1. Follow the argument, wherever it leads.
2. Accept the truth, whatever it is.
3. Defend the truth, whatever the cost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(246)
-
▼
July
(25)
- Imagine: No Television
- Wisdom from Peggy Noonon
- "The Question of Jesus: Is Jesus the Only Way?"
- YouTube U for You!
- Lectures on Hinduism/Buddhism and Islam Now Available
- Doug Groothuis Preaching in Fort Collins
- The Taliban Make a Martyr
- Neal Morse Review Pulled
- The End of Politics as We Know It
- Douglas Groothuis Lectures on Hinduism, Buddhism, ...
- In Line for Harry Potter (slightly revised)
- Gods, gods, demons
- Dog Fighting, Human Debasing
- Happy Birthday To It
- Lessons from Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984)
- "Rim of the Broken Wheel" Lyrics by Bruce Cockburn...
- A Royal Ruin: New Pascal Essay Posted
- Book on Alternative Medicine is on Line
- When to Defend Truth
- India's Hidden Slavery
- Three maxims: A cord of three strands
- Doug Groothuis Preaching on Other Religions
- Apologetics on Line
- Philosophical Fact Check: Pascal's Vacuum
- Now...this
-
▼
July
(25)
Links
About Me
- Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
- Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus. I direct the Christian Apologetics and Ethics MA program at Denver Seminary.
17 comments:
I've never seen something so short with such potential for offending just about everybody I know. You have quite a gift :)
To chrisb:
How is that offensive?
Maybe you should meet more people.
Why not follow the evidence, Doug?
Why not realize that people who quote others instead of citing the evidence are immoral people?
I have no idea what smokey is talking about.
A [suggested] fourth maxim...
4. Ask others if they believe their disagreements with maxims 1-3 are true and worth defending.
Most people say that truth is important to them and that it is a virtue in their lives.
However, I have seen that when truth (i.e. the best arguments) start to take people in a direction where they are not comfortable, they don't want to go, or that "cramps their style", this reverence for truth quickly takes a turn to relativism - the very thing that initially they claim to not embrace.
So truth becomes "what is comfortable for me." Yuck.
Sometimes where you stand impacts where you sit. This isn't always a matter of relativism, and it isn't always a matter of comfort. Sometimes it's just a matter of having information that comes seeing something at a closer point of reference.
Hi Doug, this is your new friend in Ghana.
1. Follow the argument, wherever it leads.
2. Accept the truth, whatever it is.
3. Defend the truth, whatever the cost.
Did you come up with those? Impressive. Enjoyed the site. Will become a regular.
George
Loved it. Thanks
Hobie:
I don't understand your post. What does this mean? "Sometimes it's just a matter of having information that comes seeing something at a closer point of reference."
Doug: "I have no idea what smokey is talking about."
Why not? Why can't you simply explain why following an argument is a better maxim than following the evidence?
As for the second, are you really incapable of realizing the moral an ethical reasons why our legal system operates under maxims that prohibit the use of hearsay as evidence in nearly all cases?
Smokey wrote:"Why can't you simply explain why following an argument is a better maxim than following the evidence?"
-Smokey, I think you are on a grand adventure of missing the point.
After all, evidence is often the fuel for a persuasive argument - is it not?
Marko and all,
I posted on the "offensive" nature of this little piece on my blog.
marko: After all, evidence is often the fuel for a persuasive argument - is it not?
Often yes, often no. That's why we should follow the evidence instead of following the argument.
Evidence plus an argument form equals a conclusion.
I still see great inconsistency in such a call, and your support of the bizarre claims of the Discovery Institute. I suspect in the case of intelligent design and its advocates, you've not yet followed the arguments.
Otherwise, a good standard.
Post a Comment