Don’t Question the Priests

There is a stereotypical view, particularly among atheists, that in religion one must just mindlessly accept whatever the religious authorities say.  As with most stereotypes, this is false if applied universally and falls under the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. (see Acts 17:11 for a NT example).

Recently I have been noticing a similar phenomenon from my liberal friends.   For example, I was discussing a recent court decision, and pointing out some problems with the Judges reasoning, when my friend asked, “Are you a judge?”   They knew I was not and so what they were really saying was who was I to question a Judge’s decision?  A similar challenge can be seen in the following  exchange between Rep Mo Brooks (R-AL) and Contessa Brewer.  When Rep. Brooks makes a claim that Brewer disagrees with, she attempts to shut him down by asking if he has a degree in economics:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mtQyEd-zS4

Behind these and a growing number of other examples is an implied assumption that if you do not have the correct letters after your name, then you do not have the right to voice an opinion.  In short, you cannot question the priests.

There are, of course, many problems with such a view.  For example, while Brewer did not think that Rep. Brooks had a right to make judgments about the economy when she did not know he had a degree, the fact that he actually did have one is very unlikely to have changed her mind.  What really matters is not just that you have the right degree, or that you are a Judge, etc., but that you are the right kind of economist or the right kind of Judge.   In short, the right kinds are the ones you agree with, the rest are not real economist, or judges, even if they have the title.   Experts that disagree with your experts, are somehow flawed, and thus, in the end, don’t really count.

This is how President Obama can make claims that are so clearly false; claims like, “economists on the left and right agree that the last thing the government should do during a recession is cut back on spending” and “There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”   Now admittedly, it is very possible that the President is just a habitual liar. In fact these and many other clearly false statements could be seen as strong evidence of his lack of truthfulness, such as his recent claim that 80% of the people back his approach to the debt ceiling.

But whatever the underlying motives, there is a deeper problem in these attempts to silence opposition with the appeal to experts.  We live in a democratic republic, where people are supposed to have a say through their representatives on how government is to be run.  Appeals to experts for the evidence they cite, is perfectly acceptable, as the final judgment rests with the citizen.  Thus the experts can all make their cases and present their arguments and the people decide.   Appeals to experts to shut down discussion are not only invalid, they are undemocratic.  Such appeals transfer the final decision from the citizen to the expert. Rather than a democratic republic, this argues for an oligarchy of experts.

When this growing trend to stifle debate by through the unquestioning appeal to experts is combined with the recent attempts to shut down the democratic process when it does not go their way as recent seen most clearly in Wisconsin,  it would appear that the Democratic party is becoming very undemocratic.