TO THE REGULAR FOLLOWERS OF TRTC: I apologize, but I feel lead to post this. It is addressed to the listeners of the Steve Nichols Talk Radio Show. If you do not know what has been going on in regards to me and the listeners of Steve’s show, please, feel free to ignore this post. Otherwise, I beg you to indulge me as this issue must be addressed.
Continue reading EDITORIAL:To Steve’s Listeners: About ‘Richard’ Invoking The Name Of Christ
Have you ever found yourself in a debate with someone who suddenly accuses you of not answering their argument? Or maybe they claim you haven’t made an argument. Would you know how to handle either of these situations? Better yet, would you know how to determine whether or not the person making these claims knows what they are asking you? Truth is, very few of us know what we mean when we say ‘argument,’ and with good reason. It is a complicated subject. For example: there are three basic types of arguments, with slightly different rules governing how each one works. However, all three types of arguments has a few things in common, and this post proposes to explain the basics so that — if you ever encounter either of the situations I just described — you will be better prepared to deal with it.
First, when most people think of the word, ‘argument,’ they think of a heated exchange between two or more individuals. Well, this is not the type of argument we will be discussing. It may be better if we refer to the topic at hand as ‘formal,’ ‘logical‘ or ‘persuasive‘ arguments. Whatever term we use, we are discussing an argument that is actually constructed for the purpose of persuading others to accept an assertion or conclusion. It can also be made to defend a position. And, in all cases, it conforms to a set of general rules that govern how they are constructed and evaluated.
Now that we have that part out of the way, we need to be aware of the fact that there are two main divisions of ‘argument.’ They are usually referred to as ‘formal arguments,’ and ‘informal arguments.‘ Formal arguments consist of either deductive or inductive reasoning. They are governed by a very strict, highly structured set of rules. Fortunately, they are usually only found in more scholarly settings. The average person seldom encounters such arguments. Informal arguments are much more common and can be either deductive or inductive in nature. Informal arguments are still governed by the same rules as formal arguments, but the application of those rules is much less structured. The most common place the average person encounters informal arguments is in persuasive essays, such as those we find in editorial pages and even on blogs such as this one. In fact, persuasive writing is based on informal argumentation.
Before we continue, let us recap what we have so far. We are dealing with logical arguments, not heated exchanges. Logical arguments are designed to make and defend a claim. They can be formal or informal. Formal arguments can be inductive or deductive and are highly structured. Informal arguments can also be deductive or inductive, but are much less structured. Either way, bot forms of argument are governed by the rules of logic. Once we understand these basic points, we are ready to look at the basic parts of an argument:
Now, let’s cover these parts in a little more detail:
THESIS — this is the thing our argument is meant to prove or defend. It includes ‘qualifiers.’ Qualifiers are a set of statements that describe the particular aspects or conditions under which our claim/assertion is true.
EVIDENCE — this is a list of facts, figures or other materials we are using to support or defend our thesis.
LOGICAL CONNECTION — this is where we explain the reasoning between our evidence and our thesis. It is where we connect the dots for the reader to follow.
CONSIDERATION OF OPPOSING VIEWS — this is where we acknowledge the strongest arguments against our thesis, and we describe those counter arguments faithfully. We do not try to twist or weaken them.
REFUTATION — this is where we then explain why these counter arguments should not be accepted and why our thesis should prevail.
Remember that our argument can be deductive or inductive. Deductive arguments are the strongest. If your reasoning is solid, a deductive argument can seldom be defeated (in logical terms, a defeated argument is said to have been ‘broken’).
A ‘deductive‘ argument is one in which the evidence naturally follows and inevitably leads to the conclusion of our thesis. In short, A leads to B leads to C and if they are all true, then the conclusion must be true — period! A classic example is:
My pond is full of water.
All fish in my pond are wet.
Bill is a fish in my pond.
Therefore, Bill is wet.
If it is true that all fish in my pond are wet, and it is true that Bill is a fish in my pond, then Bill must be wet — period!
An ‘inductive‘ argument is based on the likelihood of the conclusion of our thesis being true based on the strength of our supporting evidence. An example of an inductive argument would be:
The sun came up today.
The sun came up yesterday.
The sun has come up for the last 3,000 years.
Therefore, the sun will come up tomorrow.
There is no way to ‘prove’ (i.e. the ability to ascertain the truth with 100% confidence) the sun will come up tomorrow. All we can do is evaluate the claim that it will come up tomorrow based on the strength of the evidence provided. In this case, we have created a strong inductive argument, but it is not as strong as our deductive argument.
Now that we know how a formal argument is constructed, we need to know a little bit about how to evaluate it. Before we accept the thesis of any argument, we should check to make sure it is ‘sound,’ ‘valid‘ and ‘rational.’
VALID — for simplicity’s sake, ‘valid’ means that, if our evidence is true, then our conclusion has to be true. Our first argument is valid because, if the evidence is true, then it absolutely must be true that Bill is wet.
SOUND — to be sound, an argument first has to be valid. This means the conclusion has to be true if the evidence is true. But — in this case — the evidence has to be — in fact — true. This can be a little more difficult to understand, so let’s look at this issue in more detail.
Going back to Bill, the fish, you will notice that I was very careful in constructing that argument. If my pond is full of water, then all fish in it are wet, and if Bill is a fish in my pond, he has to be wet — period! This means my argument is valid. However, if there actually is water in my pond (and there actually is — I can see it as I write this), then my argument is also sound — because all my evidence is factually true. But what if there was no water in my pond? In that case, my evidence would not be true, therefore, my argument would not be ‘sound.’
Again, there is more to this. It does get complicated, but we are just trying to cover the basics here. Therefore, when you are trying to evaluate an actual argument, start by asking yourself these questions:
Is it valid? If all the evidence is true, does it mean the thesis/conclusion has to be true?
If it sound? Is all the evidence actually true?
This leaves us with one last point we need to cover about how to evaluate an argument. We need to check to make sure it is ‘rational:’
RATIONAL — again, for the sake of simplicity, this is where we check to make sure there are no fallacies in an argument. Fallacies are mistakes in the rules of logic, and any thesis or conclusion based on such a mistake is defined as ‘irrational‘ (i.e. not rational).
