1 post tagged “argument”

First off, let me state that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I don't particularly care whether you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, the Great Spirit, or nothing at all. If it makes you happy to believe it, then go for it. So what follows is not to belittle anyone's beliefs, but rather to show what happens when people's most important beliefs are challenged or perceived as challenged.

Sunday's topic in the epistemology discussion was "evidentialism". It's not a bad system, as far as it goes. In fact, it pretty much forms the foundation of our legal system. The afternoon discussion went very well, essentially arriving at the conclusion that it leads to no capital-T truths, but is workable enough for dealing with small-T truths (everyday facts and conclusions regarding perceived objects and events). The evening discussion started off well enough, pretty much agreeing that it works when you're talking about "normality", but starts to fall apart when one begins to examine other possible explanations.

The example used was a statement by a friend that it was raining in Dallas. For most of us, a generally truthful person's statement about something of that magnitude is sufficient evidence to accept it as a factually accurate description of an event that we are not capable of experiencing for ourselves. We believe that the speaker is rational enough to know whether it's raining or not and truthful enough that we believe they would not intentionally tell us something that they did not believe to be accurate. But for a person with a less-than-rational outlook (what we might commonly call "paranoid") then those two assumptions may not pertain.

The point was then raised questioning whether an otherwise truthful person's assertion regarding the existence (or not) of God was sufficient to cause someone else to change their belief based upon that assertion. For example, my friend says, "I know God exists." Is that statement sufficient evidence to justify my own belief or changing my own belief in God's existence? And the discussion began to deteriorate from about that point. All in all, not a pretty scene with the topic now being existence or non-existence and replete with "how dare you?" and comments of that sort.

Whether true or not, there seem to be some topics which are real hot-button issues with some people. Especially when taken in a different context from what was originally intended. Back in my college days, I worked as a bartender (among other jobs). The standard rule was to never discuss religion, sex or politics (sometimes sports, depending on who the local favorite was). Being an essentially filthy-minded lecher, I couldn't abide by the sex part. Since my minor was Political Science, I couldn't stay away from the politics part (probably lost more than a few tips in the process, too). But the religion part was a hard and fast rule for exactly this reason - even people who practice the same faith have a hard time agreeing on some aspects of their beliefs. Imagine the problems with people of different faiths trying to persuade each other that their most closely-held beliefs are wrong.

So, I'm back to my "no religion" stance. Believe what you want. You might even be welcome to discuss the topic with me privately. But it probably has no place in any public philosophical discussion unless everyone involved is amenable and agrees to remain civil about it.