A Black-and-White Review of
Chris Blake's Black-and-White Thinking

By Gary Koskenmaki

[NOTE: To aid the reader, text appearing in Christ Blake's original article are italicized in the text that follows.]

I found Chris Blake's article in the Review when I read a post by Carlos Medley on one of the Web Forums run by a Seventh-day Adventist individual. Mr. Medley regularly visits these forums and posts links to online articles from the Review to advertise it. As I read this article I became increasingly uneasy with its point of view, and with his manner of attempting to convince people that he had a correct point of view. He started his article with a reasonable premise that almost all of us would find to be true: that an extremist will not acknowledge the possibility of there being any good in anyone else's point of view. This is a reasonable premise.

Mr. Blake called this extremist position either/or. In academic circles either/or is called a logical fallacy. It is called a fallacy, because is does not lead to a discovery of truth, no matter what the subject. An example of an either/or fallacy could be phrased as a question or as a statement. The question, "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" is an either/or fallacy. The reason being is that by answering the question you condemn yourself no matter what. If you answer yes, that means you did beat your wife, and by answering no, you admit that you are still beating your wife. There is no allowance for the fact that you may not be beating your wife in the first place. It is not a search for truth, but an attempt to force a point of view regardless of truth.

There are many logical fallacies used in attempts to convince us of many things. Politicians use them to disguise their real actions, or lack of them. Advertisers use them to try to get us to buy products we don't really need. Lawyers use them to sway juries into seeing their client's point of view. They are all around us and we recognize many of them instinctively, but don't have names for them unless we have taken academic courses in logical thinking.

I will list the fallacies that I found in Mr. Blake's article, in addition to the either/or fallacy I have already described, and give you a short description of each one.

1. Ad hominen: This simply means a personal attack upon a person, or a group of people.
2. Hyperbole: This is simply portraying something very negatively, or very positively. Many times it is simply the adjectives used to describe the subject.
3. Euphemism: A euphemism portrays negative subjects in a positive light. Here is a euphemistic way of saying that someone is obese: "He is a really big guy." It paints a picture of something other than obesity, but yet cannot be positively shown to be a lie. It slants opinion by word usage.
4. Dysphemism: This is the opposite of a euphemism. It paints a negative picture without seemingly lying. Here is an example: "My mother-in-law is really something else." Now, you can't prove I said anything bad about my mother-in-law, but I sure left that taste in your mouth. I slanted towards negativity.
5. Mistaking the person for the argument: If a person who thinks or acts in a way with which we don't agree says something then that person is not to be believed simply because of who they are.
6. Slippery slope: This fallacy says that if a person takes a first step in one direction, then he must end up at a certain conclusion or position.

In the light of this information let us look at what Chris Blake's argument (for that is what it really is), has to say. I didn't find what his main point was until having read most of the way through his article. Here it is: "If God spelled everything out in black and white, we would lose our healthy independence. The closer we get to truth, the closer we get to paradox (give to gain, be last to be first, die to live)."

Does Ellen White agree with this? NO! Look at what she says:

"It is a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears for what it really is. It is by mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance. The eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil caused the ruin of our first parents, and the acceptance of a mingling of good and evil is the ruin of men and women today. The mind that depends upon the judgment of others is certain, sooner or later, to be misled" (Education, pp. 230, 231).

It is as we come closer to God that our discernment between good and evil becomes greater, not lessened. Look at what the Apostle Paul has to say: Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

Paul clearly says that the closer we come to God, the more we study, the greater will be our discernment between good and evil. He clearly says that the usage of our senses in determining good and evil will cause the strong meat of the Gospel to belong to us. He places a blessing upon those who think in terms of good and evil.

So, how then does Chris Blake support his argument for not thinking in terms of black-and-white? Here is where his logical fallacies that I described for you earlier come into play. How does he condemn black-and-white thinking? Let's let him tell us.

"I'm going to the movie theater anyway, so I'll watch a film of irresponsible violence, damaging stereotypes, or dehumanizing sex. I'm with someone I like a lot and we start kissing heavy, so I might as well have intercourse. I got someone pregnant, so I might as well tell her to get an abortion. I yelled at my child, so I'm not going to church anymore."

Here Mr. Blake attributes slippery slope thinking to being an either/or fallacy. Remember, the slippery slope says that once I start I can't stop until I reach that destination.

"Can you see the powers of evil at work here? Black-and-white thinking induces muddled morals and bizarre behavior."

