Review: Histories And Fallacies By Carl Trueman

 By Jacob Aitken - Posted at The Heidelblog:

As advocates of the Presuppositional approach to apologetics remind us ad infinitum, no one is neutral epistemologically. That is true enough. We must not, however, draw the fallacious inference that no one is objective. That does not follow. In Histories and Fallacies (Crossway, 2010), Carl Trueman gives us a delightful survey of historiographical fallacies. Every chapter is a treat. He reminds us that while we cannot be neutral in method, we can be objective when writing history.

Trueman illustrates his thesis with a controversial question: If there is no objectivity in history, in what sense have Holocaust deniers misread the facts? To be sure, even within mainstream scholarship there are differences in method. Some scholars argue that the Nazis did not intend at the outset to exterminate the Jews. Other scholars say they did. Neither group, however, disputes the facts.

Trueman spends the rest of the chapter rebutting points made by Holocaust deniers. Normally, one should not spend too much time on this, but unfortunately for us Reformed, some explanation is in order. First, as Trueman notes, R. J. Rushdoony (1916–2001) falls into this category to some degree. To be fair, Rushdoony did not deny that terrible things were done to the Jews during World War II. He simply says no more than two million were killed. Trueman concludes in a note with some derogatory, although true, comments about Rushdoony’s skill as a historian. Second, although Trueman wrote this some years before the rise of the “dissident Right,” for those tempted to see the Jews conspiring behind everything, his comments then apply now.

Continue here...