Reasoned Arguement

calumsmith — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:44:51 +0000

One thing that has come to my attention recently is how we will often throw away some of the evidence that can help us decide the truth on the basis that we do not accept the version of the truth that it points towards. For example, if someone in the street were to tell me they’d seen big foot I wouldn’t take their eye witness account about the existance of big foot very seriously because I don’t think it’s likely that big foot exists. However, if the same person was to tell me I just missed a bus I would be more likely to believe them. Although rejecting a persons claim that they saw big foot on the basis that I dont believe in big foot is a circular arguement, relying on its own conclusion, it is still a reasonable stance to take. This is because the claim that a creature such as big foot exists is a pretty audacious one and I can not corroborate the claim from my own experience, where as, in the case of the missed bus, I know that people miss busses all the time, they don’t always run when they should so it could easily of come earlier and left without me. The circularness of rejecting this piece of evidence comes from nothing more than healthy scepticism.

This sort of arguementation came to light recently while I was reading a book looking to see if the christian claims about Jesus could stand up to reason in a court of law. If you accept what the new testamont gospels say as atleast what the traditional authers believed to be true (which the book, The Case for Christ, makes a surprisingly strong case for) but reject them as clearly wrong on the bases that they make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and was the son of God, then you’re arguement is clearly circular. But can it be reasonable all the same? I’m left with 2 choices, either it is reasonable arguementation or I need to concider Big Foot as a more likely possibility than I currently do, I can’t have it both ways.

Then I think that if I was trying to examin directly weather or not Big Foot existed, and a person with nothing to gain and with no other signs of delusion made the claim that they had seen Big Foot, I would have to give the testomony some weight and I think the same is true of the accounts the Bible gives of the ressurection. Dismissing something solely on the basis it makes a claim that seems outlandish doesn’t leat to a logical or reasoned arguement, however a healthy scepticism is always useful.

Calumsmith's Weblog

Reasoned Arguement