding of human psychology and particular behavior patterns associated with particular psychological states is derived from empirical experience. Human behavior patterns derived from empirical experience cannot infallibly be extrapolated into future behavior. I doubt this would be possible even if we assumed that the exact same conditions will obtain for a future act as were present for the observed past behavior. But of course, conditions are never the same, and there are way too many factors to take into account, many of them hidden. Moreover, human beings are highly susceptible to influence from the concentric circles of groups to which they belong. Behavior that would not make psychological sense when acting alone makes perfect sense when contemplated in its sociological dimension and vice versa. Lastly, individual human beings differ from each other in ways that are unpredictable from the usual psychological and sociological patterns.

Hence the SSA must be used with caution and evaluated with a critical eye. And yet, it is incorrect to label its every use a “fallacy.” Even at the psychological and sociological levels human behavior falls into repeating patterns that can be somewhat predictive. Also, even though not all human behavior patterns can be described in purely logical terms and people are not logical machines, our minds are structured in a way that we experience dissonance when we are confronted with a tension between our desire for money, pleasure, power, and honor on the one hand and truth, fact, and logical coherence on the other. Hence behaving rationally, which includes tracing out and accepting the implications of one’s basic axioms, is a psychological need as well as a rational duty. Social pressure, too, can drive one to seek praise from others for being courageous enough to take the next bold step in unfolding the logic of one’s foundational premise.

Hence the SSA can be a sound and persuasive argument if proper attention is paid to its different dimensions: logic, psychology, sociology, and individual variability. It cannot show us what will happen if we adopt a particular axiom as foundational, but it can show us what might happen if we do so. And that may be enough to provoke some to engage in serious reflection before they embark on a journey whose downward trajectory leads to the abyss of absurdity.