The instruments of the Academy have been designed to promote discovery of a factual and authoritative view of the world, and we should recognize that many of its members are working hard to do just that, recognizing the limitations of human knowledge.

Unfortunately the traditional ideas of academic discourse and freedom have come under some attack of late, while a growing minority who believe that their cause warrants them breaking the rules, will actually intentionally mislead you. Most are simply passing on the story from someone else who misled them using one of the methods discussed below. Therefore, this post is not about assigning bad motives to people — always assume the best, and always engage someone as they present themselves. If they present themselves as an open-minded thinker, then approach them as such, and call them on it when they fail to be. This post is about helping you identify when you are being misled and how.

There are, however always those within any group more committed to an agenda than to the truth. In the Academy, just as in the world, there are those who deny the one real and obvious answer, and look for any alternative. Some answers to questions are ruled out of the discussion a priori or before evidence is even gathered. This can lead to a phenomenon something like “We know the answer to 2+2 can’t be 4, so what could it be”? In other words, the obvious answer is considered false for personal or metaphysical reasons, therefore we have to keep looking for an alternative answer — which we may never find. For example a psychologist might believe that discipline of children is bad, therefore no problem that your child has could be attributed to lack of discipline.

The first major sign of being misled is the use intimidation. A simple example is in rhetoric like “every thinking person believes X.” When you hear this kind of thing, it’s a kind of intimidation isn’t it? Be forewarned. They are actually trying to get you NOT to think, and just accept what they are saying. This is an attempt to appeal to your pride. You wouldn’t want to be a non-thinking person would you? A closely related approach is demonization of alternatives. It’s one thing to critique an argument, even severely, but it’s entirely different to make the alternatives seem immoral, stupid, etc. Usually textbooks at least will avoid these very obvious techniques , but professors and peers may use them. If you see this in a text, or hear it from someone, it’s a red card. The basic thing you need to know is that if someone is trying to intimidate you, they are trying to keep you from the truth. The truth speaks for itself.

Most of the ways you will be misled are subtle because they are designed to be. A blatant error is easy to detect. Therefore, the actual facts you are presented are almost always facts. The issue is in how the facts are assembled. You will find that this works in both news media and in academic information. Here are several areas to watch for.

1. What is presented. By choosing which facts to present, a very different portrait comes out. This can be either by which people are presented, how much space they are given, or what facts about the people presented. Take the “founding fathers” of America. There are a lot them. It is easy to promote a viewpoint by giving more space and emphasis to the ones that most represent your point of view, and ignoring or downplaying others.

2. Assignment of cause and effect. The causes and effects of anything are usually complex. Therefore by assigning a cause or effect, you control the meaning of the event. This can be done implicitly by saying something like “After the American Revolution there was widespread poverty.” If you say this, it makes it sound like the primary result of the American Revolution was poverty. Or as a cause: “As taxes increased, so did civil unrest.” In this way the only cause for the unrest is supposed to be the taxes. By assignment of cause and effect you manage the story, which is the ultimate goal. If you fail to connect the dots, or connect the wrong dots, it is misleading.

3. Use of labeling. Nobody wants to adopt a view that is considered extreme. Labeling is a way to make one group seem like outsiders and others seem mainstream. Scientist Michael Ruse argued against Christian William Dembski. This factual isn’t it? But Michael Ruse is presented as mainstream by being called a scientist, while Dembski is presented as biased by being labeled Christian.

4. Selection of “experts.” A text that sounds neutral can mislead you by using non-neutral “experts” to make its real points. When combined with labeling techniques this is especially effective. “‘Evolution is fact’ said director Michael Ruse. Christians such as Dembski counter this claim. ” Now the article is making the point that Evolution is a fact, while seeming to remain “unbiased”

5. Inventing a controversy. For example, labeling someone “embattled” can actually make them embattled, whether they are currently or not. “Embattled President Obama fought off harsh criticism.” The author or his friends may be the only one criticizing the President, but nevertheless, he’s now under fire. The more we promote the “embattled” state of the president, the more embattled he actually becomes.

6. Ignore opposing views. This is the opposite of inventing the controversy. By ignoring the opposition you create the appearance that something is undisputed.

7. Misrepresenting the scale. Similar to the invented controversy, we can misrepresent the relative scale of a problem. “Homelessness is widespread in the United States” is a true statement, but it conveys something that may be misleading. Perhaps it’s actually trending downwards. Or perhaps by comparison to other countries the situation in the United States is much better.

