Lately, much apologetics has landed on my plate, mostly to do with defending the sanctity of marriage. Just the other night, someone asked me about that video where that boy, Zach Wahls, who was raised by lesbian mothers gave an emotional testimony to the Iowan courts. Now, I'd avoided posting the video with any comments on facebook, simply because the video had actually very little substance. It was, rather simply, anecdotal evidence wherein a boy appeals to the emotions of people. It raises for me a great many musings of the irony of society. I remember on facebook there were about 15 people who had shared the video on their page with comments like, 'so why stop them?' and so on. One would have thought that a world obsessed with Scientism and the quantifying of any theory to prove its truth through statistical evidence would have stopped to examine the circumstances regarding the video. Marc Barnes takes a deeper look at the numbers here. But I digress from my point for this post.
I'm not intending to really discuss the matter in the post, rather just reflecting on my thoughts with regards to apologetics. Often, in informal discussions wherein some apologetics has risen to the surface, in this case, it was gay marriage, before one is able to finish qualifying a premise or defining the context of the discussion, they are often buried in a fury of questions fired from the mouths of swift archers. Often, the conversation goes no where since topics change with the frequency of a down spinning proton. It often makes me wonder what the conversation would be like if I fired the questions instead. Take the old Socratic dialogue out for a spin.
I was going to a post a hypothetical dialogue, but perhaps a little later tonight after I've finished my work for the day.
It is funny that you mentioned it, but I would have suggested the use of Socratic method in such circumstances and slowly disassembling the points of others to show their inconsistency and/or falsity.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that most people tend to be empirical or pragmatic, save in instances when something is not deemed politically correct. Quite often, the arguments or positions presented by people are not logically based or factually based; rather, they are driven by emotional content. Ultimately, it is not a search for truth, as a modern error in this day and age is that there is no absolute truth; that it is all subjective, which is a contradiction of the very statement.
A good thought to keep in your mind in times of discussion is that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. A person who is resolute to remain in error will do so. No amount of persuasion, evidence or logic will change that. There are always times when we must know to sweep the dust from our feet and move on. Nevertheless, keep your head up and keep up the good work.
Cor Iesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis.