Theocratic Aid To Kingdom Publishers

Lesson 52

EVIDENCE IN ARGUMENTATION

The most common fault in argument by those not understanding its principles is assertions, that is, statements made without proof. Every statement must be proved if the audience requires it. If one were speaking before an assembly of the Lord's people and said that the Kingdom was established in 1914, that would be an assertion, but the speaker would not need to take time to prove it, because his audience knows it is true. However, if there were strangers or persons of good-will in the audience they might require some proof before accepting the statement. Evidence generates the proofs for the assertions one might make.

There are two kinds of evidence: direct evidence and indirect evidence, or, in other terms, testimonial and circumstantial evidence. Testimonial evidence is that based upon actual facts that bear directly upon the question, or testimony from a witness or source which is recognized as an authority by both parties to the argument. Religionists generally claim to believe the Bible, and will recognize the Scriptures as an authority. Hence, if one of Jehovah's witnesses were discussing with a religionist the proposition "Religion is a snare" Bible texts could be used as direct or testimonial evidence. For example, Matthew 15 shows that the religious traditions of men make void the word of God; Deuteronomy 7:16 calls religion a snare; and at Acts 17 Paul refers to religion as superstition and demon-worship. (See Acts 17: 22 in the King James Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, and the American Standard Version margin.) All this would be testimonial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is certain facts, from which facts inferences are drawn which bear upon the main issue. Circumstantial evidence is of two kinds, inductive and deductive. Inductive argument goes from particulars to generalizations. One might point out such particulars as the churches' charging money for seats, taking up collections,

begging for money, collecting money for masses to redeem the dead from an imaginary "purgatory", gambling via bingo games, denying 'last rites' to persons too poor to pay; and from this array of specific instances draw the general conclusion that religion is a racket. That would be inductive argument under the heading of circumstantial evidence. One might show that the doctrines of the "trinity", "hell-fire," "immortality of the soul," etc., are the Devil's lies; that these doctrines are a snare of the Devil, and, since religion teaches them, it is a snare. Thus by inductive reasoning it is proved that "religion is a snare".

In addition to going from particulars to generalities, inductive argument might be by causal relationships and resemblance. An example of the use of causal relationships would be as follows: Israel was cast off. Why? Because she became religious. That reasoning would be from effect to cause. One might go from cause to effect, saying that Israel fell away to religion and for that reason was cast off by Jehovah God. That would be strong circumstantial evidence that God and religion are diametrically opposed.

An example of inductive argument by resemblance is found in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew. There Jesus spoke to the religious clergy of his day and showed how their religion was a snare, saying, "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." He pointed out the resemblance between them and the religious leaders of old who slew the prophets, and that hence all the righteous blood shed would justly come upon them. Jehovah's witnesses now on earth show how the clergy of today occupy a position similar to that of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day, pointing out by resemblance that modern religious leaders are conducting a racket and leading the people into grievous snares. Resemblance is also used many times by the Lord's ministers when they compare faithless Israel and modern-day "Christendom", showing the failure of each one is chargeable to religion, all of

which constitutes circumstantial evidence against religion.

Another form of circumstantial evidence is deductive argument, as opposed to inductive. Whereas inductive is from specific instances to the general principle, deductive reasoning is where the general principle is recognized but a certain particular coming under that principle is not accepted as true. For example, freedom of worship is generally accepted. Prom this one might deduce or draw the inference that Jehovah's witnesses should enjoy freedom of worship. If this general principle is actually true in democratic lands, then it should hold true in the particular case of Jehovah's witnesses. Inductive argument would be to say that since Jehovah's witnesses do not actually enjoy freedom to worship in all localities ostensibly democratic, the general principle of freedom of worship does not hold true in a practical sense in all the places where it is claimed to exist. So use inductive argument, or from particular to general, where you desire to establish a generalization, and use deductive argument where the general principle involved is recognized but its application to a particular is faulty or denied.

After establishing by inductive reasoning the truth of 1 he proposition or generalization herein used as an illustration, that "religion is a snare", make logical deductions from it, as follows: Since religion is a snare it is contrary to Christianity, to Christ Jesus, and to Jehovah God; therefore the people should flee from religion and to Jehovah and Christ and practice Christianity. Thus one brings his entire argument down to a practical application and accompanies it with a plea for action in harmony with the conclusions reached by the argument proper.

In proper argumentation, therefore, phrase the proposition, define its terms to remove vagueness and misunderstandings, determine the issues involved, eliminate irrelevancies, and then assemble the evidence, both testimonial and circumstantial, that proves your contention, including in your presentation any refutation of outstanding argu-

ments your opponents may advance that seems advisable. As one makes his argument, he should tie minor points of proof onto an admitted or irrefutable fact, if possible, so as to start an agreement of minds. The argument should start with a citing of as many points of agreement, rather than plunging into the differences. In other words, stalk the prey. Avoid wordiness. Do not overburden the talk with a multitude of minor proofs or with an endless stream of scripture texts. A few points powerfully made should be the aim. And when the point is driven home, quit. Do not mangle it with a lot of rambling repetition and afterthoughts. Finally, if at all possible determine in advance the nature of the audience, whether friendly, hostile, or neutral, and plan the argument accordingly.