There are two issues that have been hot topics nowadays, at least in the circles i run: racism and logic. So how about these quick thoughts on both? Also, some may object to the use of “race” in classifying people, arguing that there is really only one “race” – human – but that’s another topic. For my purpose here, let’s just stick to the typical use. Per Oxford, racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

We usually think of racism in the negative, but it can be positive as well. For example, i was told by a number of people that i should have voted for Obama simply because he’s black. That’s it…seriously. A few Christians were even saying this! They didn’t care what his thoughts were on anything; somehow, having a black president was going to change everything. This is what i would call positive racism. We don’t always catch that type because the individual(s) is being spoken well of, but we are usually quick to respond to the other. If someone were to say, “Don’t vote for Obama because he’s black”, then cries of racism would be all over the place, and rightly so.

While negative racism is still alive and well, i rarely run across it. The majority of people i know don’t fall for such ridiculous reasoning. There would be a riot, for example, if the host of a bible conference got up and explained that the reason a certain black pastor was not invited to speak was because he’s black. We just don’t see that nowadays. Most people get how stupid that is.

However, i have a question: WHY is it stupid? What makes racist remarks so ridiculous?

~ Logic

Just stop and think about it for a second. How does racism typically occur? Usually what happens is a person may have had a dozen or so bad experiences with people who all happen to have the same skin color. They then take those dozen or so experiences and then infer that ALL people of that color, or race, must be the same way. A black person, for example, might have grown up in a predominantly black neighborhood all his life, never leaving, and one day he takes a trip to a predominantly white area of the state. The first five white people he meets are all dumb as bricks. He then thinks, “Man, white people are stupid.” This is how racism typically builds. A person takes a few specific examples, or experiences, and then infers a general principle to be applied to all.

Now, many of us see the problem here. We understand that while it may be true that those five white people really are dumb; their lack of intelligence has nothing to do with the 1,5oo other white people that live in that area, or the millions worldwide. Most of us get that. We understand that you can’t make that leap. We understand that there may not be a necessary connection between the 5 idiots and the rest of the population.

Guess what this is called, folks? There is a name for it in the study of logic. It’s called:

~ Inductive Reasoning.

Wiki: Induction, also known as inductive reasoning or inductive logic, is a type of reasoning which involves moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion. It can also be seen as a form of theory-building, in which specific facts are used to create a theory that explains relationships between the facts and allows prediction of future knowledge. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.

Deduction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is inferred from the premises by logical necessity; on the other hand, induction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is not inferred from the premises by logical necessity. In deduction, the conclusion includes only information that is already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises; but in induction, the conclusion includes new information that is not already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises. In other words, an inductive argument yields a conclusion that is supposedly but not necessarily implied by the premises. For this reason, induction is always a formal fallacy; that is, the conclusion is never certain, never rationally established. In fact, since the conclusion is not necessarily implied by the premises, there is no way to logically show that there is any necessary relationship at all between the conclusion and the premises. ~ Vincent Cheung

When a person makes a racist comment, like “all chinese people are dumb”, we typically respond in haste and point out how stupid or idiotic such a remark is. What you call stupid, a person schooled in logic might call a fallacy. Same thing.

Two points:

1.) We exercise logic continually. We can’t avoid it. You may point out how stupid racism is and have never taken a course in logic; but you’re using it at that very moment, whether you fully understand it or not.

2.) Why is it that most of us would agree that racism is stupid and would have no tolerance for it whatsoever; yet, we don’t put a priority – or a necessity even – on the very God-given tool that makes racist thinking stupid to begin with, namely, Logic? Let me ask it another way: On what grounds do we call racism ridiculous when at the same time we neglect or even verbally reject the very tool that makes racism ridiculous to start with?

When racism comes up, many of us hold hands and shout in unison, “Racism is dumb. We hate racism. Knock it off!” Yet, many of those same people will turn right around and say, “ahhhh, logic isn’t necessary. Logic is a mere human convention that we can take or leave. No big whoop.”

It just doesn’t make sense.

We need to be careful. A rejection of logic paves the way for ridiculous things, like racism, to take off. Now, i’m not saying that an embrace of logic saves people. It doesn’t. Only by the powerful, regenerative work of God are foolish hearts changed. What i am saying is this: Let us not reject one of the very tools God has given us to expose foolish thinking – like racism – because a rejection of it turns everything into some subjective game where our stances on racism merely become one person’s opinion over another. You may have a negative view on logic and not be a racist. That’s all fine and dandy until someone presses you for justifying why you think racism is wrong. What then?