Bulverism

Lewis starts of this writing by explaining how, due to influences like modern psychology and philosophy, many see human thoughts a ideologically tainted.  He uses the example of people thinking that Queen Elizabeth was a good queen not strictly by her merits, but because they have a mother complex according to the Freudians.  He also uses the example of people thinking that freedom is a good thing not strictly because it is objectively good but because they are members of the bourgeoisie whose prosperity is increase by laissez-faire policy.  People can sit around all day and propose all sorts of different complexes and socio-economic reasoning that can try to explain why people's thoughts are tainted.

This is the ground work that Lewis lays before he moves on the the meat of this piece where he talks about Bulverism.  The name is derived from a fictional character that Lewis made up named Ezekiel Bulver.  Bulver overheard his parents discussing geometry when he was five years old.  His father said that the sum of two sides a triangle was greater than the third side.  His mother responded that he only says that because he is a man.  Bulver exclaims, "Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.  Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."

Bulverism can be seen everywhere.  It occurs anytime someone does not address whether their opponent is actually right or wrong but instead tries to justify themselves by explaining how their opponent became so ill informed.  I have see this first hand in all spheres of life.  A few examples that that I can remember off hand are as follows: "You only believe that because you went to Christian school,"  "You only think that because you heard it at church," or "The only reason you are so convinced of that is because of the political party you support."  I confess that I myself have often used Bulverism as a weapon in debates.  It is a tactic that both side can use but it ends up leading no where.

I completely agree with Lewis when he says, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs."  Bulverism turns the debate over a legitimate issue into a petty debate over psychological or socio-economic conditions that have nothing to do with the legitimate issue at hand.  It robs the discussion of reason and often leads to people painting dishonest or exaggerated pictures of their opponents.  Bulverism is completely unnecessary for debating any issue, but the sad part is that it is often very effective in convincing large groups of simple people to believe a certain thing.

Peter tells Christians how handle people who disagree with them in 1st Peter 3:15.  This passage is specifically about how it respond to people who try to discredit the Christian faith, but I believe the principle found in it can be applied to all areas of disagreement and debate.  He says, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."  The three key words in this passage that apply to the issue of Bulverism are prepared, gentleness, and respect.

Bulverism can be avoided by following Peter's instruction.  It is very important to be well prepared whenever one goes into a debate.  Bulverism happens when one person runs out of real reasons why the opponent's idea is wrong. It is also important to be gentle with an opponent.  This can be done by sticking to the issues and not attacking the opponent personally.  One is not giving his defense with respect when Bulverism is used as a weapon against the opponent.  First of all, it is completely disrespectful to assume the causes behind what a person believes because it is impossible to know what all of their reasons are.  Secondly, it is disrespectful to all involved to take the debate outside the sphere of reason and to reduce it to loads of irrelevant information.