The Problem with Polemics in Searching for Truth

C. S. Lewis and Bulverism

In God in the Dock, C. S. Lewis coined the term “Bulverism.” It was a word he put to a rhetorical fallacy that began creeping up during his lifetime. It’s so ubiquitous now, especially in religious and political conversations, that I think it helpful to point it out at the start of my posts. Bulverism is something I will try to avoid in all my thoughts and arguments. Lewis defines Bulverism as follows, “The modern method [of argument] is to assume without discussion that he [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.”¹ Bulverism cripples our search for truth. It’s not a positive philosophy, “This is true.” It is a negative philosophy, “This is wrong and you are silly if you believe it…like this silly person here.” The end goal is not to better understand the opponents view and if they are actually wrong. Rather the end goal becomes refutation and humiliating your opponent.

Lewis continues his explanation of Bulverism in an age betore the internet. Even in his analogue age, Lewis explains:

“…Bulver assures us…‘that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that 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 is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it gives no unfair privilege to the small offensive minority who reason.”²

According to our Bulveristic age, if you slow down to ask, “maybe my opponents are right,” then you will be run over and cast into the heaps of intellectual scrap metal. The social pressure to be Bulveristic is strong. But the reality is, you can’t really disagree until you know what you disagree about. That means that in a world demanding we take a position on every topic, perhaps the best position we can start with is a posture of confidence that invites openness and understanding. The pressure in our age is to be polemically aggressive simply in order to keep up. It takes real courage to understand first and then disagree.

So what can we do to avoid Bulverism?

One practical step we can all take is getting more comfortable with the fact that our opponents might be less than 100% wrong. They might be wrong about a lot. But they might not be completely wrong. To paraphrase Miracle Max in The Princess Bride, “Your friend here is only mostly wrong. There's a big difference between mostly wrong and all wrong.” A long time ago my wife and I were having a disagreement and she said something to that effect that I find it useful, “You know, you’re more close than you are wrong.” That phrase has helped me avoid overstating positions and motivated me to seek the truth in topics that require discernment. If we could all be more comfortable listening to an opponent, seeking the truth, and being able to joyfully say, “You know, you’re more close than you are wrong,” I believe not only would our world be a better place, but we would better understand each other.

1. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 273.

2. Ibid., p. 273-4.