Introduction
An argument is defined as a combination of propositions or premises placed along other declarations categorised as the conclusion. Premises ought to possess some significance and for all arguments that are valid, there should be conclusions that are sustained by earlier premises. On this basis, the paper will analyse whether the article chosen for analysis was actually a valid argument. It is an article written by Piers Akerman concerning accusations of paedophilia within the Catholic Church.
Rhetorical devices employed by the author
In order to convince his audience, the author has employed a vast number of these devices throughout his work. His title is one such illustration; here he says “Atheists line up to nail Catholics on the wall” (Akerman, 2010, 1). This is an example of a dysphemism and a hyperbole. It is a dysphemism because negativity has been used to worsen the situation. For instance instead of saying ‘atheists join together to oppose Catholics’, he has opted to use the phrase “nail Catholics to the wall” both these phrases denote an opposition to Catholics but the latter is definitely more negative and hence more dramatic or influential. It is hyperbole because it makes it sound like there is a fully fledged disagreement between atheists and Catholics yet this may not necessarily be so. To ‘nail someone to the wall’ brings an illusion of finality concerning a grave matter.
As one goes through the piece, one can find examples of downplayers, sarcasm and proof surrogates, hyperbole as rhetoric devices. Hyperbole can be found at the beginning when the author compares the disagreement between Catholics and non Catholics to the atmosphere at the time of the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan. Although it may be true that there is an element of hostility between these camps, it is inaccurate to claim that the extent of this controversy is tantamount to the Nazi situation. However, readers are likely to pay more attention upon seeing such comparisons. Proof surrogates (making general claims on facts that require proof) can be found in the article as well. For example, the author says that “‘other expert researchers’ have found incidences of paedophilia in the Catholic church to be consistent with patterns in the general male population.” (Akerman, 2010, par 7) He did not name these ‘other experts’ but by mentioning them, he makes his assertions appear more credible to the reader. Sarcasm can be seen when the authors asks why abuse is not discussed when it was revealed that a US paedophile group supported a public organisation. Down players or rhetorical devices that are centred at diminishing the significance of an act or person can be seen when the author states that ‘an editor with spine would have challenged blowhards like Mike Carlton’ (Akerman, 2010, par 5). By describing news editors as spineless, he renders them as unreliable sources of information.
All the rhetorical devices employed serve to make the author’s points stick in the mind of respective readers. Although not all the rhetorical devices are trying to conceal something or are tricks employed to convince readers, there are instances when these tools have been effective at convincing readers about the intensity of such a debate.
Common fallacies
This article has fallen into the trap of the false dilemma fallacy in which an author makes the assumption that there can only be two responses to an issue. For instance, a waiter walks up to a client and asks him whether he would like to have coffee or tea and the customer responds by saying that he does not feel like coffee. The waiter will be presumptuous to simply walk off and bring tea without confirming that the client actually wants tea. This is because there is a possibility that the client may not want coffee or tea and may instead prefer juice or may not want any drink at all. Moore and Parker (2009) assert that good arguments should not restrict themselves to just two alternatives simply because they are the common ones. Instead room should be given to other choices. Similarly, the author of the article under analysis has made this assumption. He has created two adversaries i.e. the Catholics and Atheists and has assumed that attacks against the Catholic Church are being spearheaded by atheists since they are likely to be the most visible proponents of this faith. In fact this is the reason why the author makes the choice of using the title ‘Atheists…. nail Catholics to the wall’. Indeed there are other possibilities as to why accusations are being made against Catholic priests other than due to Atheist ideologies. Some opponents may actually belong to the Protestant, Adventist or Jehovah Witness camp. By no means are any of these groups atheists. Furthermore, certain media personalities may simply want to sell more stories and do not endorse an atheist agenda. Consequently, the author prematurely presented only two camps i.e. Catholics and atheists when there are several other possibilities – most of which he has even talked about.
Another common fallacy in this article is the hasty generalisation fallacy. Human beings have the natural inclination to make connections even when some of them are not actually related to one another. In some instances, the author fell victim to this issue as well. For example, he states that studies carried out in the United States by a number of organisations found that the cases of abuse amongst Catholic priests were six percent lower than cases among American males. Therefore, the author proceeds to generalise that the Catholic Church is therefore not a hotbed for paedophilia. However, these studies which were carried out in the US were generalised to the entire Catholic faith yet it was not considered that the population of Catholic faithful in the latter country might be so small in comparison to that of other countries. However, the biggest generalisation that the author has mad e in his article that is tantamount to a fallacy is the accusation of conspiracy. In the third last paragraph, the author asserts that the media frenzy and scathing remarks against the Catholic Church have been organised in order to undermine the work that the Catholic Church has carried out in the community especially since Australia is anticipating the canonisation of their first saint this year. It may be true that the two events may be occurring in relative succession i.e. Sainthood of an Australian and media reports of paedophilia. However, to assume that they may be taking place during similar time zones because some external forces actually planned them is presumptuous and thus equivalent to a fallacy argument.
Logic of the arguments (inductive versus inductive)
A deductive argument (classified as valid) can be understood as one that holds a conclusion that is certified by its premises. On the other hand, an inductive argument is one in which the conclusion is probable from the premises, if valid. (Moore and Parker, 2009). The author who wrote this article must have intended for it to be an inductive argument. However, after examining what he was trying to put across, it can be said that this piece lacks validity. For the piece to have been categorised differently then the strength of all the justifications/ premises made by the author should have offered some support to the conclusion. In this case, the author’s conclusion is that: a conspiracy is in the making within Australia and the rest of western society by atheists who would want to downplay the significance of the Catholic church in society by focusing on their negatives (such as paedophilia) yet this church along with other Christian churches have engaged in very positive communal initiatives. (Akerman, 2010) The premises made by the author earlier on in the text are not related to the actual conclusion. This author was comparing prevalence of abuse between the clergy and the general population and found that the percentages were much lower in the former than in the latter thus deducing that there was no cause for concern. Sometimes percentages do not tell the whole story. The Church is highly distinct from the general population and trying to liken these two institutions is like comparing mangoes with oranges. Different sets of values are used to gauge religious leaders versus the general population. Consequently, low percentages are beside the point as the bone of contention is that sexual abuse of minors is actually happening in an institution that should serve as a moral example to its adherents. Therefore this premise (that there are few negatives in the Catholic Church) does not contribute towards the conclusion (that the church is quite beneficial to society), because irrespective of percentages, paedophilia has occurred and the positive effects that the church can bring to society has been considerably harmed by those instances of abuse.
Conclusion
Although the article is insightful in illustrating dynamics involved in the debate, the propositions made by the author can be easily opposed. For instance, he places more emphasis on percentages than actual occurrence of the sexual crimes. Furthermore, he compares prevalence of paedophilia between the population and the Church yet these two institutions are judged by different moral values. Generalisations on a conspiracy by atheists have been made yet it possible that even other Christian religions may have sponsored opposition to paedophiliac occurrences in the Catholic faith. Lastly, the positive work done by Catholics in the community cannot be assessed in isolation when other negatives are occurring on the side.
References
- Akerman, Piers. (2010). Atheists line up to nail Catholics to the wall. PHL 137 text 3 reading
- Moore, N. & Parker, R. (2009). Critical thinking. NY: McGrawhill