But we also have to check to make sure the conclusion is believable. It is possible to make an argument that is valid and sound and has no logical mistakes, yet it can still be considered to be irrational. And example would be:
Marvin the Martian has a ray gun.
Marvin the Martian is trying to shoot Bugs Bunny with his ray gun.
Therefore, Bugs Bunny should hide.
In the world of Loony Tunes, there is a Marvin the Martian. He does have a ray gun. He has wanted to shoot Bugs Bunny. Bugs Bunny did try to hide. Therefore, this argument is valid and sound. There are no mistakes in the reasoning here, but that does not mean this argument is rational. Why? Because the world of Loony Tunes is imaginary: it does not exist in the real world, and things that do not exist in the real world are — by definition — irrational.
Let’s review before we end. We now know what we mean by ‘argument,’ and that there are formal and informal arguments. We also know there are deductive and inductive forms of formal and informal arguments. We know that deductive arguments are the strongest. We know all arguments need to contain the five points or parts of an argument. We also know that an argument needs to be valid, sound and rational. But we have not covered what we do if we find an argument that is not valid, sound and rational.
If and when we encounter an argument that is not valid, sound and rational, we are free to dismiss its thesis/conclusion. This is because the argument has failed. Furthermore, if we actually demonstrate that it is irrational, we are said to have broken the argument. Either way — even if the thesis/conclusion happens to be true — we are still within the rules of logic to dismiss it because the argument is irrational. In other words, it is not reasonable. That means the thesis/conclusion may have been true simply by accident, and no sane person bases their lives on the evidence of things that happen simply by random chance?
Once again, I am writing in response to my part in this week’s events on Steve Nichols’ “Morning Drive” show. In the comments section on his live Face Book feed, before I wrote my response to him, I posted a video in answer to a challenge ‘Richard’ posted. In this case, I am using my exchange with ‘Richard’ not as a chance to make a personal attack, but as a teaching opportunity. I have found that using real-world examples helps people better understand abstract issues, and this is a perfect example. So, to set this up: ‘Richard’ asked for ‘proof’ that the nation’s moral condition has declined since 1990. In response, I posted a link to the following video:
When I posted this video, I fully expected ‘Richard’ to find some way to dismiss it and the information it contains. Sure enough, ‘Richard’ did not disappoint. But ‘Richard’ is not alone. If you Google Dr. Barton and “America: to Pray or not to Pray,” you will find that the majority of the links at the top of the first few pages purport to ‘debunk’ Dr. Barton and the information he presents here in this video. So, if you are the average listener and you have not read Dr. Barton’s book, or done any research into his claims, how would you know whether to believe Dr. Barton or ‘Richard’ and all the people who seem to be saying Dr. Barton is deceiving people? Well, there is never any substitute for doing your own research, but I do have a few general guidelines that I learned in philosophy school. They have served me well over the years and I believe they will do the same for you.
First, check to make sure the people who claim to be ‘debunking’ someone have not performed a ‘bait-and-switch’ on you. The formal fallacy is called ‘equivocation,’ and it is where a person uses the same words and language to discuss two different things without telling you they are talking about two different things. This is usually done to deceive the listener, and it is exactly what the Serpent did to Eve in the Garden of Eden story. So, naturally, you can see how effective it can be — especially on an unsuspecting audience. In the case of the majority of the links I read on the first two pages of the Google search I did, this is exactly what has been done: they have slightly but significantly changed what they say Dr. Barton is claiming, then they proceed to ‘debunk’ this altered argument. Incidentally, this is also called ‘straw man.’ That is a fallacy where you purposely set up the other sides argument in as weak a way as possible so it is easier for you to ‘defeat’ it. Therefore, before you can ever hope to be able to determine which side of any argument is closer to the truth, you have to have some knowledge of the most common fallacies and how they work. This way, you will have a better chance of detecting which, if either side of a debate, is using sound reasoning and which side is using logical tricks to make their case.
The next thing you should look for is the source of the information being used. Any argument that claims to be presenting factual data but does not cite the original source of that data should immediately be held suspect. In most (if not all) of the links I read purporting to have ‘debunked’ Dr. Barton, the data that was cited had been ‘cherry-picked’ (a fallacy where you hand-pick the information you use to support your argument, while being careful to ignore information that might hurt your case), or cited from other, second and third hand sources. In other words, none of the links I read actually addressed the data Dr. Barton used in his video. The problem for these supposed ‘fact-checker’ is that Dr. Barton used data from official, U.S. Govt. publications. This means, any attempt to ‘debunk’ Dr. Barton’s claims that does not deal with this data fails and can be dismissed out of hand! That is because they are not ‘fact-checking’ Dr. Barton’s data, they are actually ‘fact checking’ the data they cherry-picked To put it another way, the the ‘fact checkers’ were actually ‘fact checking’ themselves. So, if they ‘defeated’ anybody, it was themselves. So remember: always look for references to original sources.
*******
For those who are actually interested, you can find Dr. Barton’s data in the back of his book, “America: To Pray Or Not To Pray.” It is 163 pages long, with the last 24 pages of citations for the sources he used and even some of the actual statistical figures presented in chart and or table format. This means more than 15% of Dr. Barton’s book consists of the data or location of the data he used. This is something very few people on the political Left in this country ever provide. In fact, of the 50+ books I have written by ‘Liberal/Progressive’ authors, only a half dozen or so actually contain any reference citations. The rest are nothing but books of unsupported assertions, which, incidentally, is also what I found in the majority of the links purporting to have ‘debunked’ Dr. Barton’s book/video. So, the take-away on this point is to look for reference citations to the supporting data, and then make sure both sides are actually addressing that same information. If one side is claiming to be ‘debunking’ the other but does not address the same information, that side is wrong — period! And this is not ‘opinion:’ it is a matter of logical necessity, which means it is a fact.
