This is a post about how to argue against conservative Christians and I think it applies pretty generally to most arguements.
Related Posts
7 Comments
Comments are closed.
This is a post about how to argue against conservative Christians and I think it applies pretty generally to most arguements.
divisionbyzero1 says
What’s sad is that no where in there was anyone interested in determining what the truth is, they are just interested in arguing.
As for hypotheticals, I don’t think any of them have actually been anywhere near a philosophy class. The one I was sitting in was pretty much nothing but hypotheticals.
Example: There is a fat man on a cliff above you. The fat man jumps in an attempted suicide not knowing you are below. If he falls on you, you will save his life by cushioning the blow, or you can move out of the way and he will die when he hits. What is the moral action? This particular case is actually one that is used to help work out where the bounds of self-defense lie and the obligation, if any, of the defendent.
Of course this situation is purely hypothetical, but it helps philosophers actually work through these problems that can then be applied to real life situations in history and everyday.
This isn’t to say the hypothetical is always right, but it is an important tool for getting at the heart of the argument.
bigcat2k says
In debate, not philopsophy, hypotheticals detract from the point, and usually help nothing. I have rarely ever seen a hypothetical used well in a good arguement.
Everyone only uses them to exaggerate or fictionalize their point to make it hard to disagreee with them. It is the equivalent of the staw man arguement. It makes it look absurd to disagree with their point, and often muddles the original point.
This is also precisely why they are useful in philosophy, because things need to be distilled into a set of extremes or silly consequences that are unlikely to happen in real life to invoke some sort of moral dillema that isn’t easily solved by typical simple logic.
divisionbyzero1 says
I guess I had it more in my head that the discussions were along philosophical or theological grounds to begin with. That’s the suggestion, at least, when they specifically mention abortion and homosexuality.
I associate things like fiscal policy and law into the realm of “debate” where there is no objective truth to arrive at and I place items like abortion, homosexuality in with philosophy/theology.
bigcat2k says
Fine line, those things, and I often would work in a similar mindset as you, such as if I was arguing with another evangelical Christian. But non-Christians and liberal Christians are a different story.
1x says
Did you just divide liberal Christians and evangelical Christians into disjoint sets? I’m guessing you didn’t mean it that way, but I want to make sure…
bigcat2k says
That would typically be disjointed sets in my understanding of those two terms.
As in a liberal Christian (i.e. believes in a liberal theology, not liberal political ideology) does not believe in the Bible being 100% true, and the evangelical does.
Hope that clarifies what I was saying.
1x says
Ohh, ok. I was confused by the liberal theology / liberal political ideology distinction.