Tried With Fire

Every time there's a fight lively discussion among Christians on social media, I am reminded of this quote from Mark Foreman. So for your edification, I am sharing it again.  Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth.  In fact, if you can show me that ...

Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target . I demolished his argument. I've never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot ! If you use that strategy , he will wipe you out . He shot down all my arguments. 1 "The identification of argument with war is so complete that if you try to suggest some alternative way of thinking about what argument is - It's an attempt to achieve mutual understanding; It's a means of clarifying our views - you're almost certainly going to be denounced as a wishy-washy, namby-pamby sissy-britches." 2 "So yes: argument can indeed be war, or at least a contest in which it is possible to lose. But there's another side to this story: what is lost not in an argument but through passive complicity with that militaristic metaphor. Because there are many situations in which we lose something of our humanity by militarizing disc...

I posted this quote a year ago, but in the light of the Trinity debate, it's worth repeating. Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth. In fact, if you can show me that a belief I had thought was true is actually false, I have not lost but have won, because, I do not ...

In Pride and Prejudice , Jane Austen has created a character who is both irritating and amusing - Lady Catherine de Bourgh. She is the epitome of the bossy and nosy neighbor, and her rank and wealth give her the right to be so. As the owner of a large estate, anyone who is economically dependent on her patronage needs to stay in her good graces because she holds the purse strings. Yet, Austen's dry wit makes it plain to the reader that Lady Catherine's omniscience exists only in her own mind. Here are a few examples of how she advises those who have the misfortune of not being as enlightened as herself: When the ladies returned to the drawing-room, there was little to be done but to hear Lady Catherine talk, which she did without any intermission till coffee came in, delivering her opinion on every subject in so decisive a manner as proved that she was not used to have her judgment controverted. She inquired into Charlotte's domestic concerns familiarly and min...

Social media can be a rather rude place at times. There are moments of thoughtful give-and-take, but there are moments when the interaction consists of name calling those in the opposition. Maybe I'm becoming an old fuddy-duddy, but I'm not impressed with the latter. Rather than strengthening a person's position, it seems to weaken it, in my opinion. Any reasonable debate about an idea is lost in the rapid exchange of derogatory comments, and maybe that's the point. Maybe we've lost the whole concept of debating ideas for the sake of the truth in the desire to have the last word, even if that last word is an insult. In With Good Reason , the author gives details of several fallacies of presumption. Here's what he has to say about the fallacy of begging-the-question epithets: [T]he error lies in the use of stated language that reaffirms what we wish to prove but have not yet proved. An epithet is a descriptive word or phrase used to characterize a person,...