Non-Religious Arguments

Thursday is finally back, and he is considering supernaturalism, tradition, and the law. He raises an interesting point: why do the religious tend to fall back on religious arguments? There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but the point of argument is to inform and persuade. This often means adapting to audience, even as there is refusal to compromise on principle. How often do we fail to consider how our interactions appear? How little do we attempt empathy outside of ourselves?

"Maybe thinking about it in individual terms is exactly the problem, since we're talking about ..."

Prelude to a Conversion
"Regarding pathological altruism, remove race from the equation and think about it in individual terms. ..."

Prelude to a Conversion
"That's the thing: I don't want to get into a display of endless hand-wringing in ..."

Prelude to a Conversion
"Radical altruism, even pathological altruism, is such a bizarre phenomenon. As far as race is ..."

Prelude to a Conversion

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • gracesong815

    I couldn’t agree with you more!
    As I’m technically categorized as a Bible-believing Christian, I see so many others around me of my own faith turn to Christian books and literature for help in dialoguing with those who do not hold their view, not realizing that Christian books, while they may be helpful, appear to others as just a crutch.
    Thanks for bringing this point up!
    Iris

  • http://manwhoisthursday.blogspot.com Thursday

    Thanks for the link. It’s nice to have appreciative readers.

  • http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com Kevin Jones

    Perhaps there is a fallback to religious arguments, or rather assertions, because secular “arguments,” on the popular level, consist of emoting with passion.

    What I see as my own problem is a tendency to oversecularize. I’ll provide a secular argument for X, but then neglect to link this to the theological reasoning that can often perfect it.

    In part, this is to avoid cluttering the argument with more disputed topics in cases where one isn’t talking with a Christian.

    However, it can be disingenuous to avoid what one considers to be the most important of one’s reasons for a belief.

    Further, in the U.S. especially, non-Christians are hardly a majority. A well-wrought appeal to Scripture can engage more people than it disengages.

    Perhaps if better theological arguments were made in public, there’d be fewer superficial religious appeals. A brief digression about man being in the image and likeness of God or about Christ’s love for the poor can enrich, rather than distract from, the discussion. Compare the Imago Dei to the nihilistic premises of certain pundits, and you’ll attract sympathy, if not agreement.

  • gracesong815

    OK, but how about those situations when you’re discussing religion with an atheist and he should ask you why you trust the bible out of all possible holy texts? The atheist isn’t going to take the answer, Because the Bible states that it is the Word of God” for a proper answer. Please don’t take this as any sort of facetiousness on my part. Just attempting to sort this all out.
    As to your comment about non-Christians being hardly a majority, i’d have to respectfully disagree. The Bible does have its place in the discussions, and I do think that it is sharper than any two-edged sword. However, aren’t there many things about God that have been revealed outside of His Word, e.g. the order of creation?
    Iris