Dr. Bauman's Five Forbidden Sentences Etc.
These five apologetic responses point out the self-refutation of modern relativism.
1. Everything is Relative
But this statement presumes that its proposition is right, and that to disagree with it would be wrong. This statement presumes that "everything is relative" except the assertion that everything is relative. So obviously not everything is relative.
2. There are no absolutes
This statement itself poses the absolute proposition that there are no absolutes.
3. Who’s to say?
This question presumes the elitism of private judgment. The same question can be turned around: who’s to ask? ...The most reasonable solution is that it’s the person with the best arguments who gets to make assertions and pose challenges. Then you can have a real conversation.
4. There is no such thing as right/wrong
Again, this statement makes a proposition that the speaker presumes is right, such that an opponent would be wrong to disagree with it. It defeats itself.
5. Everything is determined by the laws of nature
…Including this opinion?
Aditionally: Good stuff for discussing Christianity's essential affirmation of miracles in our very naturalistic age:
You’ve probably come across the scoffer who tries to deal you a verbal deathblow when he or she finds out that you believe in miracles. Scoffers who ask such frequently answered questions are playing a game with you. It’s a game, as distinct from an honest question because they don’t expect a satisfactory answer. We could call this particular game ‘Jelly legs,’ because the questioner expects you to wobble at the knees over his question, believing you are holding an irrational belief.
The antidote is usually to turn such games back on the originators. Ask what evidence they would accept. If it is ‘nothing,’ they are clearly being unreasonable. If they are not sure, prompt them. To the question ‘How did Noah get all the animals into the Ark?,’ for instance, you can politely suggest they find out the size of the Ark, what kinds of animals boarded it, the average size of the animals, and the number that could fit. Most people are surprised to discover how huge the Ark was. Help them find the solution from creationist literature if you need to. For example, see How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
It is important to be alert for scoffers’ games. Scoffers and honest seekers alike need to be answered. But you will save time and frustration if you turn questions back on the scoffers instead of answering outright. It gets them to do their own work, and avoids questions that may sidetrack you.
Secondly: 'Scientific' objections to the possibility of miracles like the Resurrection are simply bad science. When people argue that the Resurrection must be impossible because human beings don't normally rise from the dead, they are imposing an apriori assumption on the evidence. An apriori assumption is a theory which does not tolerate the possibility of new observations. Thus, since the historical Resurrection that hundreds of people observed in the risen Christ does not fit with their theory, modern naturalists say that such an observation could not possibly be true. This is a very bad philosophy of science; good science allows for changing theories according to new observations and evidence, including the considerable evidence that Jesus did so rise.
1. Everything is Relative
But this statement presumes that its proposition is right, and that to disagree with it would be wrong. This statement presumes that "everything is relative" except the assertion that everything is relative. So obviously not everything is relative.
2. There are no absolutes
This statement itself poses the absolute proposition that there are no absolutes.
3. Who’s to say?
This question presumes the elitism of private judgment. The same question can be turned around: who’s to ask? ...The most reasonable solution is that it’s the person with the best arguments who gets to make assertions and pose challenges. Then you can have a real conversation.
4. There is no such thing as right/wrong
Again, this statement makes a proposition that the speaker presumes is right, such that an opponent would be wrong to disagree with it. It defeats itself.
5. Everything is determined by the laws of nature
…Including this opinion?
Aditionally: Good stuff for discussing Christianity's essential affirmation of miracles in our very naturalistic age:
You’ve probably come across the scoffer who tries to deal you a verbal deathblow when he or she finds out that you believe in miracles. Scoffers who ask such frequently answered questions are playing a game with you. It’s a game, as distinct from an honest question because they don’t expect a satisfactory answer. We could call this particular game ‘Jelly legs,’ because the questioner expects you to wobble at the knees over his question, believing you are holding an irrational belief.
The antidote is usually to turn such games back on the originators. Ask what evidence they would accept. If it is ‘nothing,’ they are clearly being unreasonable. If they are not sure, prompt them. To the question ‘How did Noah get all the animals into the Ark?,’ for instance, you can politely suggest they find out the size of the Ark, what kinds of animals boarded it, the average size of the animals, and the number that could fit. Most people are surprised to discover how huge the Ark was. Help them find the solution from creationist literature if you need to. For example, see How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
It is important to be alert for scoffers’ games. Scoffers and honest seekers alike need to be answered. But you will save time and frustration if you turn questions back on the scoffers instead of answering outright. It gets them to do their own work, and avoids questions that may sidetrack you.
Secondly: 'Scientific' objections to the possibility of miracles like the Resurrection are simply bad science. When people argue that the Resurrection must be impossible because human beings don't normally rise from the dead, they are imposing an apriori assumption on the evidence. An apriori assumption is a theory which does not tolerate the possibility of new observations. Thus, since the historical Resurrection that hundreds of people observed in the risen Christ does not fit with their theory, modern naturalists say that such an observation could not possibly be true. This is a very bad philosophy of science; good science allows for changing theories according to new observations and evidence, including the considerable evidence that Jesus did so rise.
posted by MM at 9:17 AM
<< Home