This is in addition to my post on self-refuting statements yesterday. No no…..I am not going to attempt another contradiction. My brain needs a break. I just wanted to share with you another study I discovered today. It is quite similar to self-refuting statements except that now we are learning about self-refuting arguments. They call it Arguments that Commit Suicide. Haha…I like that!
Here’s are some excerpts from the article and I will provide the link to the full article later.
- Moral Relativism Self-Destructs
Whenever someone says, “You shouldn’t force your morality on me,” always ask, “Why not?” Usually the response is going to be an example of her forcing her morality on you. To make sense out of the objection, she’ll have to state a moral rule while denying any moral rules exist. Such attempts reduce to, “You’re wrong for saying people are wrong,” or more bluntly, “You shouldn’t judge, you narrow-minded bigot.”
- The “Christian” version of postmodernism fares no better. Some Christian thinkers flirt with relativism, baptizing it with religious language. “There are two kinds of truth,” they say, “God’s Truth and man’s truth. God’s Truth is absolute and can only be known by Him. We can only know man’s truth, which is limited and relative to our personal perspectives.” My question is: Which kind of truth is reflected in that statement? If it’s God’s Truth, how did they come to know what only God can know? If it’s merely man’s fallible perspective, then why should I trust such a sweeping generalization about the issue of absolute truth?
- Hinduism as a religious view also seems compromised by contradictory notions. It claims that reality as we know it is an illusion. We’re each part of the illusion and have no true individual identity. Here’s my question. If I am part of the illusion, how could I know it? How could I possess true knowledge that I don’t exist, or have any knowledge at all if I’m not real? Do the individuals in a dream know they’re mere phantoms? Does Charlie Brown know he’s a cartoon character? The Hindu concept that the world is an illusion contradicts the idea that I can have the knowledge that I’m only an illusion, rendering Hinduism self-refuting.
And this is my personal favorite!
- You Are What You Eat?
I once saw a sign in a restaurant that read, “You are what you eat.” I pointed out to the waitress that if we are what we eat, then we couldn’t be something until we’ve eaten something. But we can’t eat something until we are something. So we must be something before we eat something. Therefore, it’s not true that we are what we eat. The waitress looked a me and said, “You’ll have to talk to the manager.”
Always be alert for arguments with suicidal tendencies. Ask the question, “Does that position carry with it the seeds of its own destruction?” Don’t feel like you have to do all the work refuting a bad argument. Keep you eyes open and stay alert. When you discover an opponent’s view is self-refuting, ask a question that exploits the problem. Then let him sink his own ship.
The full article by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason can be found here. It’s a pretty short read compared to Glenn Miller’s at ThinkTank, so it won’t take up much of your time. Go on….who knows, you might just win that argument with your spouse!
rk


9 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 24, 2008 at 2:39 am
hktelemacher
“Whenever someone says, “You shouldn’t force your morality on me,” always ask, “Why not?””
Because the requirements of a free society dictate that morality should be enforced only to the extent necessary and for the purpose of maintaining free society. The desire for a free society is often at odds with religious precepts (particularly as those of religious faith typically will tell you that the only way to be truly “free” is to follow their religious framework); it is the rational person’s (or the rational side of a person’s) desire for freedom that gives rise to the voluntary social contracts underpinning a free society.
“You shouldn’t force your morality on me” is a poor generalization that typically means “I’m already honoring my part of the social contract of a free society, you should not force your morality on me beyond the requirements of that contract.” The answer in response to someone’s question of “Why not?” in that context is “because then it isn’t a free society anymore.”
July 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm
rk
thank you for your thoughtful input. let me try…
“because then it isn’t a free society anymore”.
if that is a moral statement in itself, why then impose it on others since “we shouldn’t force our morality on others”.
July 24, 2008 at 7:40 pm
hktelemacher
The response is that it isn’t imposed, it is implicit in the voluntary social contract that is fundamental to the fabric of a free society.
You can actually choose in this world to live in a society that lacks this structure. Further (but chewy) reading would start with Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, but can be traced back to Greek philosophy, and forwards to modern day philosophers.
July 24, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Someone keeps deleting my comments. Too bad they can’t delete my blog. « ZenPolitics
[...] dabbling in reading through some of the religious-tagged blog entries on WordPress.com, such as here or here. I honestly love a good, spirited discussion, and I find religious and spiritual topics [...]
July 25, 2008 at 11:08 am
rk
i’m sorry someone’s been deleting your comments….must be very frustrating.
i think we’re now moving away from the original “argument” which was simply a case of “why are you telling me what to do if i am not suppose to tell you what to do” scenario. but this is a good conversation subject as well. within a free society, there are boundaries, so a free society is not truly FREE. murder is wrong whether you’re in a free society or not. it’s a universal moral law because god says that he has written his laws in our heart. if by free society we mean that people can do WHATEVER they wish, then i don’t think anyone of us will want to be in such a society. the other extreme are societies that impose their brand of morality down to every detail. people do not have much free choice there. the desire for a free society is not necessarily at odds with religious precepts because god prizes free will. it is only at odds when in our desire for freedom we neglect god’s moral law, which serves to protect us, not to take away our freedom. when that happens, our free society is no longer free because we will find ourselves in bondage to our selfishness and greed, doing whatever and however we please. it will be a society headed to destruction with the adversary in the front seat.
July 25, 2008 at 11:27 am
hktelemacher
“murder is wrong whether you’re in a free society or not. it’s a universal moral law because god says that he has written his laws in our heart.”
Yet atheists make up a disproportionately small portion of the prison population (and I can back that up if you’re interested), so somehow, outside of the context of a belief in God and a specific religiously-centered moral code, individuals come together under voluntary social contract and agree that allowing murder is not in the best interest of a free society.
Then you circle back to right where I predicted you would when I said “particularly as those of religious faith typically will tell you that the only way to be truly “free” is to follow their religious framework”. If you believe that, then you want a theocracy, not a free secular society.
After all, if the individual or group in power enforces God’s moral law, doesn’t that protect us? And if free will is more important than that, if God prizes free will so much, then you are pushed back into your own argument because if free will so prized, then God is the only judge of all and you are left with a society where people can do WHATEVER they wish, because if a person of free will kills a Christian, that Christian isn’t punished, they are rewarded by going to Heaven, and God punishes the person who committed the sin. And if that’s how God works, then why have laws against murder at all under God’s law? After all, that would be consistent with God prizing free will, and ability to reward in the afterlife.
July 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
rk
i’m sorry…..i think i’m loosing you.
either you’ve misunderstood me (and vice versa) or i’m just not getting your point here. in any case, i’m afraid i won’t be able to carry on with this. there are a couple of other post i’m hoping to complete, besides the omniscient one i promised you from another post.
good day!
September 10, 2009 at 10:29 pm
sandrar
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
August 25, 2010 at 2:41 am
celebrity fuck you
Sign: zdbrw Hello!!! uwczn and 5066ppybtrrfwy and 4753 : I love your blog.
I just came across your blog.