*******
There’s one more, less tangible thing you should look for when trying to decide which side to believe. Both sides may be well-spoken and present themselves as well-informed, giving lots of facts and figures. Don’t let this trick you. When this happens, look for this little, intangible characteristic. It is almost always found on the side with the person who actually knows the facts. That little intangible thing is anecdotal information. By this, I mean one side will not only tell you what happened, but they will usually know something about who did it, where it happened, when, how and why. This is because the person sharing this information has done the research, and anyone who actually does research cannot help but run into these extra tidbits of information. On the other hand, if you find someone who claims to be citing facts and figures and little more, this can be a warning that this person is not in total command of the truth. They may know the ‘what,’ but not the ‘who, how, when, where or why?‘ This is often an indication that this person is either regurgitating something they read or heard without having checked it to make sure it is true, or worse, they may actually be fabricating their information.
Case in point: watch this video, and pay close attention to the richness of Dr. Barton’s information. Look for those ‘intangible’ parts of the factual record he gives you and ask yourself whether or not it ‘rings true’ with you:
There is one last thing I’d like to offer about Dr. Barton. It is something that I suspect few — if any — of his opponents know. Dr. Barton owns the largest private collection of documents from our founding era outside of the Library of Congress! He has thousands of letters, books and other documents — all in the founders’ own hand. So, before his opponents tell him he does not know what he is talking about in relation to the founders or this nation’s history, they would be wise to check and make sure he does not actually own a piece of that history. I have seen posts that claim to ‘prove’ that Dr. Barton lies. One example addresses a Bible that Congress commissioned early in our history. The person claims to have ‘debunked’ Dr. Barton by pointing out that Dr. Barton is holding a 1968 replica of the Bible in question, and implies this means Dr. Barton is deceiving people. Well, that ‘fact checker’ should have made sure Dr. Barton didn’t have an original copy of the Bible in question before making their claim. If they had, they might have discovered that Dr. Barton does have such a copy, but that it is too fragile and too valuable to be used as a prop in a video. What’s more, they might have even discovered that the inscription on the inside cover of the Bible Dr. Barton owns states that it was commissioned by Congress — just as Dr. Barton claimed. I found out about this when I was doing my homework and following up behind Dr. Barton so I could prove — to myself — whether or not he was being truthful. To date, I have not found a single claim Dr. Barton has made that he cannot document, and I have followed behind about a dozen of his books. I cannot say this same thing about his detractors. In fact, I have found the majority of them to be based in flawed reasoning.
I’ll leave you now with an analogy that a listener to Steve’s show shared with me. It is meant to illustrate the nature of the people who demand proof, then ignore or dismiss it. In the following video clip, these people are represented by the part of the black knight (in truth, people like this may well have been the inspiration for this scene, thereby making this video clip a very profound metaphor):
ADDENDUM:
Here is a related piece of timely information taken from free2pray. Please take note of the dates where prayer is curtailed and shooting rates increase. In the world of sociology, we call this a correlation. It does not necessarily mean one caused the other, but it strongly suggests there is a connection. I’ll leave the reader to decide which is the case for themselves:
From 1620 until 1966 American schools had very few school shootings. Between 1840 and 1960 there were never more then 14 school deaths due to fire arms per decade. However after the 1962-1963 Supreme Court Rulings that Prayer and Bible reading were no longer allowed, violent shooting in schools began to rise. The first really horrific shooting occurred at the University of Texas in 1966 when Charles Whitman climbed the University of Texas Tower with rifles in hand and shot 14 people dead and injured another 31.
If nothing else, this sort of proves the point our founders made about the connection between religion and morality, but then, there will still be those who insist they have not lost the fight — even when they have lost both their arms and their legs…
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.*
The man who wrote those words is very famous. In fact, he is thought to be one of the most brilliant minds of our generation. Unfortunately, this man does not understand what philosophy is or why it is important. If he did, I doubt he would have written these words, because he would have known how foolishly naive they make him sound. They make him sound that way because, if it is true, it means his own profession is dead, as well. You see, philosophy is the foundation upon which this man’s life work is based. Without philosophy, his work would not only have no meaning, but it would not even exist. This is why understanding what philosophy is and why it is important is something that should interest each and every one of us — especially Stephen Hawking (yes, he is the foolishly naive man who wrote those words).
Now that I have called Stephen Hawking foolishly naive, I suspect you might be ready to dismiss me. After all, how can I possibly know any better than Dr. Hawking — right? Well, perceived genius does not imply wisdom. In fact, the two are seldom connected. If you will stay with me through this entire post, I think I can show you that, in many ways, you are wiser than Dr. Hawking. But you have to stay with me to the end, OK?
What is philosophy, and why should we care?
Well, there is more than one answer to each side of this question: more than one meaning of ‘philosophy,’ and more than one reason we should care about each meaning. Let’s start by looking at a few definitions. Before we go to the English dictionary, we will look at what the word meant in its original Greek. In the Greek language, ‘philosophy‘ is a compound word. It is formed by combining the words ‘philio‘ (friend, lover) and ‘sophos‘ (wisdom). So, in the original Greek, ‘philosophy‘ means ‘friend or lover of wisdom.’
Hold on to this, because we will come back to it at the end of this post.
Now let us consider the many modern meanings of the word, ‘philosophy.’ From the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:
plural philosophies
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology a doctor of philosophy (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought the philosophy of war
4 a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Notice that the many meanings connected to the 1st part of our definition are all associated with the notion of learning, especially in those fields of study that we do not associate with ‘science.’ This connection to ‘science‘ is important; do not pass over it. Notice how this 1st set of definitions acknowledges that ‘philosophy‘ once included the physical sciences, but now that meaning is said to be ‘archaic (i.e. old, antiquated, out of date). Today, the meaning of ‘philosophy‘ is understood as explicitly excluding the physical sciences. Hold on to this, too.
The 2nd set of definitions get closer to the original meaning of the word (the love of wisdom), but it also includes the notion that one can learn without actually testing or observation. Here again, we are going to come back to this. It is connected to why I say Stephen Hawking is foolishly naive.
Whether or not we realize it, we use the 3rd set of meanings all the time. This is the meaning of ‘philosophy‘ where concepts such as religion and political ideology live. As you may have expected, I want you to hold on to this as well.
Finally, we come to the definition that is most important to the life of the individual — that means you and I. This definition of ‘philosophy‘ is connected to an individual’s personal world-view; how they understand the meaning of life. It also includes the set of beliefs that help you decide what is right and what is wrong in any given situation.
