Great example of reductio ad absurdum in a clever piece by John over at Sydney Anglican Heretics last month. He is responding to Greg Clarke’s comments in the Australian christian newspaper Eternity, where Clarke made a fairly strong inference to young earth creationists as “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots.” 

I was able to find an electronic version of the article at the centre for public christianity for context: 

“…people of faith don’t think that you should believe things when the evidence is to the contrary. There might be a few misguided types who think that it is a ‘test of faith’ to believe things when the evidence suggests it isn’t reality, but that is not the position of orthodox Christianity. 

“It is for this reason that many Christians in the sciences do not believe in a literal seven-day creation, or in a variety of views about dinosaurs and fossils. They think the evidence is to the contrary. Christians are realists, not head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears idiots. At least, they shouldn’t be. There is no need to be afraid of evidence and knowledge—of course, we will need to interpret it well. It is very fair to reserve judgement about evidence until such investigation has been done, but then we must let the evidence sit and deal with it as best we see it.” 

Apart from the implication by Clarke that people who believe in a literal six-day creation are ignorant, misguided or afraid of supposed evidence against their view (I have to say, it is quite the opposite), I rather appreciate the interesting tactical approach by John in resolving confusion over this issue: 

Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot. 

The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot? 

In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message. 

First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message. 

Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.

One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.

This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days.

It may be said that a man who loaned $5000 to an old friend did so in “good faith” or that he ventured into business with his younger brother in whom “he had faith.” Both occurrences imply one thing: that the man had reason to place his faith in his brother or his friend. Sure, the reasons may or may not be sound, but one thing you could not readily say – at least, not just on the bare outlines that I’ve given here – is that the man acted purely on “blind faith.” Why is it, then, that when that man’s faith is in his belief in God that the world goes stir-crazy? Suddenly, the man is held to have no rationale for his belief; his faith in a deity borders on the absurd. Therefore, in the common vernacular, such a man’s faith is his folly, not the act of a thinking mind.

Hence, faith is the new f-bomb.

Culturally, faith is broadly understood as something to be ridiculed, to be discounted and pushed aside merely as one’s personal belief (such is a common usage amongst Christians in today’s churches) or one’s personal delusion (such is the charge of most skeptics). But both the Christian and the skeptic, should they hold that faith is nothing more than fanciful thinking or a clinging to something without sound reason, overlook not only the historical founding of Christianity but also the texts of the Bible itself. Both should take a closer look – the skeptic in order to be more intellectually honest in his objections to Christianity; the Christian in order that he may more fully appreciate and affirm the strengths of what he believes in.

Read the rest of this entry