Golden Rule Epistemology

It was an easy argument. As a graduate student in English at Ole Miss I had developed something of a reputation as a contrarian, a gadfly. Which led one colleague to ask me words to this effect- “RC, you always make challenging comments in class. It’s like you think you have the right answer, and everyone else’s answer is wrong. Don’t you think that’s arrogant?”

I replied, “I believe that truth exists apart from me, outside of me. I can know it, just like everyone else. In fact, I have a duty to know it and to submit to it. You, and most of our classmates believe there is no truth outside of each of us, but that we construct our own truth. You have no duty to submit to anything, since you are the Creator of your own reality. Which position is the arrogant one?”

I recount this story not to pummel poor post-modernism once again. Instead I do so to commend applying the Golden Rule to our epistemology. Because we are sinners we all desire to privilege our own understanding, and we look askance at all who disagree with us. We have one set of standards by which we approve of our own convictions, another by which we disapprove of those with other views.

Recently an otherwise thoughtful fellow on twitter opined that complementarianism was a joint project of various theological ne’er-do-wells, right wing strategists, Confederate sympathizers, theonomists. He reached this conclusion because most right-wing strategists, Confederate sympathizers and theonomists are complementarians.

I pointed out, using the same standard, that if such a standard were workable, then egalitarianism was a joint project of feminists, progressive “evangelicals” and cultural Marxists. Oddly, he found my reasoning less than compelling. Because, you know, it’s not compelling, just like his.

Guilt by association for thee, but not for me, he seemed to believe. Well, we’re all guilty by association with this kind of sloppy reasoning. That is, his failure is common among us all. The Golden Rule isn’t just about what we do to others, but how we reason with them.

Before we make an argument we should first look at the structure of it, quite apart from its content. We can do this simply by applying the structure to our own view. Such may not demonstrate that our view is false. It will, however, demonstrate if our argument is flawed, fallacious.

It is something of an irony that the hard laws of logic intersect with the soft call to walk a mile in our brothers’ crocs. Steering clear of various formal and informal fallacies is not only a good way to love the Lord with all our minds, but a good way to love our brother, and to love our enemies.

Arguing unfairly is not only a bad way to win an argument, but a bad way to win a friend. May God give us the grace to love well enough to argue with precision and care, for the sake of the truth and the sake of all of us when we’re missing it.