If a person has a consistent and coherent world-view, it can help them make good decisions which then helps them to avoid the creation of bigger problems in their lives. On the other hand, people without a well thought out personal philosophy tend to live as a friend of mine puts it: like a speeding car with no steering wheel. They often make poor and usually inconsistent decisions, which then lead to the creation of more, even bigger problems. This can cause people to feel as though they have no control over their lives, which can then cause them to feel helpless and depressed, or frustrated and angry — neither of which is conducive to a happy life. This is why each of us should spend some time working through the things we believe because, even if we do not put in the conscious work to do it, we will still end up with a personal philosophy. It’s just that, if we chose not to work on it, the philosophy we end up with will be that speeding car with no steering wheel.
Now, why is all of this important? Let’s go back to the 1st set of definitions for ‘philosophy.’ Because I have spent a great deal of my life working through what I believe and why, I know that philosophy is still as important to modern science as it has ever been — even the physical sciences. Philosophy is inseparably connected to logic: logic being the primary tool with which a philosopher works. This means logic is found in this first group of definitions (i.e. doctor of philosophy). But mathematics and the ‘scientific method‘ are built upon the foundations of logic. This means that the physical sciences are built upon the things in this 1st set of definitions. If we remove that foundation (philosophy/logic), all those things built on it collapse. So, how can one justify the exclusion of the physical sciences from this first meaning of ‘philosophy?‘ We’ll answer that in a few moments.
Now consider the 2nd set of definitions. In this set of definitions, we find that the meaning of ‘philosophy‘ is connected to both the love of wisdom, but also to the quest for knowledge without actually experimenting or observing: knowledge just by reasoning (i.e by thinking). Well, this excludes the ‘scientific method,’ which is based upon observation, hypothesis, experimentation, more observation and repeating this process until the hypothesis is proven or disproved. So we are left with two meanings here. One is basically trying to think knowledge into existence, the other is the quest for wisdom.
The 3rd set of definitions for ‘philosophy‘ is connected to the notion of a set of related ideas or principles that work together to form a coherent and consistent way of dealing with specific issues. Think ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative,’ or ‘Religious’ and ‘Atheist.’ Anyone who embraces any of these ideas is actually embracing the philosophy behind them. In other words, they are embracing the line of reasoning or explanation common to each of these ideologies. True, a person can have personal ‘tweaks’ to an ideology or philosophy, but then that leads us to the 4th set of definitions.
Finally, we are back to the 4th definition for ‘philosophy:‘ how do we, personally, as an individual, see and understand the world? Well, let’s test your personal philosophy right now. It’s time to put everything we’ve covered so far together with all those things I asked you to hold on to and then see where it leads us.
Suppose you are a genius and you work in the field of astrophysics. You have concluded that philosophy is dead. You then go on to explain that this is because ‘science’ has out-stripped philosophy, making philosophy irrelevant. And, since you work in the physical sciences, this means that philosophy is not only dead, but you have helped to kill it. Therefore, you think nothing of boasting: “Philosophy is dead…” But then you also write:
“Until the advent of modern physics it was generally thought that all knowledge of the world could be obtained through direct observation,… But the spectacular success of modern physics,…has shown that this is not the case.”
Remember when I told you that I thought I could show you that you are wise enough to say Dr, Hawking is foolishly naive? Well, here is where you show yourself that I was correct. Remember how Dr. Hawking said the 1st definition of ‘philosophy‘ is dead, but also how I showed you that, if this is the case, then so is science because science is built upon the first definition of philosophy? Now look at Dr. Hawking’s last words. If we no longer need to observe and can just ‘think’ knowledge into existence as Dr. Hawking claims, are we not meeting the very terms of the 2nd definition for ‘philosophy?‘ Go ahead, go back up and read the 2nd set of definitions again. Did you see where it specifically says the act of learning without observation is ‘philosophy?‘ I bet you are starting to see the problem with what Dr. Hawking has done. Here, let me make it easier to read and consider:
According to Dr. Hawking, on one hand, if philosophy is dead, but then, so is science — because science collapses when philosophy dies.
On the other hand, science has supposedly shown that we can ‘think’ knowledge into existence (i.e. learn without observing), but this is the very definition of ‘philosophy,’ which means philosophy is alive.
Do you see the contradiction? According to Dr. Hawking, philosophy is dead, but, at the same time, the ‘science’ he boasts about is philosophy! Both things cannot be true at the same time, therefore, Dr. Hawking has created a contradiction. In logic, there is a saying: from a contradiction, all things follow. In other words, after a contradiction, nothing is true and everything is true — at the same time. It is lawlessness, and it is usually a sure sign that someone has not thought things through very well at all — not even someone like Dr. Hawking.
But we’re not done. Let’s take another look at the third meaning of ‘philosophy.’
The third meaning of ‘philosophy‘ deals with things like religion, which includes atheism. Dr. Hawkin is an atheist, and as such, he has certain pre-supposed ideas that guide what he will and will not even consider. For example: when he first did the math that proved the universe will expand into nothingness, he said this was proof that there must be a Creator. This was because his equations showed the universe could not have created itself. However, he later changed his claim — and his equations — to show how the universe could ‘spontaneously’ generate itself. It is true: his equations now show a self-producing universe, but those equations are based on imaginary math. They contain things like the square root of -1. The point of this is that his equations do not exist in reality: they only exist in his mind and on his papers. To make them work, you have to use real numbers and, the moment you do that, you arrive back at a universe that cannot create itself.** You see, Dr. Hawkin’s adheres to a philosophy (atheism) that precludes him from even considering any explanation that might rest on the notion of a Creator. Therefore, if given two possible explanations, he will always chose the one that does not require a Creator. If necessary, he will create an explanation that does not require a Creator. But this is not ‘scientific,’ and that is because it is based on a presupposition before that possibility is disproved (in this case, that there is no and can be no Creator). And yet, Dr. Hawking’s life’s work is based on this flawed foundation of suppositions and contradictions.
