They would read ‘what is evidence’ and conclude you cannot trust your senses without justification through logic and since it takes logic to justify logic (which is circular) they would claim only God has that power (or the Truth Fairy). It simply feeds on ignorance of lower level processes—like how the brain uses logic or even how a modern computer chip uses logic. In the later case they could say, yes, computer chips are logical but their intelligence is very limited compared to man. Etc.
I’ve learned their is nothing you can teach a presuppositionalist in terms of a reductionist, materialist worldview. I’ve also learned its useless to have a debate between laymen. In addition, it’s probably useless to have a debate between experts and non experts.
I’ve learned their is nothing you can teach a presuppositionalist in terms of a reductionist, materialist worldview.
You can teach it to them, but you will never convince them. There is actually a lot of room to work with a presuppositionalist’s worldview. The conversations get tedious, though. If you know how to do it, you can find holes in their theories, but its more of an individual thing.
The easiest way into a Christian’s head is to start comparing how they act with how they believe. It is hard to do this without making it personal, but with practice and a heaping dose of respect for how much it hurts to hear the charges you can do it.
Also, it may be possible to discuss materialism as a counter-theory without trigging the massive defense system people generally carry around with them. If they turtle up, just walk away or use them as practice for defending your own beliefs.
The easiest way into a Christian’s head is to start comparing how they act with how they believe. It is hard to do this without making it personal, but with practice and a heaping dose of respect for how much it hurts to hear the charges you can do it.
I strongly disagree. The fact that people aren’t perfect is a major component of Christian ideology. Christians are aware that they’re hypocrites, and they try to do better. That doesn’t invalidate their worldview. There are plenty of better arguments which do that on their own.
I think this might have been intended more in the purple dragon sense than anything: focus on how they know exactly what experimental results they’ll need to explain, and what that implies about their gut-level beliefs.
The easiest way into a Christian’s head is to start comparing how they act with how they believe. It is hard to do this without making it personal, but with practice and a heaping dose of respect for how much it hurts to hear the charges you can do it.
I’ve tried this when arguing with utilitarians. As far as I know, it hasn’t persuaded anyone.
Also, it may be possible to discuss materialism as a counter-theory without trigging the massive defense system people generally carry around with them. If they turtle up, just walk away or use them as practice for defending your own beliefs.
Instead of “defending” your beliefs, you may want to try exposing those parts which seem weakest, so as to increase the probability that any errors in your web of belief will be be brought to your attention by your interlocutor.
Exposing your weaknesses increases the probability that your errors will be revealed as errors, but it also increases the probability that your correct beliefs will be falsely “revealed as errors”. (In an area of weakness, your opponent could present flawed arguments whose flaws you would miss, leading you to believe them.)
They would read ‘what is evidence’ and conclude you cannot trust your senses without justification through logic and since it takes logic to justify logic (which is circular) they would claim only God has that power (or the Truth Fairy). It simply feeds on ignorance of lower level processes—like how the brain uses logic or even how a modern computer chip uses logic. In the later case they could say, yes, computer chips are logical but their intelligence is very limited compared to man. Etc.
I’ve learned their is nothing you can teach a presuppositionalist in terms of a reductionist, materialist worldview. I’ve also learned its useless to have a debate between laymen. In addition, it’s probably useless to have a debate between experts and non experts.
You can teach it to them, but you will never convince them. There is actually a lot of room to work with a presuppositionalist’s worldview. The conversations get tedious, though. If you know how to do it, you can find holes in their theories, but its more of an individual thing.
The easiest way into a Christian’s head is to start comparing how they act with how they believe. It is hard to do this without making it personal, but with practice and a heaping dose of respect for how much it hurts to hear the charges you can do it.
Also, it may be possible to discuss materialism as a counter-theory without trigging the massive defense system people generally carry around with them. If they turtle up, just walk away or use them as practice for defending your own beliefs.
I strongly disagree. The fact that people aren’t perfect is a major component of Christian ideology. Christians are aware that they’re hypocrites, and they try to do better. That doesn’t invalidate their worldview. There are plenty of better arguments which do that on their own.
I think this might have been intended more in the purple dragon sense than anything: focus on how they know exactly what experimental results they’ll need to explain, and what that implies about their gut-level beliefs.
I’ve tried this when arguing with utilitarians. As far as I know, it hasn’t persuaded anyone.
Instead of “defending” your beliefs, you may want to try exposing those parts which seem weakest, so as to increase the probability that any errors in your web of belief will be be brought to your attention by your interlocutor.
Exposing your weaknesses increases the probability that your errors will be revealed as errors, but it also increases the probability that your correct beliefs will be falsely “revealed as errors”. (In an area of weakness, your opponent could present flawed arguments whose flaws you would miss, leading you to believe them.)