8. Equivocation. This is one of the most common, and not hard to detect once you understand it. Basically it equates two things that are not at all comparable. “Hitler and Kennedy both had a cult of personality” is a complete misrepresentation because it equates Hitler’s state enforced cult, with people that loved Kennedy, and furthermore makes Kennedy seem similar to Hitler, which is not the case!

9. Unanswered Criticism. The problem with severe criticism is not any individual critique, it is the net effect which communicates that “there is nothing good about X.” Instead of presenting the other positives about whatever it is, or the we are barraged us with negative facts.

All of these methods are used in combination to make good seem evil and evil seem good. By exalting that which is bad and tearing down that which is good, the two become reversed and we find ourselves fighting on the wrong team. There are many more “logical fallacies” and In fact, most of these techniques overlap and can be used in combination. You can study the rules of argumentation and rhetoric to learn even more but I wanted to show you some of the most basic ways that those who are appearing to be completely reasonable and factual can totally mislead you.

One strategy of the enemy in academic argumentation is the false dichotomy: two choices exist, at either end of the spectrum, and you are forced to choose one. But what if neither one is right? Or what if both are right? Consider these examples:

1. Philosophy- empiricist or rationalist?

2. Economics- capitalist or socialist?

3. Psychology- nature or nurture?

“I’d like Both, Please.”

Most academic disciplines have false dichotomies throughout the discipline. Certain topics have existed for years, and you have to take sides… usually to your own detriment. Some topics, such as free will versus determinism, are truly mutually exclusive: the choice of one logically excludes the other. In this case, it is worth searching for an answer. In other cases, the search is a trick because you find yourself needing elements of both, pressured to choose one, and facing penalties for either choice. To avoid the excesses of one extreme, such as empiricism which easily slides into skepticism, you choose rationalism. But then you are labeled unscientific, since all of modern science is based on empiricism. The same occurs with capitalism versus socialism. If you choose capitalism because you believe in laissez-faire, then you can be attacked for being anti-regulation or pro-greed. To the Academy, one choice is loaded. You don’t want to choose socialism, however, because it is a quick slide into communism from there. What do you do?

The easy answer is, you say, “I’d like both, please.” But you can’t really do this. For some reason, academicians love to polarize themselves, and you will have professors separating themselves into little cliques based on which end of the spectrum they choose. There will be very few middle-of-the-roader’s simply because they will be rejected by both endcaps, and because colleagues will argue that they aren’t being logically consistent: if they were, they’d choose a side. The one good thing about having the dichotomy is that it keeps the argument going. And to some extent, it may do it better than if there were multiple, competing factions (i.e. think Democrat versus Republican… very few vote for a third party). But whether or not it is easier does not represent whether it is CORRECT. More accurately, people do fall in the middle of philosophical spectrums. And it is healthier and more interesting to have more parties, more competing hypotheses.

Scratch asking for both… pick the side which has the most truth to it, or the least conformity within, and go there. You can try to distance yourself from the extreme once you’re in.

“I’d like a Third Option, Please.”

Other debates are deceptive because you feel the real “truth” is not represented in either position. The false dichotomy is false because a third option is not represented. Consider these examples:

1. Psychology- dualist or monist?

2. Biology- gradualist or punctuated equilibrium?

3. Anthropology- psychoanalytic or social construction?

As in the previous false dichotomies, you face the chance that one choice is more loaded than the other, or that there are penalties for choosing either side. For example, if you are a psychologist and choose “dualism” over “monism,” then you are ignoring biological psychology’s research concerning the brain’s causal control over behavior. However, if you choose vice-versa, then you are ignoring social psychology’s research concerning behavior causing certain brain states to come about. And it is not a false dichotomy in the sense of logical exclusivity—the two choices are mutually exclusive. But why do only two choices exist? Why isn’t there a third option? Is there anything which dictates that the mind-body connection must be explained by choosing between one entity (the body) or two entities (mind, body)? What if man is a tri-partite being? Or what if something else controls his entities, that is not part of them? What if there is no entity at all? Some philosophers, like Berkeley, thought it was possible for only one entity to exist—but the mind, not the body. So you see that this false dichotomy is very tricky.

A similarly difficult, but very prevalent, dichotomy is Darwinian theory: gradualist or punctuated equilibrium? Currently the two field of evolution (the former headed by Richard Dawkins and the latter headed by the late Stephen Jay Gould) are rivals. Some scientists believe it is possible to reconcile them, but no-one has yet. But the choice obscures that other theories are possible. Some cutting-edge scientists are neo-Lamarckian. And they face almost as much persecution as the creation scientists! There is creation science, which posits no evolution at all. And there is Intelligent Design which precludes macroevolution (stellar, chemical, etc.) And what if there is still other explanations to come? You would think that modern scientists would be open to the idea of a competing (better) theory since that’s what the scientific method exists for. But again, the false dichotomy precludes third options.

In these types of situations, because neither option is redemptive, you will ultimately have to argue for another option.   Taking a side is not as beneficial as in the “Both, please” scenario because the choices are mutually exclusive (or almost). So it is hard to stake a “middle of the road” position between the two, nor would you really want to if you believe they are both false.   Take some time to resurrect third parties within the academic debate (such as Lamarck, who was tossed out years ago), and find out why. Find out why they were excluded from the table of options, and locate any disciples or skeptics who admit that third options are possible. If you look hard enough, in almost any field, you can find Outsiders. Usually those outsiders are not compatible with themselves, but they were all expelled and thus are fighting the same battle.   As you pursue the third option, you may eventually find yourself outside of the academic debate, however, you should start from within it.  One way to do this is to examine the arguments of those who have previously been “expelled”   They may have data that you need to open the door.

Always, always use the data from the two camps you are disassociating from. Make the point of departure your interpretation of the data, not the data themselves. Try and think of why the reigning paradigm doesn’t address the facts best, or why some facts seem not to fit in at all, and offer something better. As Christians, this is a good chance to pray and see what revelation God will give you. Sometimes it can really be an eye-opener, and a professor who is bold enough to see it will reward you.

College students are often frustrated by professors and textbooks that seem to be speaking in a foreign language.   This “foreign language” has both positive and negative aspects.   First, it is important to recognize that it is necessary.   Each academic discipline has its own vocabulary because it is trying to discuss a different part of the intellectual world.   Terms are developed as ways of encapsulating ideas.  In this way such terms are useful because once understood, they simplify the debate because a the concept need not be repeated.   As one becomes more advanced in a discipline an increasing number of advanced terms may be necessary to adequately effectively describe one’s ideas — much like a medical discussion might use very precise terms.

Understanding what the terms denote or literally mean is actually an easier part of entering an academic discipline.   It is  harder is to understand what the terms may connote or imply.  The connotation is built up over time as various publications use them.   For example, the word “Weberian” denotes the thinking of Weber, however his thinking may have a special place within an academic discipline, as compared to say Marx.  Therefore, to say Weberian is could be a way of saying “not Marxist”  or shorthand to refer to the defining idea of Weber.     This is the kind of conversation that one must be initiated into through study and mentoring from others who are in the conversation.

An excellent instructor has the ability to bridge the gap between the non-specialist and the specialist.  They are able to explain the complex ideas which the specialized vocabulary refers to and help you into the conversation.   Some professors do not have this orientation.  They will speak to you in the language they read and write in their technical journals.   This is where the negative side begins to come in.   The Bible says that “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.”   Some who enter academia become puffed up by the knowledge and they become more interested in their own thought than in teaching others.     They become proud of their knowledge of  The Christian heart is the opposite — our longing to help others causes us to work hard to communicate clearly and effectively to others who may understand less.    Another related effect is that those who may actually not know that much will bury us in a blizzard of vocabulary in their effort to appear smart.  We read and are confused not because we are dumb, but because what they wrote was confused and confusing.  They use terms imprecisely and in long sentences with long words.    The goal of speaking and writing is to communicate, not to impress, unfortunately, some people become intoxicated by the pride of knowledge and forget this.

In some cases this phenomenon can invade the entire discourse.  A regime of terminology can be built up not for the purpose of helping the discussion, but for the purpose of obfuscating the truth.   One can use very advanced theories and terms which are really just ways of hiding a subversive idea, or the denial of the truth.    In this way they can advance the idea without others detecting it, and also get to look down on others  as less intelligent.    The most brilliant people are able to make the complex simple.    Unfortunately, there seem to be many more who are adroit at making the simple complex so no one can understand it.    It is much easier to make a mess than to clean it up.   And likewise, it is much easier to produce something hard to understand, than it is to understand it.   So do not let yourself become intimidated by  “complex” writing or ideas.   Sometimes it represents your need to study the ideas, sometimes it represents your need to get inside the discourse, and sometimes it represents someone who is trying harder to impress or obfuscate than to communicate.

This street runs both ways, however.  Because academic discourse is designed to contain, manipulate, and sometimes hide complex ideas, we can use it to our advantage.   I remember one literature professor who gave a talk to the English department on “eucharistic sacramentality.”  This was his way of discussing faith in Christ.   More directly though, the ideas that are being discussed are either Godly and edifying or they are not.    “Dialectical materialism” is a way of talking about the atheistic ideal of  Marxism/Communism.   Perhaps you could use “postmodernist idealism” as a way of chipping away at the atheistic assumptions and terrible fruit of “dialectical materialism.”    There is no necessity to use God, Christ or anything else, any more than they are using “Communist” as a way of describing their ideas.     In the academy the discourse remains civil by moving to the ideas behind the popular terms.

You will also find that in order to advance a countervailing idea, it is best to be very limited and specific in your claims.   Find a weak spot and raise a very limited question using strong support.   Then you will be inside of the debate.   When you make broad sweeping claims, you will find yourself outside of the debate and the academy.  You have to engage it where it is and help to push it in the right direction.   Therefore in any discipline, one of your first jobs is to identify what are the primary views.  At least one of them will reflect a very ungodly perspective, and at least one of them will reflect a mildly Godly perspective.  Find where the debate is among them,  renovate the Godly perspective, and enter the field at just the point of discourse.

Unfortunately we live in an era where the historic nature of this discourse and the Academy itself as a place where debate is welcomed are under attack.   Increasingly students and especially professors find themselves handcuffed in what they are able to say.    Darwinism, for example  is an orthodoxy that even to challenge it is considered reason enough to rule you out of court, no evidence needed.    It’s the new faith.   This mindset is  growing in other disciplines as well, which is why groups like the National Association of Scholars and the Historical Society have cropped up to preserve true academic freedom of discourse and thought.

When you go to college, you are separated not only from your parents, but also from your community and your church.  You essentially enter a free form existence defined by peers in your same situation and professors.   During this time you will make the decisions which ultimately set the course for the rest of your life.  What part of society will you align yourself with?   In the midst of making these decisions, you will be confronted with a great deal of information and ideas that you have never heard before.

Industrialization and secularization in the 19th century led to the creation of a class people who held no allegiance to the world as it was, but who could spend their full time employment looking for a world that they wanted to be.   Outside of the of the guide of revealed morality and principle,  and wanted to be free from what they thought was its negative influence, they launched a series of attacks against religion.   Although such attacks had been present throughout history, and had been forseen by the 18th century French thinkers, and ultimately the French Revolution, it was not until the 19th century that these developments really reached their critical mass.

The 19th century was a transitional era – a transition from life as it had basically existed since the dawn of time with minor improvements, to a life of machinery and innovation.    Scientific and intellectual  inquiry was advancing rapidly and just beginning to take on its modern form.  In this transitional phase several major attacks were leveled at the foundation of Christian Civilization, which have held sway ever since.   These seemed like novel and irrefutable ideas at the time, but the advancement of science, and the opportunity for ideas to be put into practice,  has for the first time in over 150 years turned the tide of evidence strongly in favor of the Christian.   This is well evidenced by one of the 20th century’s famous atheists, Anthony Flew, turning away from his atheism by following the facts.

This does not mean that the academy is ready to recognize this turn of events.  In fact, history shows that such fundamental shifts are rarely well received by the academy.   They take time for adoption, often as a new generation of scholars encounters the evidence freshly.   You should not be intimidated by your professors then.  There was a time in the 20th century when Christians had to take their faith in spite of the known  “facts” of science, but no longer.    Now it is the secular academy which must try to keep you from the facts, and intimidate you into their version of the story.  If you have courage enough to follow the facts, however, you will find that far from a backwater belief for the uneducated,  Christianity is an extremely reasonable religion with a plausible view of every academic subject.    Nothing could be clearer evidence of this than that those who wish to slow your discovery of the truth will rarely resort to reason, and more quickly resort to denunciation and name calling.    If their view is superior, why would there be need for this?   These shrill attacks are designed to intimidate you.  Dare to think for yourself.

The 19th century leveled three major charges against Christianity which you will still hear parroted in the modern university, but which are largely obsolete.

1.   The Attack Against the Bible. The Bible was claimed to be a book of mythology, and to have been written long after its time by a variety of authors, instead of a divine author.    First, Moses could not have written the law because it was thought there was no writing at the time, then it was claimed that multiple authors must have written it.   A century of digging in the desert has shown time and again that the Bible is an impressively accurate representation of the ancient world.   The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that far from being a fluid text the Bible had changed almost not at all.   Literary criticism has revealed elaborate metaphorical structures which undermine the JEPD theory.   In short,  the Bible as we have it is basically what it claims to be from a documentary perspective.

2.   Darwinism. Darwin did his work in an era when comparatively  little was known about the functioning of the human body (remember a gunshot to the leg usually meant amputation), and very little was really known about the complexity of life.   Doing groundbreaking work on the Galapagos islands, he postulated that the apparent similarities in the variety of life could be traced back to a common ancestry, and that the complexity of life could be a combination of mutation, chance and time.  150 years later, we are able to observe that not only is life FAR more complex that anyone in the 19th century had ever dreamed of, it exhibits properties that no scientist can explain through evolution.    Furthermore, after 150 years, the “missing link” is still missing!  No one has ever found a convincing set of transitional fossils which should be plentiful under the evolutionary system.   And no major beneficial  “macroevolutionary” change has ever been observed, even under lab generated conditions.     Darwinism was a fascinating idea,  the only problem is that the primary evidence for it is the zealous faith of biology professors.

3.   Marxism. Marx successfully critiqued not just the capitalist economic system, but everything about the capitalist society, and his thought found its way into every major discipline.   In 1918, V.I. Lenin was able to put Marx’s ideas into practice, the first revolutionary state, on that would be built explicitly on atheism and on the desire for the eradication of religion throughout the world.   It’s utopian vision was to liberate the working classes.   For 70 years the Soviet Union fomented revolution around the world, but when it fell in 1991, and the records were examined, far from bringing mankind the promised  utopia, the Communist vision of a world without God had murdered at least 100 million people.    It was a prison state where those who dissented were executed or imprisoned, and no one was allowed to leave.   Though rich in natural resources, its cities were dull and grey and its people poor.   It’s fall so convincing, that even the remaining Communist states abandoned its economic and social policy.  Life without God has already been tried and found wanting.

The basis for rejecting Christianity then is not the facts.    It is a choice to accept some facts and ignore others, often based on intellectual intimidation.

One path to winning respect from the Academy is to research, promote and parrot the ideas which dominate the scholarship of the moment. This method, along with hard work, of course, is the quick way to become respected and important in the academy. As Christians, however, we are not seeking respect and importance as an ends, our goal is to be a prophetic and transformational voice. At minimum, we should seek to be “salt and light” which slows the slide of the world toward nihilistic and Godless thought.

If we do so under the banner of being “Christian” we are immediately ruled out and “ghettoized” however. The premise of the modern academy is secular. Therefore we must engage it according to its secular rules if we hope to be successful there. We have three things working in our favor.

1. First, the truth is on our side. Careful research will always demonstrate and validate a Christian perspective of the world.
2. Secondly, we have a guide for what that truth is from the outset, from the Scriptures. Although the Bible does not answer some complex questions directly, it provides the proper framework for answering any question.
3. Third, our ideas will usually be novel, because they cut against the current of the prevailing thought.

In addition, if you are a student in the academic arena, you have the advantage of being motivated. Many or most students passing through the university are there to get a degree and move on, not for academic purposes. That means they are often not particularly engaged, which is frustrating for professors. If you are highly engaged, your professors will often take interest in your work just for that fact.

If we refuse to label our work as Christian and to make Christianity the overt theme, what approach can we use? The perspective of this blog is that we identify those thinkers, regardless of their religious background, who are defending a Christian truth, and use their work as a basis for developing it further. You as a Christian are easily dismissed as biased, but the elite members of the academy past and present are not.

Wading around to find those thinkers and ideas which are Christian is difficult, however. It takes serious orientation, developed over many years to sift the various notions of a field for their Christian and un-Christian elements, because the terms and papers elaborately disguise the simple ideas and agendas of those who write them. Your instructors will have you drink at a trough that promotes their perspective, which is often not informed by God at all. If you do not have any other source of information, you will be hard pressed to argue back in the language of the discipline.

That’s why we are here. Our job is to give you the “big ideas” of each subject from a Christian perspective, and then to help you find the scholars who are far ahead of you in advancing those ideas or sympathetic ideas. This includes both Christian resources to orient you, and scholarly resources to build on. You will be surprised at how much progress you can often make with this approach. If you do it right, your professors might even open up to you, despite your differing perspective. At the very least you will receive a true education, learning to wrestle with the ideas of the time .

Too often Christian students have their faith undermined by professors, books, and classmates who are presenting the arguments over something that seems not to have direct bearing on religion. Very rare are the ideas that have no bearing on religion, however. Each idea is a component of how we see the world. Our Christian worldview is comprised of an entire array of these ideas. As these views are removed one by one, we wake up one morning and find ourselves with an empty faith, comprised of nothing but clinging on to a long held belief and community. Essentially, we can get propagandized out of our faith. Christian belief is much more than an empty faith, it is the most rational and coherent way of explaining the entire world. Instead of tearing down our faith with each idea, we should be reinforcing it.