Are you starting to understand why I said Dr. Hawking made a foolishly naive assertion when he boasted “Philosophy is dead…?” Are you starting to see why I say philosophy is important to each of us? I hope so, but I want to offer you one more point to consider before I leave you to digest everything we have covered. Remember that philosophy is connected to the quest for wisdom. In fact, that is the original meaning. We will have to discuss the meaning of ‘wisdom‘ in another post, but — for now — let us just say that wisdom is that thing which lets us use things correctly. Whether it is reason, or science, or even the tools of our trade, like a saw or hammer, wisdom is what tells us how, when and where to use these things — and even when we shouldn’t. Now, Dr. Hawking is very intelligent, but is he wise? Well, I’ll let you decide for yourself, but remember, he has already said the foundation of his tools (i.e. mathematics and ‘science’) is dead, which means his tools are dead, as well. Then he proceeds to say that thing he declared dead have proven the old method of testing and observation is no longer necessary. Add to this the fact that he has built his entire personal philosophy (meaning 4), not to mention his professional philosophy (meaning 3), on equations that use imaginary numbers to prove that the universe created itself. There is a certain degree of hubris in all of this, and, when you read the first chapter of his book, “The Grand Designs,” it borders on out-right arrogance. Well, this brings us back to the very beginning of this post, when I first told you to hold on to the Greek meaning of ‘philosophy.‘
In the New Testament, the word we know as ‘philosophy‘ is always used to refer to secular or human wisdom, and always in a negative context. It is used to contrast those who seek their own wisdom over that of God’s. Now, I am not going to try to walk you through this one. I am just going to leave it with you and ask you to think about what this means — really think about it.
The original Greek, philosophia, is used by the New Testament to negatively compare and contrast those who seek/love their own wisdom over God’s.
By now, I hope I have shown you what philosophy means and why it is important. I also hope I have shown you that — whether you agree with my personal beliefs or not — you are wise enough to conclude that it was foolish and naive for Dr. Hawkin to have declared “Philosophy is dead!”
* “The Grand Design,” by Stephen Hawking, pg 5
**Physicist William Lane Craig in “The Case of a Creator,” by Lee Strobel, chapter 5
I was recently introduced to Steve Nichols and his “Morning Drive” talk radio show out of Valdosta, Georgia. I even called in this morning and, right before I got through, I heard a caller who is known as ‘Richard’ (I am told this is not his name, and that ‘Richard’ has a history of being very evasive with giving any personal information). After the show, I received a private message from ‘Richard’ on Face Book. Once I read the message, I realized I already know ‘Richard.’ No, I do not know the specific individual known as ‘Richard,’ but I know the Spirit behind him. I’ve dealt with it many times and have decided to deal with it yet again — for the benefit of whoever this may help. But first, before you continue reading, I beg you, please watch this short video. I want you to be able to see and hear me, so you will know I am not upset, angry, yelling, pounding the table or getting personal in the post that follows. The best way I know to do this is to let you see and hear me say it, so, please, start with this video:
Now that you have seen the video and you have some idea of my emotional state as I write this post, let me start by sharing what ‘Richard’ sent me. Here is how he introduced himself:
Hi Joe. It’s your progressive friend Richard Marx. First, I’m a devout Christian who believes in the teachings of Jesus. I also believe in the constitution and the freedom it gives me to do so. We certainly do have immorality today but less of it overall than at any point since the founding in 1776 or before.
And here is his next message:
My degrees are in history, biology and neuroscience. There have always been transgender men and women. These people are born that way. Today we have a better understanding of the neurological condition they have and don’t burn them alive as they did in the 17th century. That was the law then. By the 19th century, prison for them was the law. To me, what we do today is more moral. We allow them to live as who they are mentally and neurologically and don’t try to enforce by law that what is contrary to nature….Are you homophobic? You seem to have a right-wing sense of morality. Regarding the founders. They were having more sex than a Bang Bros porn movie. Ben Franklin’s favorite prostitutes were Anna-Louise D’ Hardancourt, Madame Helvetius, Madame Facault, Madame La Veillard, Madame La Ray of France. Catherine Ray, Margaret Stevenson and Georgina Shipley of New England. He also had affairs with Countess Wilhemina Gdowkin and Countess Diane De Polignac of Europe. Much of this while married to his wife Debrah Reed fathering at least 15 children by adulterous sex. Thomas Jefferson fathered at least 6 children with a slave girl starting when she was 14. Back in 1850 age of consent ages by law in the states ranged from 7 to 12. You on the right have this twisted idea that morality declined because of liberalism in the 20th century but Jesus was the best known liberal who ever lived. What do you base morality on? The Hebrew Bible? The New Testament? It says 14 times to obey the Hebrew Bible. Most Christians have broken many of those laws daily. Starting with British law of the 17th century through the U.S. laws of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21 centuries, there’s just no question the laws of today are more moral. The conduct of the people and the institutions are also more moral overall. Bad or disrespectful conduct is more out in the open today but what was actually done in the past was far worse. In 1905 Lowndes County Georgia had five working brothels. Four girl brothels and one boy whore brothel. The girls were as young as 13 and the boys as young as 9 dressed as girls. The Sheriff got a cut of the money to look the other way. You do have child porn and human traffic of sex slaves today but nowhere near the extent of years and decades past.
OK, I propose to focus strictly on the central argument in ‘Richard’s’ comments: that we are more moral today than at any time since the founding. I intend to do this a point at a time, so this post will be lengthy (for which I apologize). However, the point is to show how, where and why people such as ‘Richard’ deceive (often, even themselves). I am not being personal. In fact, I plan to address ‘Richard’s’ arguments, and not him, personally. Unfortunately, in the case of people such as ‘Richard,’ it can be very difficult for them to tell the difference. But, before we start the point-by-point, I would like to offer a few observations.
1 — By not giving his real name, or any information about who he is and what he does in ‘real life,’ ‘Richard’ acts immorally. This is because he is being intentionally deceptive. Did you notice how I made the video before I started this post, so you could see and hear me and use that information to help you evaluate my written words? And if you heard me call in this morning, I gave you my real name. I am not hiding anything from you, which means I am being honest with you. To hide who I am is to be dishonest, and that is immoral behavior. In the past, the majority of Americans did not act this way, so this undermines ‘Richard’s’ claim.
