Theocratic Aid To Kingdom Publishers

Lesson 54

SPECIAL DEVICES OF REFUTATION

There are five special devices or forms of refutation which have very telling effect when wisely used. These are known as turning the tables, reducing an argument to absurdity, dilemma, residues, and enforcing the consequences. These devices may be used on small bits of proof advanced by the opponent, but more often they fall into the class of general refutation, striking down in one fell swoop the entire argument or position the opponent advances. These devices have been used by Jehovah's witnesses for many centuries, and the Bible abounds with examples thereof. They are still used effectively in these ''last days" of gospel-preaching.

TURNING THE TABLES. In this method one adopts the argument advanced by the opponent and turns it against him, showing that rather than supporting his position it actually bolsters the position of the one refuting. This is one of the most devastating maneuvers in refutation that can be used. Many times it is possible to apply it effectively to the positions taken by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy because of her inconsistency and intolerance. Good examples of this can be found in the article "Is Seattle Losing Her Freedoms?" which appeared in the July 19, 1944, Consolation. One of the many instances of turning the tables in that article is found in the last paragraph of page 7.

Jesus used this method as recorded in Luke 19:21-23: "For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? There the nobleman turned the words of a slothful one against him, resulting in his condemnation.

REDUCING TO ABSURDITY. Here one adopts the argument of an opponent as if it were true and then shows that it actually leads to an absurdity. Like turning the tables, this method can also be frequently used against the absurd religionists. The booklet Cause of Death uses it in connection with the "trinity" doctrine, saying: "The clergy say that God is one, Jesus is one, and the 'Holy Ghost' is one, and the three added together make one. That is the kind of mathematics that can never be explained satisfactorily by anyone." Again, the booklet Hereafter makes absurd the literal application of the clergymen of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It shows how absurd it is to argue that a man is eternally tormented merely because he is rich, that another is carried away to heaven merely because he is poor and a beggar. It also ridicules the idea of a dead man's lifting up his eyes. Then, after showing the impossibility of anyone's getting a bucket of water, much less a drop, to one in a place as hot as the clergymen claim hell is, the statement appears: "The literal interpretation of this scripture text is shocking to reason and justice and is worse than absurd." (Pages 30, 31)

DILEMMA. One reduces an opponent's case to an alternative and then disproves each one of the two positions of the alternative. In other words, if the argument of the opposition is true, then either this follows as a result thereof or that follows, one or the other. Or in using dilemma it

might be that the refuter parries the thrust of an opponent by placing him on the horns of the dilemma by confronting him with two propositions, neither of which he can answer. He is in a quandary. Jesus did this when dishonest religionists came to him with a catch question. He said he would answer their question if they would first tell him something, to wit, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" They were unable to answer. If they said, From heaven, they would condemn themselves for not believing John. If they said, Of men, they would be stoned by the common people, who held John to be a prophet. (Matt. 21:23-27; Luke 20:1-8) On another occasion Jesus used both absurdity and dilemma with telling force. (See The Watchtower, January 1, 1945, paragraph 17 of the first article.)

RESIDUES. In the case of a dilemma only two things, as alternatives, are involved, but in the method of residues more possibilities or theories may be given. It consists of dividing an argument into all its possibilities, among which is the true one, and then proceeding to eliminate the false ones and letting the true one remain standing. This might be used in discussion of the question, "Where are the dead?" listing the various places or theories advanced as to their abode. So doing, one would have heaven, eternal torment, purgatory, limbo, and the grave. Then considering the issue from the general viewpoint without going into the matter of the first resurrection's having taken place, one would proceed to show from the Scriptures the falsity of all the theories of religionists and thus leave only the true answer, the grave. Further evidence might then be submitted as clinching proof that the dead are in the grave, unconscious.

ENFORCING THE CONSEQUENCES. This procedure is similar to reducing an argument to an absurdity. It consists of showing that if the contention or position of an opponent is carried out to its ultimate end it leads to undesirable or illogical results. Here again religion leaves herself wide

open, many of her doctrines being illogical and certainly undesirable. Christ Jesus enforced the consequences in one of his tilts with the religionists: "And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?" (Luke 13:14,15) There he condemned their narrow, sectarian view of the Sabbath by enforcing the consequence of its strict application at all times. Some people think it is all right to curb the free speech of Jehovah's witnesses. The consequences would ultimately be the destruction of their own freedom, which is undesirable to them. Many times politicians and others go contrary to their principles and promises of freedoms because of the embarrassment of following them out in the full. In the name of expediency they wriggle out of an enforcement of the consequences.