How Can David Beat Goliath?

I just preached 1 Samuel 17 last night in my sermons series through that book. Kids' books make the lesson of this story to be courage in the face of insurmountable odds based in trust that God controls our circumstances and cares about us. My congregation wisely added that God's concern for his own name factors large in David's courage/victory as well. God doesn't like it when he is slighted - even indirectly.

An article by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker a few weeks ago helped me see another important component of the story: self-knowledge. David did not fight a conventional duel (as in, going out dressed in Saul's armor, looking like a half-sized Goliath); David fought like David - as he had practiced on quite a few daunting foes as a shepherd. Goliath plodded forward with his "caddy" carrying his shield & extra weapons for the various stages of a duel. There would be no stages - David ran at Goliath (the verbs pile up to illustrate the quickness of the fight), grabbed a stone, flung it, it hit the eyebrow, the giant fell, David won, he pulled out the other's sword and cut off his head. Game over, the "caddy" can take the extra weapons home.

Gladwell looked at the pattern in warfare and basketball; underdogs can win if they don't try to play the giant's game. He said, "We tell ourselves that skill is the precious resource and effort is the commodity. It’s the other way around. Effort can trump ability—legs, in Saxe’s formulation, can overpower arms—because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coördination."

A friend of mine asked some great questions:

So if our churches are loosing the culture war, loosing the war for souls, have we been playing as Goliath?

What is it that we need to do to start thinking and acting like David? How do we substitute effort for ability?

Any ideas?

Dismantling Bad Arguments

With a minimal groundwork laid, our small logic class turned to common ways that arguments fail to make the case the arguer intends. Fallacies are what logicians call these common mistakes.

1. If the argument is truly a formal argument, there are two easy ways to ruin it:
(a) Prove that one of the premises is false (=ruining the form of a formal argument).
(b) Find a counterexample that violates the argument.

*I'm of the opinion that most arguments people encounter outside the academy are the informal/inductive variety. Also, I found working with informal fallacies to be quite fun in the course I took. Therefore, I decided to give formal fallacies only a passing nod. If some folks show desire to learn more, we might break out the square of opposition!

For the following fallacies, I gave people the name, my brief explanation, and an example of the fallacy committed in an argument. The fun is in putting a finger on what the exact problem is. I'm not giving my specific examples because it took a long time to find precise & concise examples that would interest folks.
2. Some informal arguments have irrelevant ideas that ruin them.

a. appeal to force - "My conclusion should be accepted or else!" threats, blackmail, etc.

b. appeal to pity - "My conclusion should be accepted because of these unfortunate circumstances." immoral begging, shut-your-brain-off-and-feel-sorry requests

c. appeal to the people - "My conclusion needs to be accepted if you are going to fit into the group." peer pressure, jump-on-the-bandwagon arguments

d. argument against the person - "That conclusion is wrong because you said it." every failure to recognize that the truth is true no matter who presents it and with what motives

e. accident - "Here's a broad principle/rule that justifies my conclusion for this specific situation." misusing broad principles/rules for cases they weren't meant to cover, failure to recognize a special case

f. straw man - "That other opinion is so crazy in the first place! Of course it's wrong, and here's why..." misrepresenting an opposing view so that you can triumph over that misrepresentation (instead of a real position)

g. missing the point - "If you agree that premise #1 and premise #2 are true, then why don't you agree with my conclusion?" letting true evidence lead me just off target from the fitting conclusion - to something related

h. red herring - "Focus on my engaging side issue instead of focusing on the actual evidence I have for my conclusion." different audiences fall for different 'red herrings' - whatever the hot topics are

Part 3 (weak induction) coming soon!
Part 1 (Clear Thinking Matters)

Clear Thinking Matters

Last night I led Equip 2.1: Basic Logic Principles for our church. I couldn't be more pleased with the results and feedback. Here is how we began:

A. You must understand the arguer before you can argue with him.

1. First, look for the parts of the argument:

a. conclusion – the arguer is trying to persuade you of something: his conclusion

b. premise(s) – the arguer uses or implies evidence that should lead you to his conclusion

c. For something to be considered an argument there need to be premises and a conclusion that follows from them. Stating your opinion, giving advice, conditional statements, and many other statements sound like arguments but are missing parts.

d. Some arguments have necessary conclusions (deductive/formal arguments), but most of the arguments we see have probable conclusions (inductive/informal arguments).

2. Second, test the individual parts of the argument.

a. Do you need to learn more about the subject matter to understand the argument?

b. Does the arguer use unfamiliar words?

c. Are there implied parts to the argument of which you should be aware?

d. Are there any terms or statements in the argument that are vague or ambiguous? [Arguments must be clear in order to be effective.]

B. Everyone needs logic for clear thinking – especially Christians.
1. Proverbs 1:20-33 The cost is high for stupidity.

2. Following Jesus requires understanding his words & their application to many areas: John 8:31-32.

3. Many temptations can be fought by arguing against your sinful impulses with truth: 1Corinthians 10:11-15.

4. Our society is more impressed with rhetoric (speech that moves you) than logic (use of evidence to draw good conclusions).

Part 2 (Dismantling Bad Arguments)

Wesley's Words

Wesley is saying a lot of words now, some of which are pretty funny:

• "Moh-cwacka"= more crackers or motorcycle, whichever seems to fit the context the best

• "A-choooo"= Thank you

• "Bee twuck"= Big truck (with LOTS of enthusiasm)
  

• "Vee-bomp"= Fist bump (accompanied by appropriate action)

• "Fow-fer"= Flower

• "Hawk"= Heart (the H is very harsh)

• "Shap-at"= Chapstick (with a puckered mouth)

• "Cah-co-ater"= Calculator (must add Russian-type harsh syllables; he doesn't use L's)

• "Shebbies"= Stawberries
  

And my favorite..

• "Tor-TAH-tee" = Tortilla

National Day of Prayer

Today is the 58th annual National Day of Prayer, and our small county had about 120 (according to the organizer - thanks, Jon!) participate on the courthouse steps. The organizer assigned me the topic of praying for/about the media (other assigned topics include families, government, business, Church, etc.) I was encouraged to write out the prayer (400-600 words), in order to stay brief and on point. I'd like to share it with you:

King of the ages, we thank you for the media that have served our nation since its beginning. We thank you for the combination of free speech, free press, and free markets in our country. These are big responsibilities for us! There are so many sources of information & entertainment that we’ve suppressed a hunger for wisdom & truth. We joke that we can’t believe everything we see on TV, the Internet, or in the paper, but we just stick to our preferred sources of information and avoid the work of learning truth.

Jesus, you are the Truth. You are real life. The Scriptures you produced are able to make us wise for salvation. The Spirit you give us is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation. May your will be done in studios, press rooms, publishing houses, video conferences and on personal computers across this nation. Please gift your Church with creative & wise people who can model for us how to use all forms of media to spread the gospel and to promote righteousness. If the medium truly is neutral, then the people who are producing the stories, the images, and the music are certainly not. Please send missionaries to infiltrate all forms of media, to call the lead worshipers of our culture’s gods out of idolatry. Journalists, editors, producers, musicians, advertising execs, actors, directors, musicians, and webmasters all need Jesus.

Ruler of all nations, America’s media is particularly powerful for penetrating other parts of the world. Email, blogs, satellite TV, and radio can cross national borders into countries where people are prevented from hearing about Jesus, from learning anything that is forbidden by government or religion – where injustices are hidden under lies. Please use our nation’s media (and economy) to peel back imposed ignorance from entire nations. Expose injustices around the world against which we should pray and take action.

Giver of every good and perfect gift, thank you for the rise of Web 2.0, the online social networks, competitive sources for news, and the accountability that could potentially come from all this. As these things make more and more Americans dispensers of information, many fortunes and jobs are won and lost. Please do not let the Church neglect the tremendous opportunities to seek your kingdom by means of the changing media. But since we cannot serve two masters, convict us of our times of serving the medium; refresh us with joy and wisdom for the tremendous opportunities.