2 — Richard makes a point to identify himself as a ‘Progressive.’ If the reader knows the history of the Progressive movement, then the reader may know that the Progressives appropriated the term, ‘Liberal.’ They did this to hide who they were because they had turned the American people against anything connected to the term, ‘Progressive’ (this happened shortly after the Woodrow Wilson and prohibition years). What’s more, the term, ‘Progressive,’ is itself deceptive in that it was chosen to hide the true agenda — Communism. I do not make this claim of my own opinion: it comes directly from the essays of Woodrow Wilson, the father of modern American Progressivism. In both cases, this means ‘Richard’ has willingly identified with an agenda that deceives with its own name. Again, deception — especially for the purpose of influencing what people think and do — is an immoral action. In the 1920’s, our nation was still moral enough to turn violently against this practice. Today, Progressives boast about it. This can hardly be said to demonstrate moral improvement. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
3 — This brings me to ‘Richard’s’ claim to be a devout follower of the teachings of Jesus, Christ. Let me just say that, as a Christian, myself, I find it very difficult to accept that a person is a disciple of Christ when they simultaneously boast about being a Progressive while hiding behind a fictitious name. Jesus had a few words for those who naturally hide the truth and intentionally deceive, and these words are not kind to such people. Jesus also had words for those who claim His name but do not obey His Word. Again, the warning Christ gave to such people is harsh, and the end result is terrifying to imagine. So, I hope and pray ‘Richard’ would yield to the Word of the Lord and not his own will.
Now, let’s have a closer look at the argument ‘Richard’ made in his second message:
My degrees are in history, biology and neuroscience.
Degrees do not matter to me, and they shouldn’t matter to the reader. I have a degree in Philosophy and Sociology, and I make my living in History. Also, I am a semester shy of a mechanical engineering degree. None of this means I have any better or greater understanding than a person who has never been to any formal school. It just means I paid a lot of money for a piece of paper with some letters on it. For this reason (my personal experience with the university system), I can honestly say ‘Richard’s’ degrees (and mine, for that matter) mean NOTHING! In fact, they suggest ‘Richard’ is most likely indoctrinated and, therefore, has been formed into a person who is anti-truth. If so, then it is also likely that ‘Richard’ has been taught to ‘auto-protect.’ By this, I mean he has been programmed to respond to anyone who tries to educate him with the truth by calling that person names and making personal attacks and, if this fails, by becoming violent. If one looks for it, one will find this behavior in many of our millennial college graduates. Therefore, mentioning his ‘education’ is a failed attempt to ‘appeal to authority.’ It is a fallacy (i.e. a mistake in logic/reasoning) and is sound reason to question the validity of a person’s argument.
There have always been transgender men and women.
I am going to hold ‘Richard’ to strict definition here, so I am going to say this is not true. To be ‘transgendered’ means one has to have had surgery to convert one’s external parts to resemble those of the opposite sex. Now, to be totally open and above-board here, the meaning of this term has been as ‘fluid’ as the people who constantly define it. Today, it is defined as a person who merely ‘identifies’ as a member of the opposite sex. But then, even the use of the term, ‘gender,’ is a problem as, before it was appropriated, ‘gender’ was used to refer to parts of speech. What is really meant here is ‘sex,’ but this word cannot be used because it would make it too obvious that one either has XX or XY chromosomes or one does not. But to get to the point I suspect ‘Richard’ is trying to make is that there have always been people who ‘deviate’ from the norm. Yes, this is true, but that does not have anything to do with whether or not our society has become more or less moral.
These people are born that way.
This is known as an unsupported assertion. It is another fallacy. The fact is, there is no medical evidence to support this claim. However, on the other side of the issue, there is a lengthy record of factual evidence supporting the assertion that we are actually dealing with mental/emotional illnesses here. Back in the 1970’s and before, the medical profession listed people who identify with the opposite sex or who are attracted to the same sex as having a mental illness/disorders. Consequently, they treated these people in an appropriate manner. Up until treatment was forced to stop, the medical profession reported a 98% cure rate with a less than 5% recidivism rate after proper treatment. In the medical community, a 93% cure rate is called ‘proof:’ in this case, it is proof that the diagnosis and treatment are correct. What’s more, there is an abundance of anecdotal testimony from those who have been cured that testify to this truth — testimony that is routinely hidden by the ‘pro’ side of this issue. Just like the ‘pro’ side does not tell you that most transgendered, etc. have suicidal impulses with some 45+% actually attempting suicide at least once. But set all this aside and consider this question: Which is the more moral action: helping 93% of those who have confusion over their sexuality come to lead happy and productive lives through treatment, or forcing the whole of society to treat these poor people as though they were perfectly normal while allowing them to remain confused and at high risk of suicide?
Today we have a better understanding of the neurological condition they have and don’t burn them alive as they did in the 17th century.
As I just detailed, we did have a better understanding. However, we have have turned our back on it in favor of a politically enforced social agenda. What we have now is a minority group that has found a way to force their agenda upon society, as well as its continuation. The mechanism by which this is done is called ‘Political Correctness.’ Another term for political correctness is mind control, which is among the most immoral actions known to man.
That was the law then. By the 19th century, prison for them was the law. To me, what we do today is more moral.
By forcing the whole of society to make allowances for people who can be shown to have a treatable mental illness in not ‘moral.’ What’s more, refusing to recognize and treat those who are struggling with this problem is equivalent to ignoring the plight of the mentally ill on our streets. How moral was it when we ‘freed’ the mentally ill from their institutions back in the 1970’s? We had a campaign that complained about the conditions of the hospitals where these people were kept, but the solution was to turn them loose to fend for themselves. Today, these people make up the majority of those we call ‘homeless.’ These are directly equivalent issues, and the way our society has handled both is anything bu ‘moral.’
We allow them to live as who they are mentally and neurologically and don’t try to enforce by law that what is contrary to nature….Are you homophobic?
And there is the name calling (the fallacy is ad hominem) 🙂 This is 100% predictable — just as it is 100% predictable that my last few comments will get me labeled as homophobic and a hater. But, in truth, ‘Richard’ has just argued that the only ‘moral’ way to treat these people is to make them feel welcomed in our society. Do we treat those with recognized mental problems this way? How about pedophiles? They can claim they are born as they are and, if they do, what argument can we make against them? They would be using the exact same argument used by the LGBTVQ community. Well, if you accept the LGBTVQ argument, then you have to accept that of the pedophile or you are being logically inconsistent and, therefore, ‘immoral.’
