When Debate Doesn't Make Sense
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:47 am
Just wandered over here after months away, and saw many of the same church defenders arguing with the same church critics as when I was last on. This post is for all those who have acknowledged that Mormonism cannot be what it claims to be.
Hi Kindred Souls
I have a question for you. It's for myself as well, I guess. Here it is:
Given certain variables...what's the point?
This is what I'm talking about.
We live in a universe of laws. That means we live in a universe of constraints. It seems to me that it is only when our beliefs conform to those constraints that they have any real chance of being true.
Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence. It seems to me that any belief which requires the disregard of either, or both, is almost certainly wrong (certainly by definition, it would be irrational).
So, for example, if Robert's belief is that "it is raining and it is not raining", he is disregarding logic, one principle of which is that "'A' cannot equal 'not A'". If Robert, after all his study, believes that it was the Japanese who dropped two atomic bombs on the United States, rather than the other way round, he is disregarding evidence. Either way, we might say that Robert is, to some extent, not psychologically sound. And, I think, we would be right.
Why then would we engage in an ongoing debate with Robert about rain, or World War II - or, perhaps, anything at all? If once we explained how opposites, by definition, cannot be identical, or laid out all the evidence that it was America who dropped the bombs, and Robert still maintained his positions............
Why?
If we continued debating Robert, wouldn't we be demonstrating similar psychological unsoundness? What other explanation could there be for our continued appeals to the twin gold standards of sound thinking to convince Robert of something, when we already know that Robert rejects those standards?
Just wondering...
Hi Kindred Souls
I have a question for you. It's for myself as well, I guess. Here it is:
Given certain variables...what's the point?
This is what I'm talking about.
We live in a universe of laws. That means we live in a universe of constraints. It seems to me that it is only when our beliefs conform to those constraints that they have any real chance of being true.
Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence. It seems to me that any belief which requires the disregard of either, or both, is almost certainly wrong (certainly by definition, it would be irrational).
So, for example, if Robert's belief is that "it is raining and it is not raining", he is disregarding logic, one principle of which is that "'A' cannot equal 'not A'". If Robert, after all his study, believes that it was the Japanese who dropped two atomic bombs on the United States, rather than the other way round, he is disregarding evidence. Either way, we might say that Robert is, to some extent, not psychologically sound. And, I think, we would be right.
Why then would we engage in an ongoing debate with Robert about rain, or World War II - or, perhaps, anything at all? If once we explained how opposites, by definition, cannot be identical, or laid out all the evidence that it was America who dropped the bombs, and Robert still maintained his positions............
Why?
If we continued debating Robert, wouldn't we be demonstrating similar psychological unsoundness? What other explanation could there be for our continued appeals to the twin gold standards of sound thinking to convince Robert of something, when we already know that Robert rejects those standards?
Just wondering...