Here Mr. Blake says that thinking in terms of good and evil produces bad results. It is actually the power of evil at work. Now, I don't know about you, but I find that thinking in terms of good and evil results in something other than bad morals and bizarre behavior. He slips into the either/or fallacy here. Either you think this way (in terms of shades-of-gray), or you will have muddled morals and suffer from bizarre behavior. Pretty sad logic for a Christian. He leaves no ground for other possibilities. Do you know anyone who thinks in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, who doesn't have muddled morals? If so, you have proven Mr. Blake wrong.

"Black-and-white extremists leap from one side of the horse to the other side without ever landing in the saddle. They won't allow a drop of mustard to touch their lips at a potluck while they shovel down four servings."

Once again we see the either/or fallacy. If you think in black and white this is what you do. No possibility of other behavior is allowed. Irrationality is the only possible result of thinking in terms of good and evil. This could also be classified as slippery slope thinking.

"After their children have bolted from the church, and from what they know as a joyless, arbitrary God, extremists often become more extreme, growing increasingly constricted and judgmental, or else carelessly throwing off everything godly for a lifestyle of bitter debauchery."

Do you know of anyone who has ever raised their children to love God, to love the church, not become constricted and judgmental, and thought in terms of black-and-white, and good and evil? If so, you have shown the fallacy of Mr. Blake's logic. You have shown his either/or fallacy to be false. This is also an ad hominem attack upon all people who think in black-and-white, good and evil. It says that they are bad parents, bad people, and bad Adventists. Also thrown in here for extra effect is hyperbole. "Increasingly constricted", "judgmental", "bitter debauchery", and "carelessly throwing off," are the terms used. Notice the feeling of the picture that he paints with his choice of words.

"I once knew an extremist pastor who argued ad infinitum his position on the nature of Christ. Years later he had changed over to the opposite positionÑbut he was still just as passionate about his rightness."

Here we see a mistaking the person for the argument fallacy. Mr. Blake argues that because this pastor was passionate about his position his thinking was bad. Yet, by Mr. Blake's own definition, that either/or can admit no rightness in the other position, this pastor had to have acknowledged something right in a position other than his, or he would have never changed his mind. He attacks the pastor's passion as being a personal failure. I don't know about you, but I like passionate people. The world would be a really boring place without them. Much that could and should be done would never happen without them.

I will close this article with a couple of more examples of Mr. Blake's logical fallacies. But, I hope that this has given you encouragement to do a couple things. First, to never ever give up on the pursuit of understanding the difference between good and evil. Second, that you will allow no one to abuse you of your right to think for yourself. It is our God-given right, and what is more, it is our God-given responsibility to think for ourselves. So, let us finish with our examination of Mr. Blake's article.

"Christ says, "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30, NIV), but this radical call should never lead to extremism."

Here I fully agree with Mr. Blake. We should never let extremism in. But, let me qualify my agreement with Mr. Blake. I see extremism as rigidity in thinking. Rigidity allows no one else to have any truth, any goodness, any rightness. Rigidity is found in those who believe in right-and-wrong thinking. Rigidity is found in those who think in terms of shades of gray too. They exhibit it when they don't allow for there to be value found in thinking that looks at life in terms of good and evil. So, whether a person is a black-and-white thinker, or a shades-of-grey thinker, they can be extremist and rigid. Mr. Blake has proven this.

"Black-and-white extremists become Sadventists, Madventists, Fadventists, and Badventists. Church members who discover the simplicity on the other side of complexity are Radventists."

Can you see the usage of what I described as dysphemisms and euphemisms here? Those whose thinking he disagrees with are painted negatively. Those whose thinking he agrees with are painted positively. If you think in terms of black-and-white, and good and evil you are a negative influence upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If you think in terms of shades-of-gray you are a boon to the Church!

Let us return to Mr. Blake's original premise: either/or thinking is very harmful. He said he couldn't begin to say how much damage it has done. With that I can fully agree.

Gary Koskenmaki is a 47 year-old student at Walla Walla Community College's Clarkston, Washington Campus. He is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He returned to school in the Summer Quarter of 2000 after a 20-year career as a Heating/Air Conditioning and Refrigeration service technician which he left because of back problems. He is pursuing a double major in Psychology and Social Work with the ultimate academic goal of a Masters in Social Work.

GreatControversy.org
You Have a Voice