You seem to have a right-wing sense of morality.
Another predictable but less obvious insult, which means: another fallacy. Here’s the thing: if morality exists, it is not right or left, it just is. What’s more, it is universal: it must apply equally to all people, in all places, at all times. Otherwise, there is no such thing as morality, and if there is no such thing as morality, then there is no such thing as responsibility, or justice, or law. There is only ‘might-makes-right.’ If this is the case, then ‘Richard’s’ argument is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, however, if morality does exist, then anyone who is inconsistent in their reasoning is in violation of those moral laws and, therefore, acts immorally.
Regarding the founders. They were having more sex than a Bang Bros porn movie.
Humans have always been sexually immoral. The comment is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we are more or less moral. ‘Richard’ claims to be a Christian. Hasn’t he read the Scriptures? Scripture details sexual immorality in great detail, many times. It also demonstrates that it leads to social ruin, every time. At least, in the time of the founders, people had enough shame to hide their sexual immorality from public. This is a clear indication that their sense of moral right and wrong was far greater than what we have today. Again, we find that the facts do not support ‘Richard’s’ assertions.
Ben Franklin’s favorite prostitutes were Anna-Louise D’ Hardancourt, Madame Helvetius, Madame Facault, Madame La Veillard, Madame La Ray of France. Catherine Ray, Margaret Stevenson and Georgina Shipley of New England. He also had affairs with Countess Wilhemina Gdowkin and Countess Diane De Polignac of Europe. Much of this while married to his wife Debrah Reed fathering at least 15 children by adulterous sex.
This is all irrelevant to the discussion, which meas this is the fallacy of red herring. Continuous fallacious argument — especially when we are discussing matters of public policy — is immoral.
Thomas Jefferson fathered at least 6 children with a slave girl starting when she was 14.
Actually, this is a false accusation levied by people who sought to destroy America’s admiration for Jefferson. Genetic testing on Jefferson’s living relatives suggest that it was actually Jefferson’s brother. This is born out by the timeline, which would have placed the young lady and Jefferson in different parts of the globe at the time necessary for Jefferson to have fathered the child in question. However, none of this seems to matter to any of those who continue to advance this claim. Intentionally advancing a falsehood for personal or political gain: is that a moral action? The Dictionary calls it a lie, so is lying a moral action? Jesus said no. He said those who habitually lie are of their father, Satan. I’ll leave the reader to decide this one for themselves.
Back in 1850 age of consent ages by law in the states ranged from 7 to 12.
Back then, a male was considered an adult at 13, and young girls were sometimes wed shortly after puberty. It was a different world. So, ‘Richard’s’ point is irrelevant. In fact, by comparing two things that have no direct comparison and implying that he has made a point, ‘Richard’ has committed another fallacy. This one is known as false equivalence. But there is one more point here. If homosexuals are born that way, then so are pedophiles. So why is ‘Richard’ implying there is anything wrong with having sex with young children? In fact, ‘Richard’ keeps cherry-picking examples from history (btw: that is another fallacy), so why didn’t he tell us about the practice among the Greeks and Romans (to mention a few) of having boys as young as 8 and 9 years old as sexual apprentices? If he thinks our current protection of children is evidence of how we are more moral today than in the past, then he has to deal with the fact that it was Christianity that changed this: the same Christianity that also drove out the morally corrupt practices ‘Richard’ claims are natural. ‘Richard’ is free to believe whatever he wishes, but he is not free to claim one thing to be immoral, then turn and claim the exact same equivalent is not. That is immoral in and of itself.
You on the right have this twisted idea that morality declined because of liberalism in the 20th century…
This is a deep subject. The ‘Right’ is correct when it accuses Progressives of attacking the moral foundations of America. This is because the Progressives actually said they intended to do exactly that! One must read the Progressives to find these assertions, but they are there. I have detailed many of them here on The Road to Concord. So this statement does not help ‘Richard’s’ argument. In fact, it undermines it.
…but Jesus was the best known liberal who ever lived.
This is a border-line lie. If ‘Richard’ means Jesus was what we now have to call a ‘Classic Liberal,’ then yes, ‘Richard’ could make this case. However, if ‘Richard’ means Jesus was a Progressive/Liberal, then NO! Christ was as far from that as a person can possibly be. Progressives have openly stated that they seek to re-make human nature according to their wishes, and that they can and will make man into his own god. In fact, one of the men who said this — a man who is called the father of modern American public education — even said that the teacher would be the prophet of this new religion (man as his own god). The man was a Progressive. His name was John Dewey. He spoke for the Progressive movement at the time (Woodrow Wilson said he sought the same thing, only he wanted to use the universities to do it). If anyone who has read the Scriptures thinks Jesus would have supported this…
What do you base morality on? The Hebrew Bible? The New Testament? It says 14 times to obey the Hebrew Bible. Most Christians have broken many of those laws daily.
Again, this is deep subject that is only tangentially related to the issue at hand. This makes it a red herring (another fallacy intended to deflect and confuse the discussion). ‘Richard’ is trying to deflect by using an appeal to Scripture, but he does so out of context and without understanding of the Scriptures. Not only is this fallacious reasoning/argument, it is an open attack on the foundation of morality, itself.
Starting with British law of the 17th century through the U.S. laws of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21 centuries, there’s just no question the laws of today are more moral.
Is this true? Did you know that there was a time when you could use the Bible as the highest law in our Court Rooms? How about abortion? We used to call it murder, now we define it as the termination of a tissue mass. The NAZI’s did this: they just redefined the Jews as ‘less human.’ Were the NAZI’s actions moral? If not, then how can our laws regarding abortion be moral? The founders had laws against sexual immorality, and it actually helped society in many ways. Today, we have all but removed such laws, and society has suffered for it. How is that more moral? The founders had laws that restrained corrupt business practices. Today, we have legalized them. How is that more moral? If a person told a lie that damaged another Party, the founders allowed the liar to be sued. Today, our laws shield the liar(s). How is this more moral?
