# Argumentum Ad Ridiculum



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2006)

*argumentum ad ridiculum*
Last but not least is the weapon of the loser and that is argumentum ad ridiculum or in plain English appeal to mockery and horse laugh. This of course has no intellectual value and serves only as a feel good factor for the loser. (A definition from the web)

JD recently spoke about his disillusionment with modern puritans -

"...and my disillusionment varies by the winsomeness diplayed here by the modern day proponents of Puritanism..."

I hope I'm not misrepresenting him but it seems he's saying that the puritan way was, and therefore, the neo-puritan way ought to be more edgy and mocking. 

This reminded me of a recent interview that Gene Cook did with Dr. Robert Morey on Natural Theology. It was a fascinating piece and in it Dr. Morey brought up this same sentiment. He said that Jesus, in his dealings with the pharisees, used argumentum ad ridiculum. (Blind leading the blind, baby snakes, white washed graves) Elijah was doing the same with the prophets of Baal. Dr. Morey said that avoiding ridicule in defending the faith comes from following the authority of Aristotle and not Christ.

Dr. Morey for example refers to R.C. Sproul as Roman Catholic Sproul, and Norman Geisler as Roman Geisler. Dr. Morey doesn't hold back.

We certainly are aware of Calvin and Luther being quite forward and cutting in their speech at times. Reading in Turretin, he uses the test of whether or not we are dealing with a 'weaker brother' or a pharisee. If a weaker brother then we should not be a stumbling block, but if we are dealing with the pharasee then it's no holds barred.

As an ambassador of Christ I have cultivated a gentle approach to people but I think JD is correct in saying that the puritan way opens up the occassional need to blast your opponent with ridicule.

What do you think? Is there a proper and historical use of ridicule amongst the puritans and neo-puritans?

Please contribute to this post or take gas and die you fence sitting lurker!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2006)

What's a neo-Puritan? Because I hold to the socio-political worldview of the Puritans.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm referring to the puritans as they are locked in history. I refer to the neo-puritan as the modern iteration of puritanism as a socio-political worldview. So I would call us all neo-puritans. The puritans were children of their age just as we are children of our own.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2006)

I am a Paleo-Puritan, then.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2006)

Jacob, the feared Puritanicus Rex. :bigsmile:


----------



## crhoades (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob,

Sounds like you're describing Doug Wilson's The Serrated Edge. I haven't read it but skimmed through it at a bookstore and seen comments about it online. Familiar with it?


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Mar 29, 2006)

Methinks Douglas Wilson wrote a book on this. It is called "A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking". I have not read it, but it might be about that which you speak of.

Might be a fun read.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Mar 29, 2006)

Ahhh... I see I am too slow.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2006)

Thank you Chris and Josh, I hadn't heard of that book. Perhaps I'll spend some of my kids inheritance and buy it.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2006)

Niether of you have read Wilson's book. I was reading what a reviewer said of it on Amazon and he quotes a section of the book.

"Paraphrasing the Lord's answer to the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15, Wilson writes, "Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either. . . . Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing, for her daughter. . . She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. `It's not right,' He says, `to give perfectly good white folk food to "ni##ers."' . . If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult." (pp. 43, 44)"

If this is what Wilson says then I definitely question his hermeneutic. He's using hyperbole to bolster his contention that Jesus used satire. That's dangerous stuff. Would you agree.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Niether of you have read Wilson's book. I was reading what a reviewer said of it on Amazon and he quotes a section of the book.
> 
> "Paraphrasing the Lord's answer to the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15, Wilson writes, "Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either. . . . Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing, for her daughter. . . She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. `It's not right,' He says, `to give perfectly good white folk food to "ni##ers."' . . If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult." (pp. 43, 44)"
> ...



Homer nodded. The rest of the book is worth reading. He takes evanjellyfish to task..


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 29, 2006)

Doh! 
You meant a different Homer I guess.


----------

