Ad Hominem

Last updated on: July 22, 2009 at 5:05 pm by Henry Karlson

Ad Hominem 2009-07-22T17:05:27-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation” (Matt 23:33-36).

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

One of the charges I find people bringing to one another, when debating online, is that of the ad hominem. If their opponent dismisses them, says something insulting, it is said that they have followed through with an ad hominem. What they have to say, therefore, is proven wrong, because they have committed an ad hominem. Their opponent lost the debate, and they win and one must believe what they have to say because of the insult.

Anyone find this ironic?

It’s common for atheists to make the same charge with Jesus Christ. When I was in high school, learning about fallacies for the first time, my teacher, who was a rather intelligent, and respectable man (he was quite likeable as a person), nonetheless, was also an agnostic, and, from time to time, would always bring out what he thought was erroneous in the way Jesus dialogued with others. He would point out what believed were Jesus’ fallacies, and the ad hominem he thought was normative here. His point is that Jesus consistently engaged in the ad homimen, and therefore, his arguments were invalid. The words quoted at the beginning of this post are the kinds of examples he would use to prove his point. Jesus could be mean with his interlocutors; he could insult them, call them names, therefore, what he said didn’t hold water.

Anyone find this ironic?

The same point that my old high school teacher would make is the same point people make, one with another, on the internet when they debate. If one side makes any kind of insult, it is seen, by the other side, as if the debate is over, and their side wins. “He insulted me, therefore, he is wrong.”

Again, does anyone see the irony?

St Thomas More is my favorite Catholic apologist. He engaged Luther when Luther was still alive, he engaged Protestantism when the routine responses were not yet established (he would make some of them himself). He was one of the most intellectual men of his time, and if he had something to say, people would listen (though, of course, this doesn’t mean they would agree, nor would St Thomas More want people to agree with him, just because he said something). He was a layman who looked up to authority and respected it, even if he disputed how it was exercised. He knew from within and without how difficult authority could be for those who possess it. Yet, he would have no one dismiss authorities just because an authority was abusive. He would defend authorities, be it King or priest, from what he saw as unjust criticism. No one expected authorities to be perfect, to be impeccable. If someone pointed out failings in the person who held authority, Thomas would be the first to point out this didn’t say anything about authority itself. For an attack on authority and the rights of authority, based upon some personal abuse of authority, was ultimately an ad hominem, and St Thomas knew that if one pointed out the imperfections of authority it didn’t dismiss the legitimacy of authority itself. This is exactly what ad hominems are about – to dismiss the power of words, the authority of truth, based upon the messenger who proclaims the truth, rather than the truth itself. If they can be shown to be of bad character, the rest of their words are brought into question. That is exactly what an ad hominem is doing. It’s wrong, of course, because what one says or does to others, does not determine whether or not their declarations are true or false. If a teacher abuses a pupil with some sort of corporeal and mental punishment until they get the question, “1+1” right, it doesn’t make the answer “2” wrong because the teacher was abusive. Nor is St Thomas More wrong when he writes of Luther with the following words: “Since he has written that he already has a prior right to bespatter and besmirch the royal crown with shit, will we not have the posterior right to proclaim the beshitted tongue of this practitioner of posterioristics most fit to lick with his anterior the very posterior of a pissing she-mule until he shall have learned more correctly to infer posterior conclusions from prior premises?”[1] While the words are insulting, there is something beyond the insults going on, and the message Thomas wanted to impart to his readers is still correct (which, here, is the difference between anterior and posterior — how many people reading that would forget the two?). If an insult makes the point wrong, then what does that turn the anterior and posterior ends of the pissing she-mule into?

If one studies the history of logic, and those who are otherwise known as logicians, one will find they engage insults quite frequently. To insult is not to commit an ad hominmen; to insult is to indicate some aspect of the person the insulter finds to be problematic, but, that doesn’t mean that the insulter finds everything the insultee has said to be in error. The insult is not indicative of an argument, but an opinion or statement about the person who is being debated. Only if it is used beyond the insult, only if it is used as an argument in its own light, is it an ad hominem. But, if one labels the insulter as wrong because of the insult, then the one who claims the insulter wrong is the one who is engaging the ad hominem.

Since Jesus is the Logos (John 1:1) made flesh, if he engaged in something which was contra-logic, not in the transcendent sense, it would be proof he wasn’t the Logos which he was claimed to be. But if we look closely, his criticisms did not dismiss the authority of his opponents: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt 23:2-3). Jesus made two observations; on the one hand, he did not dismiss the general teachings of his opponents, and, indeed, he reinforced it, by living out the dictates of the law to its fullest extent. And with their teachings, he also declared their general authority. But that leads us to the second point, which is, that his critics were right, but why were the right? Because they pointed to was right beyond themselves. Statements about truth are not good enough; truth isn’t really revealed unless it is known in love. Those who proclaim truth but do not live it out are, as Jesus said, of the devil, for the devil is the figure of hate. Truth is goodness, truth is beauty, truth is love. To follow truth is to love. One can point to it without following it. It is for this reason that Jesus didn’t dismiss what his opponents wanted people to believe; he only pointed out his opponents used the truth in hate, just like the devil, without following it themselves. This is not an argument, but a presentation of the person he is debating, giving them a chance to reform and to follow the truth in love themselves. Jesus always reveals to us the way we fail truth, the way we fail love. Thus he provides to us the chance for reformation, for metanoia. This requires an act of love; do we give up who and what we think we are for the sake of love? If so, we can be reformed and made anew; otherwise, we will remain, under the domain of the devil, who is the king of hate.

Jesus points out the two options, and that is all there is. Two options. Jesus is more concerned about the person’s relationship to love, than to declarations about truth. Jesus’ “insults” are not ad hominems because they are not about the question of whether or not the words are true or not; they are about the question of something more fundamental: where did his opponents lie on the question of love. That was what was important. Revelation can be given to those open to it in love.

This leads us about to so-called ad hominens in online debates. Our frustrations might show where our love has failed. If that is so, we should accept it and move on; repent and go forth in love. That should be our concern, and nothing else. For God is love, and if we want to know God, we must know love. Then and only then, does the truth of Truth become available to us. The ad hominem, as it is generally employed, doesn’t know this; it shows the one who uses it doesn’t know love. When one judges someone else in love, their judgment has value; otherwise, they give us an ad hominem themselves, which is the irony of the situation. They want to claim someone is wrong merely because they have acted inappropriately. Love knows why this isn’t the case. Self-justification, the fruit of the ego, doesn’t. To measure truth, you must know love, and love is God, infinite and wise. Anything outside of the measure of love will end up in the fire, making way for the truth of love, or else, it will fall into the abyss of hate, unloved and unloving, a particular truth which knows not how to give itself to the whole of truth. That is the basis of the ad hominem, at its root: a judgment based upon hate, a part of truth cut off from its whole, leading, of course, to rejection because the one who commit the ad hominem, because they reject all who are not themselves.

Footnotes

[1] St Thomas More, Responsio Ad Lutherum. Trans. Sister Scholastica Mandeville (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), 181.

Henry Karlson

Previous Post

July 22, 2009

Quote of the Week: Hans Urs von Balthasar

Next Post

July 22, 2009 Interesting Comparison

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Roman centurion was the first Gentile baptized in Acts?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Felix Cornelius Julius Agrippa