The conduct of the people and the institutions are also more moral overall.
Is this true? Our schools intentionally indoctrinate our children. That is immoral. Our social media does the same. That is immoral. Our entertainment media does the same. That is immoral. Businesses practice open corruption. That is immoral. Our politicians are openly corrupt but pass laws to shield themselves from their corruption. How is that moral? The founders had laws against all of these things, yet we are supposed to accept that we are more moral than they were?
Bad or disrespectful conduct is more out in the open today but what was actually done in the past was far worse.
Actually, this is true, but it does not help ‘Richard’s’ argument because it shows he is wrong. This fact actually proves there is a moral decay within our society by demonstrating the loss of internal controls on our public actions. That internal control is the essence of morality. So, if it has been lost, how can we possibly be more moral today than in the past when we still retained those controls?
In 1905 Lowndes County Georgia had five working brothels. Four girl brothels and one boy whore brothel. The girls were as young as 13 and the boys as young as 9 dressed as girls. The Sheriff got a cut of the money to look the other way.
Again, this does not help ‘Richard.’ By taking a specific example and arguing to the general whole, ‘Richard’ is committing another fallacy.
You do have child porn and human traffic of sex slaves today but nowhere near the extent of years and decades past.
Actually, this is factually wrong. There is more sex trafficking and slavery today than in all the sum total of the past. You just do not hear about it — mostly because the immoral media will not tell you about it because, if it did, the truth would undermine their agenda. Which begs the question: if we actually have more slavery today, and the media refuses to talk about it, how are we more moral than the founders who wrote a Constitution which guaranteed this country would fight the Civil War over slavery?
ADDENDUM:
I started this post by stating that I knew ‘Richard’ because I recognized the spirit behind him. Well, ‘Richard’ has not disappointment me. He has been doing pretty much exactly what I expected and in the order I expected it. First, Richard sent a message that tried to change his original argument:
What is going on now immoral that’s unique to today?
Remember, ‘Richard’ started by saying we are more moral today than any time since the founding. Now, in this comment, he is trying to argue there is nothing new today than in the past. These are not the same thing. It is called the fallacy of equivocation (among other things). That is where you use the same or very similar words or phrases but switch the meanings so that people think you are still talking about one thing when — in fact — you are now talking about something all together different. It is also immoral because it is intentionally deceptive.
Then ‘Richard’ gave me what I have come to see as a programmed response to anyone such as myself — a person with the knowledge and willingness to stand up to and effectively refute them. In this case, ‘Richard’ sent me this message:
I read your editorial and did post a response. Do you not have the guts to post it? I guess not. You just want to spread your right wing hate propaganda. Don’t be scared. There are plenty of bigoted ignorant people who will eat it up. I don’t know if you’re doing the con or if you’ve been conned and brainwashed yourself. I enjoy good conversation when I have time with smart people who have a good argument. I’m always civil and respectful. You called me immoral. I just asked you what you are. Have you been conned or are you in on the con?
First, I want the reader to notice these claims:
I enjoy good conversation when I have time with smart people who have a good argument. I’m always civil and respectful.
So, it is safe to assume that ‘Richard’ sees himself as holding the high ground in terms of being civil, intelligent and in command of logic. OK, very well. Let’s test that against the rest of his comment:
Do you not have the guts to post it? I guess not.
This is a personal attack. It is fallacious. It is called ad hominem, or ‘against the man.’ Basically, it is when a person insults you instead of offering a rational argument. Unfortunately for ‘Richard,’ my training in philosophy has taught me how to spot and deal with these things, and my time as a combat Marine has more than proven to myself that I do not lack in the ‘guts’ department. So, we move on:
You just want to spread your right wing hate propaganda.
This is not necessarily fallacious, but it requires a sound, valid and rational argument supported by example and/or illustration. Since this was not offered, it is just more ad hominem and unsupported assertions. Both are fallacious. We continue:
There are plenty of bigoted ignorant people who will eat it up.
This time, ‘Richard’ attacks you, the reader. It is more ad hominem. See why I say it is predictable (and old)? Once you learn how this fallacy works, and how to spot it, you will discover that it is about 50-75% of all Progressive ‘arguments.’
I don’t know if you’re doing the con or if you’ve been conned and brainwashed yourself.
Now he gets personal by questioning my intelligence, as well as my character. More fallacies. Then we get to this little gem:
You called me immoral.
No, I didn’t. I said his actions were immoral, but I never called him immoral. You see how he has tried to switch things again? This is intentionally deceptive, and that is immoral behavior. Notice how he also claims to be civil and implies he is intelligent and reasoned, yet he constantly insults people while ignoring and even violating the rules of logic, which govern reason. Still, I suspect ‘Richard’ actually believes I called him immoral, and that he has the ‘moral high ground’ here. If so, that gives us a glimpse into his personal psychology. At the very least, it tells us he has a poor grasp of logic as well as a lack of personal awareness. What’s more, I consider my opinion as being kind to ‘Richard’ because, if he actually does have a firm grasp on logic and he does know how others are perceiving him, then the way he uses fallacious argument would mean he is an immoral person. At that point, it is a short step to calling him evil, and that is something I am loath to call anyone. So, for me, it is much more charitable to say that a person is ignorant and blind to how others see them. The reader is free to disagree with me; it’s just how I chose to behave because it is how I would prefer to be treated when I am wrong.
NOTE: look at how much I have had to write just to demonstrate how and why ‘Richard’ is being irrational. This is intentional on his part. If I have to spend this much time explaining his mistakes, I have no time to make my own argument. What’s more, he never acknowledges his mistakes; he just moves on to the next string of insults and fallacies, leaving me in the same place I started the first time. The point is to get me to defend so that you, the listener, either assume ‘Richard’ is correct by giving the false impression that he is smarter and has the better argument or — if you know better — to bore you to the point where you leave the discussion. In either case, it is dishonest and deceptive and has no place in the pursuit of truth and understanding. This is precisely why I seldom engage these people. I only did so here for the benefit of Steve’s listeners. I hope it helped because, to be honest, I am already tired of ‘Richard.’ People such as ‘Richard’ are the very reason Thomas Paine said:”
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”