Cards That Cannot Be Played.
Imagine yourself in a debate. Let’s say gun control. Or stem cell research. Or abortion. Just about anything will do.
If you are not a critical thinker (one who bases their conclusions on reasoning and evidence), let’s pretend, for ease of point-making, that you are. Let’s also pretend you value truth more than desire, if that also isn’t already the case.
Now back to the debate. In light of evidence you’ve not heard — or refutation of what you once thought was evidence — you find yourself quickly losing ground. You’re running out of points to support your side.
So you say to your fellow debater that you accept your position by faith. Your opponent can only chuckle and ask if you’re kidding. Who would be so mindless to illogically take, and argue for, a position which they had no evidence for? That is the same as admitting you hold a position you should not hold at all.
Imagine a lawyer in a court room giving a speech. “I believe by faith that this man is innocent of these charges, and it is the last and only defense I can say of him! But faith is a virtue — and is to be respected highly!” This would not be taken seriously. Any man who was not fitting enough for the insanity defense would be extremely distraught if this was the best his lawyer could provide.
Faith fails everywhere but, at first glance, for religion. Why? It is no different. Religion is a topic like any other. It makes truth claims. It will either stand or fall, like a building, depending if it has an evidential foundation to support the conclusion at its peak. But to use faith as the only argument, after all else is lost, is the same as resting a steeple on thin air.
Let’s simply be consistent. Either the faith defense stands in court, in political debates, in religion, or it is only a desperate last defense delusion.
I cannot fathom a single person would argue that faith should stand as an argument; but if they would do so, I can only say they should accept my argument by faith — as they accept this argument universally. Just accept it once more and then be done with it.
This is the first card that cannot be played. Faith cannot be played by any person who wishes to maintain any kind of sanity, or at least without accepting my argument.
The debate continues, and next you say that you -feel- you are correct. Your opponent replies likewise, he feels he is correct also. A little frustrated, you say that you “feel it in your heart.”
First, who is to say that you feel the way you claim, in reality, if that is not the truth? Your opponent may take your word, but there is no reason he should. You’ve made a statement that most likely can’t be checked in the short time of your debate. Second, your feelings for gun control/abortion/stem cells have nothing to do with the subjects themselves or any sense of validity for your argument. You will see my point.
Imagine the lawyer again, maybe pounding a table due to his powerful emotion, while giving his speech. “I feel — in my very heart — that that man is guilty! I feel emanations from him, telling me that he is the murderer!” Even if this lawyer tells the truth, and isn’t just practicing his rhetoric, how does he know that the emotions he feels are coming from the supposed killer? Wouldn’t a far more sensible explanation be that he is creating the feeling himself, as he creates the rest, from his subjective perceptions? Most importantly, how seriously would a judge or jury take this “evidence”?
Again, god-belief appears to evade this. Yet, once more, religion and god-belief are topics which make truth claims. Any arguments that can be used elsewhere can be used here. But any arguments that -cannot- be used elsewhere -cannot- be made here. I propose to be consistent.
However, if you would make or accept this argument, then I should let you know that, while I -think rationally- it is entirely irrelevant, I -feel- very strongly that this argument is not to be taken seriously. Surely, someone else “feels it in their heart” in the same way I feel strongly. That would be enough for you to accept, and you would have no reason to make or be persuaded by the argument in the future — just after subjecting yourself to it one last time.
That is the second card that cannot be played. Feelings and evidence are not the same.
Next, you pull a piece of paper from your pocket. It simply agrees with you on gun control/abortion/stem cells. It provides no other argument, but it does also say, on the same page, that it is correct.
What basis is there to trust that this paper has the truth on it? Not faith or feeling. Either something practical about the subject must be lifted from it and used as argument, or it is an appeal to… authority? Can you even say who wrote it? What authority supplies no reasoning, no statistics, or no research?
Your opponent, and the desperate lawyer, are writing up their arguments. “I am right about gun control/abortion/stem cells/the defendant! This paper says so! And it also says it tells the truth!”
How easy, when applied elsewhere, arguments become. Perhaps we should buy shelves of paper and pens, and then go to the street to prove our points once and for all. But, after getting their own supplies, our opponents would be as supported by “evidence” as we are.
If anyone was convinced in a courtroom, or elsewhere, on a trial, or other topics, by this line of thought, you should read the following: “You should not believe something merely because it self-references itself, saying it is true. Note that the above is true. And finally, the three sentences within these quote marks are all true.” That should settle the issue, if it needed settling, to its end. It should no longer be a problem.
Circular logic is the third — and last — card that cannot be played. If words on a paper have truth, they would still be truth no matter what paper they’re found on. They would be verifiable without needing any other words to say they are the truth.
To sum-up, these three arguments must either be accepted or rejected on the subject of god and religion. As they are already rejected in relation to everything -but- god and religion — and appear totally farcical when used elsewhere — it seems obvious that religion has been given respect that no other matter is allowed. There is no reason to give religion this benefit — another steeple placed on thin air.
The evidence must be weighed by us in a fair manner on all subjects. You lose or win a debate, including one on religion, not on faith, feelings, or circular logic. And if you find that’s a problem, take me on faith, take my feelings on the matter, and feel free to hand me a pen and paper pad to write a couple self-verifying sentences for you.
Filed by kamikaze189 at January 14th, 2008 under Religion