It seems as of late, everyone is arguing for their opinion. No problem there. However, in the spirit of this blog, I have a question that is almost anti-this-blogish (there is a new Bushism).
Does "winning" an intellectual argument actually prove you are correct or right regarding the topic you argue for?
8 comments:
No.
:)
Thankyou for the volumes you have written Sarah, too bad so few words in debates amounts to that much impact on discussions.
Suneal,
Absolutely not.
Thank you for asking the question. I think it is an important question.
You're welcome Chris!
When someone first is found by Christ, they know Him, but not necessarily how to describe what they know. They come to know Christ but not necessarily how to argue with someone who has spent years forming arguments against the existence of God, from an intellectual viewpoint.
We should respect in this matter or any matter that the weight of argument does not necessitate the substance of its truth.
When God meets any of us, is it ever with our heads separated from our bodies, in a cyber-intellectual world, separate from the cosmos?
So also, as Job discovered, all our arguments kind of fall to shreds before Him with whom we have to do in the end.
The universe seems so ordered as to display oder that is not easily understood congruently. Hence a universe in which faith becomes a necessity for all of us both intellectually and otherwise. Even in relationships, faith and trust are considered not only pillars but privileges to love.
Hence, this universe is not exclusivistic, but inclusive to its variations. As such, arguments hammered home do little to gain trust and win faith to those not so inclined.
"We should respect in this matter or any matter that the weight of argument does not necessitate the substance of its truth."
Beautifully stated, Suneal! You've encapsulated a whole field of philosophy and a good number of its implications in one swift sentence. I love it!
Do it again! :D
"Hence, this universe is not exclusivistic, but inclusive to its variations. As such, arguments hammered home do little to gain trust and win faith to those not so inclined."
However, solid argumentation, despite the bad rap it receives for not being a guarantee of conversion, is a fantastic and beautiful tool for helping people open their minds to other possibilities (e.g., that God exists). For that reason alone, it can be a tool that helps establish trust, and spot-welds the holes between heads and hearts. Do you agree?
It could be so, Chris, maybe afterall I am into "openness-theology" :)
I am right now personally trying to experience conversation, not merely dictate it. As such, I feel the need to feel, as well think the thoughts to persuade. I am neither entirely dissuaded such a blog as this can achieve this, nor entirely convinced it can accomplish it!
I know Spock would concur with your question, but I might very well end up as Dr. McCoy.
What think ye of this?
Suneal, I think it is a difficult balance to strike in communication, especially with so much working against us-- that is, the complete impossibility of being able to perfectly transmit an experience from your self to my self.
I think that in the loss of community, and then obvious loss of common experience, we have also lost the ability to communicate accurately because we no longer have a foundation for the use/definition of our words. So now, all we have are the words, and devoid of life, or real common experiences, they are easily swayed this way and that, without any real meaning attached to them. This is babel, no?
So, while many words may be useless as a whole with so little understanding happening between people, without common experience, without stepping together to live a common (physical community) life, how can we fix this? How can I even communicate this idea to you? Is abduction a more pointed expression of my desire than my words?
Let me know; I need at least six days' notice, lol.
Yeah Sarah, I'll take your word(s) for it.
What I was saying is this; one can be more or less open when conversing to listen. What one listens for, ahh, that in the end becomes the experience. When you say something, or I, or anyone else, more is said than the speaker is saying. A life-style perhaps, or particular world view may be permeating the words.
So if I only listen to the line of arguments, I can miss much more than is transpiring. The experience is thus deepened with a greater range of hearing. This greater range actually picks up more to a line of argument than the argument itself. That extraeneous stuff composes a greater totality of the speaker than the words themselves.
What if I said I understand greatly, where does that leave "so little understanding between us?" This does not require a perfect transmission of experience, just a decent one!
I think I hear the echo of lonliness and disconnectedness in your argument, there being no commonality of experience. But this is blog life, so if all that can survive here is the intellect germ, then I guess I abdicate the rest to intellectual prowess and Spock's Vulcan logic.
You can answer on the 17th.
Post a Comment