Truth and Degeneration

In a recent post, the most correct and logical Watchman-cum-Clarkian Daniel Chew Huicong once again proved himself to be deprived of not only logical mental faculties, but also good ol’ common sense – which is apparently not so common in his case.

Our most venerable Watchman Chew made the following inane proposition that P.

Proposition P: Unregenerate "biblical" scholars produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.

Chew’s context for P: “In the world,” presumably this possible world.

So let us examine this proposition for sanity’s sake.

If P = “Unregenerate "biblical" scholars”;

Then Q = “Produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.”

Allow us to first examine the acceptable logical forms, modus ponens and modus tollens.

1) Modus ponens

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q

This would mean that, if “you were an unregenerate "biblical" scholar,” then “you would produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.” It could be easily shown that it is not true that "scholarly" academic theological articles and books are produced by all unregenerate "biblical" scholars. The very fact that a particular biblical scholar is unregenerate does not guarantee the production of "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.

There are many factors that might influence his intellectual fecundity. For instance, this scholar might develop a particular medical condition which deprives him of his ability to use his higher intellectual functions e.g. a major cerebrovascular accident. In this case, he might even require the use of adult diapers! Or he might be caught rioting with the Red Shirts in Bangkok and thrown into jail; in which case, he wouldn’t be very productive in academia thereafter.

2) Modus tollens

If P, then Q.
¬Q
Therefore, ¬P.

This would mean that, if “you do not produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books,” then “you are not an unregenerate "biblical" scholar.” But an unregenerate “biblical” scholar might not be producing "scholarly" academic theological articles and books” for a myriad of reasons. And as explained above, he might have been thrown into jail in Bangkok for rioting, or is currently wearing adult diapers after having a severe stroke. This does not mean that he is suddenly a regenerate “biblical” scholar or Spider Man! On the other hand, he might have simply retired from being a tenured professor.

We now come to the fallacious logical forms of Chew’s proposition that P.

3) Affirming the consequent

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

This would mean that, if “you produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books,” then “you are an unregenerate "biblical" scholar.”

The foolishness of affirming the consequent would be clear for most readers, except for perhaps Chew. For example, John Fullerton MacArthur, Jr. does produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books. Does that mean that he is now an unregenerate "biblical" scholar? That goes for scores of godly biblical scholars who produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books on a regular basis.

4) Denying the antecedent

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

This would mean that, if “you are not an unregenerate "biblical" scholar,” then “you will not produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.” Again, by denying the antecedent, Chew’s already screwy proposition is made even screwier. I believe it is obvious to the readers that one does not require to be an unregenerate "biblical" scholar in order to produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books. One can be a monk or an Islamic scholar or even a regenerate “biblical” scholar.

Perhaps all Watchman Chew wants to do is to hint to us that only "godly" self-appointed Watchmen produce “scholarly” theological articles and books that are generally not accepted by academia, and only such Watchmen qualify as “godly” and “regenerate.” So we should all preferably read only blogs, articles and books self-published by self-glorifying Watchmen like the most venerable, most correct Watchman Chew.

But the truth is – Chew’s reasoning faculties are indeed degenerating, and our prayers are with him.

PS: This is an analysis of only one sentence from Chew’s post, out of his many posts. Can you fathom the tomes required to analyze all of his fallacious thinking and writings?