Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Benefit of Arguments at UD

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Probably one of the most daunting aspects of carrying on debates either about proper critical thinking, theism vs atheism, or intelligent design and its implications is the seeming implacable nature of those we debate here and elsewhere. It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors; however, I think this is probably because most of those who will take the time to seek our position out and criticize it on its home turf are already fully committed against such positions, and are often emotionally entrenched.

Not only has my time here at UD aided in my personal transition from atheist to theist, I’d like to let the regulars here know that because of the information and arguments I found here, and after honing my understanding and my ability to deliver that information and those arguments through years of participation here, that time spent has had a nice payoff.

A few weeks ago my family and I were sitting in my living room talking one day when my adult granddaughter (mother of my great-granddaughter), who was either agnostic or an atheist, out of the blue asked me why I believed in god. I presented evidence and argument concerning cosmological fine-tuning, bio-semiotics and cellular nano-technology, and also first-cause and moral arguments. She was really interested, but didn’t say much at the time. Some time later my daughter informed me that she overheard my granddaughter telling her boyfriend that since that talk she now totally believes in god because of the information and argument I was able to provide due to many years of participation here.

Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that, sometimes, reason and evidence can actually get through to a person.

Comments
F/N: how this theist is "clinging" (and part of why this theist joins many others to hold that evolutionary materialist scientism is utterly self-falsifying and bankrupt) -- I would suggest that if you want to play at worldviews grounding, there is more than one side to that story. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2016
August
08
Aug
12
12
2016
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
To persuade someone is a art or science. who is so easily persuaded by what must be short and not well done arguments normal people make. We are not very good at making a case which is why lawyers are famous for making cases against other lawyers who are pretty good. there must be a curve for ability in argumentation. I'm not doing well with the curve although confident. P{eople are logical and do submit to evidence. Juries are based on this concept. however they do select out juries' who they think have a bias and so it affects clear thinking. The truth side should be on higher ground and do a better job. the error side must have more problems proving thier case. i think iD/YEC does very well and the evolutionist/creator deniers don't do as well in making a case. Especially when thier side is the textbook side. thats why I know evolutionism won't last 15 years. its already failed where it should of mopped up resistance. Of coarse the problem was making a biological theory on non biological evidence. except for minor selectionism as Matthew/Darwin/Wallace observed.Robert Byers
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Belief in anything? I doubt that is true about this person. It seems more likely that he meant he lacked belief in God, which he would of course as an atheist. No one can lack belief.jdk
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
jdk:
The theists and IDists here are hanging on to their beliefs just as much as the atheists and materialists.
jdk, I've run into an atheist who claims to lack belief. So what would he be holding on to? Disbelief?Mung
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
tgpeeler:
Glad I dropped by and got to see this.
waves!Mung
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Everyone hangs on to their beliefs: it's part of human nature. The theists and IDists here are hanging on to their beliefs just as much as the atheists and materialists. We have to believe something: our belief systems, both personal and cultural, provide a framework in which to organize our understanding of the world, including our nature and role as a human being. We can change our beliefs ( I posted about this in the Gnosticism thread), and we can become more broad-minded and able to entertain a spectrum of beliefs without feeling unduly attached to a specific place on the spectrum, but we still have to have a belief system in order to be who we are. But because of our dependence on learning, we are cultural animals, and so we have to have beliefs that we are attached to - hang on to - to a large degree unless we find the right opportunities and environments to grow and change. In addition, people (this is a general principle) strive to protect themselves, so if someone's belief system is challenged in an unfriendly way, most people fall back into a defensive posture about their beliefs. Therefore, in a place like UD, where most discussions between people with different views are often somewhat antagonistic, people are much more like to double-down on their positions rather than open themselves up a bit to examining their own positions and possibly change. People need to feel safe in order to open themselves up to change. And in keepin with the posting style of others who always include some quotes and links, I offer: Dylan, from "High Water": "You can't open up your mind, boys, to every conceivable point of view." John Dewey: "For education to be effective, it must first be humane." Don Juan, in one of Carlos Castenado's books (paraphrased): "To help someone change, you have to be outside the circle of people pressing in on them." And the ultimate story about our need to believe: from Douglas Adam's "Dirk Gently and His Holistic Detective Agency", the chapter on the Electric Monk. http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html :-)jdk
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Glad I dropped by and got to see this. Helping to change one mind makes all of the effort that goes into understanding truth worth it.tgpeeler
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Apparently your OP struck a nerve with Larry Moran.Rationalitys bane
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
J-Mac@9 Obviously because they believe they are correct. Same reason you do.Pindi
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
WJM, Great story and reflection... Do you have any ideas as to WHY people would hang on to their set of beliefs with the exception of Nazi Regime, or directorships such as the communist countries?J-Mac
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
I placed a comment some months ago that was removed for some reason, and so have not felt I could post. But I feel compelled today. This site has been of such benefit to me. I have used the arguments presented here in numerous discussions and debates. It is the best site I know for support for YEC and iD. You guys do a great job. Thanks for all the time you spend researching, arguing and honing those arguments.Allen Shepherd
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
WJM Great heart warming post. I Just shared with family and close friends.bill cole
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
MK, of course, Paley made the self replicating watch argument in Ch 2 of his Natural Theology, so all the arguments against failed analogy on this point, over the past 150+ years, have been strawman fallacies. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
hi william. nice post. my favorite argument is the self replicating watch argument. the main atheists objection against the watch argument is that watch dosent have a self replicating system or made from organic component like dna, unlike a living things. so we cant compare between them . so what if we will find a self replicating watch with dna?, according to their logic we need to conclude that this kind of watch doesnt need a designer because it have a replicating system. but we actually know that this kind of watch in this case will make the design argument even stronger because this kind of watch is more sophisticated and complex then a regular watch.mk
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
You're an excellent writer, and I always enjoy your posts, WJM. Nice that you had some personal payoff from your participation here.mike1962
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Wonderful story WJM. And of course the phenomenon of which you speak is a two-way street. Iron sharpens iron. And as UB says, you are one of our very best steels.Barry Arrington
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
If ever a committed materialist left UD a little less committed, its more likely than not that they just read you, WJM. Thanks for being here.Upright BiPed
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
I'm sure the clarity with which you delivered the evidence for ID was excellent as well. For instance, here are a few gems of yours that I have tucked away:
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray "virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence." William J Murray “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray
I'm sure there are many more gems of yours that I have missed. The point being, that some people, such as yourself, have an admirable gift for making hard subjects easy to grasp.bornagain77
August 11, 2016
August
08
Aug
11
11
2016
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply