Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

September 9, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have had some harsh words for several of the materialists who deny infallible knowledge of self-evident truths such as A=A. Turns out I am in pretty good company.

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man’s mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Comments

LH: Who doesn’t want to be infallible? Me. I don't want to be infallible. It's already bad enough arguing with morons over the things I currently know. If I was infallible it would be intolerable.Mung_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand
Insulting people is very easy, and more fun, and accomplishes the underlying goal of establishing us versus them. They are insane, stupid, liar dumb people, don’t you know.
I will leave it to our readers. [a] What would you say about someone who is not absolutely certain that a whole pie weighs more than any one of its slices? (He will not know until he weighs them, but even then he can't be sure). [b] What would you say about someone who claims that being absolutely certain is not the same thing has having no doubts? (So that he can say that he is both absolutely certain and not absolutely certain) [c] What would you say about someone who claims that he is absolutely certain that he cannot be absolutely certain of anything? (As if the contradiction was not obvious to any rational person)StephenB_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

LH, You would do well to learn the last line of Lewis' aphorism. You are embarrassing yourself.Barry Arrington_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Who doesn't want to be infallible? It would be great to not have to question the things we believe. And making fun of people who encourage you to ask questions is an easy way of shutting down those troublesome conversations. Actually reasoning through the problem is, in comparison, harder and less fun. Is it any surprise that BA makes fun rather than engaging with the problem? What we're really talking about here are whether things like "A=A" are proven concepts or axioms that we just assume are true. I think most people take the latter approach, stymied by the obvious impossibility of a human being logically proving themselves to be infallible. BA and SB, though, want to take the infallibility route. Not totally infallible, to be sure. Just infallible in an infallibly, if imprecisely, defined area of "self-evident truths." What's a SET? Well, they can't quite say, but you're insane if you disagree with whatever the answer is. (And they'll disagree that they can't determine the set of SETs. So what's the greatest value of n such that n+n=2n is no longer a SET? No answers to that one yet, just insults.) Credit to SB for at least trying to engage with the problem. His suggested reasons for why it's rational to believe in his own infallibility, though, assumed infallibility. That's a bit cheesy, to use what I very much doubt is a technical logic term. I don't know how someone could prove that they are infallible, such that they could infallibly perceive both (a) that something is a SET and (b) that the SET is true. At least, not without just assuming their infallibility for the purposes of the argument, or taking it on faith. I don't think BA knows, either. Working through the problem would be very hard. Insulting people is very easy, and more fun, and accomplishes the underlying goal of establishing us versus them. They are insane, stupid, liar dumb people, don't you know. And while we're all focused on that, no one is making him question his infallibility.Learned Hand_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

SA yeah I know but remember "Call Me Caitlyn" wrote the letter :)bornagain77_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

woman down in Kentucky who might be the first Christian ever imprisoned in American history for following their faith
Pro-lifers had been long before. Even anti-slavery could say that.Silver Asiatic_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

BA
materialists ... deny infallible knowledge of self-evident truths such as A=A
Good quotes by Lewis and Chesterton that followed. I've had to slow down my participation here for the reason quoted above. At some point, we run the risk of lowering ourselves to the level of our opponents. In other words, these are not worthy opponents and we might actually hurt ourselves by dignifying their mentality with continual responses. That's the way I see it, at least. When I wondered "how bad can it get" and I then notice equivocations and denials about self-evident truths, of the sort you mention, Barry -- I realize it gets very bad. It's not harsh words. We can call them Nazis, idiots, mental-retards, moral abominations, animalistic, dirt-worshippers, child-rapists, satanic ... anything you can think of and it really doesn't matter. We're just arguing with hyper-inflated Ego. Nothing penetrates it. I admire you guys who can do this day after day -- trying to bring the precious light of truth into the dark abyss of the materialist idiot-world. I really don't think they deserve this kind of effort. If I had the temperment and interest I'd just "go Joe" on them all, (or "go Mapou" for that matter). Arguments about A=A should be fairly short and end with mockery and banishment from civilized society. I discovered that my own mentality was diminished as a result of trying to argue with all of these defective intelligences. I'm just not cut out for that.Silver Asiatic_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

OT: Mr. Arrington, being in law, I think you may get a good chuckle (and perhaps a tear too) out of this:
Dear Oprah, I’m writing to you because you’re obviously, like, the smartest woman in America and I am confused about Kim Davis. You know, that woman down in Kentucky who might be the first Christian ever imprisoned in American history for following their faith. In between reading Eckhart Tolle’s latest I’ve been following a lot of the debate and coverage of her story, and it’s left me even more confused than I was before I first heard about it. Although I admit since I’m a product of our government schools I am easily befuddled (a new word I learned today). Since I know of no greater champion for womankind than yourself, I’m hoping you might be able to answer at least a few of these questions for me (and I even used spell-check to correct any typos/errors): I am confused which “law” this woman disobeyed when I can’t find anything in either the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code or Kentucky state law that says homosexuals are allowed to obtain marriage licenses. I am confused how a woman can be kept in jail indefinitely without a trial when she didn’t violate any law on the books that anyone can cite anywhere. I am confused how one Kentucky clerk threatens the rule of law but unelected judges who rewrite the Constitution from the bench don’t. I am confused how a divorced Kentucky clerk doesn’t have integrity to stand for marriage but rich elitists like Hillary Clinton – who is paid more for one speech than most Americans make in a year – get to play class warfare. I am confused why someone who isn’t perfect can’t uphold a standard when the people accusing her of imperfection are imperfect themselves. I am confused why cities can declare themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens but one county can’t be a “sanctuary” for lawful marriage. I am confused why illegal aliens who openly protest our immigration laws in public aren’t in jail, but this woman is and we know of no “law” she’s actually violated. I am confused how Planned Parenthood officials caught red-handed on camera violating federal laws forbidding the peddling of dead baby parts for profit aren’t in jail, but this Kentucky woman is. I am confused why a president and an attorney general who refused to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional weren’t in jail for violating “the law,” but this county clerk is when the Constitution doesn’t allow courts to make law. I am confused why some people are mocking a woman for not behaving as a Christian before she became one. I am confused why a county clerk must resign if she doesn’t want to enforce “laws” she disagrees with, but a president doesn’t. I am confused why Carly Fiorina would call for this Kentucky clerk to resign for not enforcing pretend laws she doesn’t agree with, but she won’t demand a president resign for not enforcing actual laws he doesn’t agree with. Including the ones which even bear his name, like all the times he refused to implement “Obamacare.” Oprah, since you know our magnificent president personally I’m sure you can get answers to these questions. I’m sure there are simple explanations here that I probably just haven’t had the time between the kids’ soccer practices to get from watching Rachel Maddow. Like so many others I’m at a bit of a loss now that Jon Stewart is no longer on the air, so I’m turning to you for help. However, I know you’re very busy so if you don’t get back to me by tomorrow I’ll send this over to those brilliant ladies on “The View.” Sincerely, Call Me Caitlyn http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/8/steve-deace-dear-oprah-im-confused-about-kim-davis/
bornagain77_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

"Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." G.K. Chesterton (of course)RexTugwell_{September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply