Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What makes an argument good?


Wertbag

Recommended Posts

I was having an online discussion and the subject of what makes an argument good came up.  My first thought was that a good argument is one that is persuasive, as the purpose of an argument is to try and convince the other person that your position is correct.  The person I was talking to is a student of Philosophy, so he was horrified by this idea.  He said a good argument is one that is logically sound, structurally valid and without fallacy.  A good argument is valid regardless of how persuasive it is.

 

While I understand his point, I don't think that addresses the purpose of an argument.  A beautifully written, logically sound but confusing or one that instinctively feels wrong will fail to convince anyone.  If that is the purpose, then it fails.  The ontological argument falls into this category in my mind, in that it appears structurally sound but the very idea of "I can think it, therefore its real" will have people unconvinced before they have dug into it with any depth.  In reverse I think some of the flat earth arguments are persuasive because they appeal to our personal experience (have you ever seen a curve?) and to our limited ability to observe the world (see the extra zoom brings things miles away into focus!).  The FE arguments aren't logical and may not be structurally sound, but they are persuasive and have convinced thousands of people of that idea.

 

I don't think either version of "a good argument" is wrong, it's a question of definition.  If everyone made a top 5 list of arguments for and against Christianity, it would be subjective and very mixed results.  But what factor do you think most people will be looking at as their prime criteria for the argument being good?  I would suggest most people couldn't care less about philosophy, and most won't know a structured argument from a poorly structured one.  So clearly what is "good" for the general population may not be for formal debates or for apologetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its been well demonstrated that people make decisions (i.e. side with or against an argument) essentially based on their feelings . Even for people who base all their decisions/beliefs on "logically sound" arguments, it is because it would feel wrong to use any other instrument - as evidenced by your philosophy student who was horrified to think a good argument could be anything other "logically sound, structurally valid, and without fallacy."

So a good argument depends upon your audience and what will appeal to their gut feelings. 

(That's my 2 cents anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wertbag,

 

How about this?

 

An argument that is logically sound, structurally valid and without any fallacies can be demonstrated to be so.

 

Whereas, one that is persuasive because it appeals to emotions is not.

 

The key point here is that the first one exactly aligns with the way people live and the second does not.  What I mean is that the computers we use, the electricity that powers our homes, the drugs we take, the technology of our planes, trains, automobiles, spacecraft, ship and submarines and all of the science that makes our modern society function can only work if the scientific principles underpinning them can be demonstrated to work.  And to do so reliably.

 

Machines don't work because we feel they should.  Our emotions play no part in what works in reality and what doesn't.  Emotions are irrelevant to demonstrable facts.   Therefore logically sound and structurally valid arguments without any fallacies mirror the way reality works.  We live in that reality.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, Wertbag said:

A good argument is valid

Herein lies the problem.  There is a difference between a "good" argument and a "valid" one; and you correctly surmised that a valid argument might not be good nor a good argument valid.  The validity of an argument rests on its structure, lack of fallacy, etc. but that speaks nothing to how "good" the argument may be, as there doesn't seem to be an accepted definition of "good" in this case.  Again you astutely observed that "good" is a highly subjective term.  An argument that is persuasive may not be morally good, or it may be morally good without being intellectually honest.  So, persuasion cannot be the standard of "good" any more than structure can be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building on the Prof's comments, how about this?

 

 

From a Christian p.o.v. John 3 : 16 is a good argument.  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  It is good on the following counts.

 

1.  It appeals directly to the emotions.  If god was prepared to sacrifice himself (as Jesus) to save the world, then he must love everyone in the world very much.  

2. It is true.  (This however is a statement of faith by Christians, made on a purely emotional level and without evidence.)

3. It is morally good.  God must be morally good to be willing to die to save us.  (Again, a statement of faith, driven by emotional need and bereft of evidence.)

4. It places the responsibility of salvation with each of us, so if we refuse god's free gift, then we are to blame.  And so god is glorified for offering us this free choice.

5. It shows that salvation is open to all.  This demonstrates that god is not biased or prejudiced against anyone.  And so he is glorified for being fair and just.

 

So, John 3:16 feels good to the believer, is good because it is true and is morally good on at least three counts.

 

 

From the sceptics p.o.v. it is not a good argument.  It is not good on the following counts.

 

1.  Arguments that appeal directly to the emotions are inherently subjective.  What one person feels is good need not agree with what another person feels is good.  

2. Things believed to be true by faith are inherently subjective too.  What one person believes is true need not correspond to what another person believes is true.

3. A sceptical look at scripture reveals that despite his claims to be good, god has not acted acted in morally good ways and holds morally evil views on many things.

4. A sceptical look at scripture reveals that despite his claims to give us a free choice in accepting or rejecting salvation, god predestines many to eternal suffering.

5. A sceptical look at scripture reveals that despite his claims to be fair and just, god is unjust and unfair by pre-selecting who will be saved and who will not.

 

 

So, how can the same argument be good from one p.o.v. and yet be not good from another? 

 

Because, as the Prof observed, the word "good" is highly subjective.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Here is a decent listing of arguments against christianity which the author, a christian, feels are "good" arguments.  Counter-arguments are offered in the comments.  I thought the contrast between for and against might be beneficial here.

 

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2013/01/twelve-good-arguments-atheists-advance.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here is a decent listing of arguments against christianity which the author, a christian, feels are "good" arguments.  Counter-arguments are offered in the comments.  I thought the contrast between for and against might be beneficial here.

 

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2013/01/twelve-good-arguments-atheists-advance.html

It does worry me when I see Christians making summary lists.  I've talked to Christians for who such lists are their only engagement with opposing views.  Due to the summary nature of the points, it is easy to hand wave them away as silly without having to think deeply about the questions it raises.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately an argument stands or falls on the quality of its supporting premises.

 

An argument can be logically valid, with all the "If..." statements connecting to the "...Therefore" at the end, but if the premises are just unsupported assertions, demonstrably false or outright barking mad, it's an unsound argument because true, relevant premises are required to make it sound.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
22 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Due to the summary nature of the points, it is easy to hand wave them away as silly without having to think deeply about the questions it raises.

Unfortunately, this happens even when thorough arguments, the result of considerable effort, thought, and articulation, are presented that do not coincide with another's biases.  A high degree of intellectual honesty, and no small measure of humility, is necessary to overcome firmly held positions and give obeisance to the better argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 6:21 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, persuasion cannot be the standard of "good" any more than structure can be.

Hmmm . . .I had just assumed that the term "good" (as applied to the concept of "argument") was synonymous with "persuasive." 

The reason we argue (in theory anyway) is to attempt to persuade our audience (although there are times when arguments are merely spouting of opinions with no such intent).  Anyway, if the question was re-framed to state "what makes a an argument persuasive?" I think the replies would still fit.  And this is where there are striking differences between Christians and non-believers - as Walter pointed out.  Christians are persuaded by personal feelings, personal experiences, subjective biblical interpretations, and group-think.  Skeptics are persuaded with logic, evidence, and the scientific process (as we currently know it).  I think this is why so many arguments between Christian and skeptic result in a stalemate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, freshstart said:

Hmmm . . .I had just assumed that the term "good" (as applied to the concept of "argument") was synonymous with "persuasive." 

The reason we argue (in theory anyway) is to attempt to persuade our audience (although there are times when arguments are merely spouting of opinions with no such intent).  Anyway, if the question was re-framed to state "what makes a an argument persuasive?" I think the replies would still fit.  And this is where there are striking differences between Christians and non-believers - as Walter pointed out.  Christians are persuaded by personal feelings, personal experiences, subjective biblical interpretations, and group-think.  Skeptics are persuaded with logic, evidence, and the scientific process (as we currently know it).  I think this is why so many arguments between Christian and skeptic result in a stalemate.

If we are going to simply equate "good" with "persuasive", then as an extreme example, we would have to concede that Hitler made a "good" argument against the Jews, as is evidenced by the number of people persuaded to take an active role in their extermination.  This is why I contend there is more involved than persuasion cannot be the only factor, or standard, involved in determining a "good" argument.  The predicament is in objectively defining "good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The predicament is in objectively defining "good".

Agreed.  And - unfortunate as it was - Hitler did manage to persuade his targeted audience with his arguments.  So his despicable arguments were effective.  Hence, he was - unfortunately - very good at it.  Maybe I am parsing words here, and maybe "good" is just a terrible choice of words, but the oxymoron here is that there are many evil people in the world who are very good at propagating evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Often times, I've noticed no matter the topic, there are many people who are just waiting for their ''turn'' to speak and get their point across. Not really taking into consideration the other person's point of view. In other words, I think good ''arguers'' are good listeners, first. We all come to discussions with some bias, that's human nature, but the best arguments don't try to persuade, in my opinion. They get you to think and consider perhaps other points of view that you hadn't otherwise considered. Not every discussion has a ''winner,'' but it can be just as satisfying to know that someone heard you, and you heard them.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deidre said:

 

the best arguments don't try to persuade, in my opinion. They get you to think and consider perhaps other points of view that you hadn't otherwise considered.

 

 

Good point, thanks for the post.  But I'm curious as to why you are here.  Aren't you afraid that if you hang around here too long, some of the logical thinking about God and the Bible will change some of your views?  Considering different views is what led me out of Christianity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

Good point, thanks for the post.  But I'm curious as to why you are here.  Aren't you afraid that if you hang around here too long, some of the logical thinking about God and the Bible will change some of your views?  Considering different views is what led me out of Christianity.

 I'm not afraid of hanging around non-believers. Most of my friends offline, are atheists. lol I left the faith that led me to join this site to begin with once upon a time, so it's nice to stop in now and again, and see how everyone is doing. I don't feel faith is illogical, so that may be where we differ in how we see faith/spirituality, etc...

 

Do you find yourself only associating with non-believers online/offline? I'd say that could be true what you're saying, feeling ''swayed'', if it's a recent de-conversion or conversion. I've deconverted, then re-converted back to faith, if that makes sense, for a few years now. 

 

I think a common misconception that I've learned over the past couple of years, is that nearly every believers' deconversion experiences are the same. As if everyone's journey in this life, coming to faith or moving away from belief, should be the same, or could be the same. We're all different, and we all have vastly different lives, and experiences. That's one of the greatest things I've learned, and I had joined an atheist forum like 8 years ago, when I had left Christianity initially, and still visit there from time to time. Not to challenge others, but I've made e-friends over the years. That site in particular though, isn't only interested in discussing faith vs atheism. There are sections strictly for that, like a ''Lion's Den,'' of sorts. But, there are plenty of secular sub-forums where people are just socializing. No one judges really, unless believers are on there preaching.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Deidre said:

 

 I don't feel faith is illogical, so that may be where we differ in how we see faith/spirituality, etc...

 

I don't believe faith in and of itself is illogical.  I have faith in the profound concept of loving/respecting neighbor as self, but after years of studying the Bible and how it came to be, and other religions, decided they are all myths. And if Jesus actually existed, he was a wise man----not divine.  Therefore I am no longer "christian."  I am agnostic, not athiest, and my decision was based on prayer to find the truth and years of study.  Not on feelings.   The result is in my "signature" below.

 

I have never swayed in the 30 years since I left "the faith."  I think it is because my leaving was not because I was mad at someone, or wanting to find my independence, or a feeling, but because I desired truth.  I paid a big price in relationships with extended family when I left, but the longer I am out, the more I am secure in my choice.  Logic tells me so.  Not a feeling.   But I will admit the feeling of inner peace I have now has improved, which actually came as a surprise.

 

You are hanging onto the Christain name.  What kind of Christian are you?

 

P.S.  Perhaps I should have said, with what group or denomination do identify?  And what caused you to "sway" back to the faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you’re coming from. I was in a very regimented sect of Christianity, growing up. I didn’t understand why I believed, and followed “my parents’ religion.” I had left Christianity and explored different faiths (roughly around the time I joined here), but eventually concluded that I didn’t believe in God at all. I’m abbreviating my story for now, as I’m heading out for the day but wanted to take a minute to reply.

 

 

I have shared that a few years ago, I came back to believing in God through an experience I had. Call it Divine intervention, but it was surprising to me so I explored it. I believe in Jesus’ teachings, and rereading the Bible (I never really read it in its entirety before) has brought me to a strong belief that Jesus’ teachings are for everyone to benefit. For an “abundant life.” I don’t belong to any denomination anymore, and simply follow Jesus’ teachings. In the Bible to the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn’t seem keen on divisions within the “church.” So I think all of these sects and fractures, are human-made, in my opinion.
 

I strongly believe in prayer and keeping a journal and it is a great comfort to me. But, in stride with the topic of the thread - I come to any “argument” open to what others believe even if I don’t believe what they do. That said, my faith is important to me so it can be challenging for others to see me as open minded, but I think that’s because many Christians are closed minded, and that is a problem with Christianity in the West.

 

If we were in India, Christian converts there practice in a very organic, holistic way - which is how I imagine Jesus lived his life. 
 

I follow this YouTube channel where churches are being built in India, by Christian converts and it’s just so different from how Christianity is expressed in the West. I’d say my life has just become simpler coming back to faith and I’m at peace. Emotionally, I felt more fragile as an atheist. I don’t think we can say only logic guides our lives, it’s also mental and emotional well being. I don’t view faith as just a safety blanket, it’s way more than that for me. Anyway, hope that helps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments are of little or no value between individuals or groups IMHO. Discussions are different. Neither is necessarily trying to convince the other. So-called facts are simply presented and no rancor or deprecating language is ever used. When one side or individual insults the other then argument should be over IMO. I think we usually do pretty well in this respect here in the Lion's Den.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deidre said:

I understand where you’re coming from. I was in a very regimented sect of Christianity, growing up. I didn’t understand why I believed, and followed “my parents’ religion.” I had left Christianity and explored different faiths (roughly around the time I joined here), but eventually concluded that I didn’t believe in God at all. I’m abbreviating my story for now, as I’m heading out for the day but wanted to take a minute to reply.

 

 

I have shared that a few years ago, I came back to believing in God through an experience I had. Call it Divine intervention, but it was surprising to me so I explored it. I believe in Jesus’ teachings, and rereading the Bible (I never really read it in its entirety before) has brought me to a strong belief that Jesus’ teachings are for everyone to benefit. For an “abundant life.” I don’t belong to any denomination anymore, and simply follow Jesus’ teachings. In the Bible to the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn’t seem keen on divisions within the “church.” So I think all of these sects and fractures, are human-made, in my opinion.
 

I strongly believe in prayer and keeping a journal and it is a great comfort to me. But, in stride with the topic of the thread - I come to any “argument” open to what others believe even if I don’t believe what they do. That said, my faith is important to me so it can be challenging for others to see me as open minded, but I think that’s because many Christians are closed minded, and that is a problem with Christianity in the West.

 

If we were in India, Christian converts there practice in a very organic, holistic way - which is how I imagine Jesus lived his life. 
 

I follow this YouTube channel where churches are being built in India, by Christian converts and it’s just so different from how Christianity is expressed in the West. I’d say my life has just become simpler coming back to faith and I’m at peace. Emotionally, I felt more fragile as an atheist. I don’t think we can say only logic guides our lives, it’s also mental and emotional well being. I don’t view faith as just a safety blanket, it’s way more than that for me. Anyway, hope that helps.

 

 

Although I am a complete atheist for life,  I like your frame of belief :).  But for me, all religions, religious beliefs and spiritualism, are backed up by no objective evidence IMO and are as logical as Greek Mythology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Deidre said:

I understand where you’re coming from. I was in a very regimented sect of Christianity, growing up. I didn’t understand why I believed, and followed “my parents’ religion.” I had left Christianity and explored different faiths (roughly around the time I joined here), but eventually concluded that I didn’t believe in God at all. I’m abbreviating my story for now, as I’m heading out for the day but wanted to take a minute to reply.

 

 

I have shared that a few years ago, I came back to believing in God through an experience I had. Call it Divine intervention, but it was surprising to me so I explored it. I believe in Jesus’ teachings, and rereading the Bible (I never really read it in its entirety before) has brought me to a strong belief that Jesus’ teachings are for everyone to benefit. For an “abundant life.” I don’t belong to any denomination anymore, and simply follow Jesus’ teachings. In the Bible to the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn’t seem keen on divisions within the “church.” So I think all of these sects and fractures, are human-made, in my opinion.
 

I strongly believe in prayer and keeping a journal and it is a great comfort to me. But, in stride with the topic of the thread - I come to any “argument” open to what others believe even if I don’t believe what they do. That said, my faith is important to me so it can be challenging for others to see me as open minded, but I think that’s because many Christians are closed minded, and that is a problem with Christianity in the West.

 

If we were in India, Christian converts there practice in a very organic, holistic way - which is how I imagine Jesus lived his life. 
 

I follow this YouTube channel where churches are being built in India, by Christian converts and it’s just so different from how Christianity is expressed in the West. I’d say my life has just become simpler coming back to faith and I’m at peace. Emotionally, I felt more fragile as an atheist. I don’t think we can say only logic guides our lives, it’s also mental and emotional well being. I don’t view faith as just a safety blanket, it’s way more than that for me. Anyway, hope that helps.

 

 

 

"Anyway, hope that helps."  

 

It helps me understand you, and reminds me of where I was at one time.  I decided the bible was errant, and cherry picked the parts I liked.  I believed  "love your neighbor as self" was the only "commandment" needed in the church.  Just follow that, and forget the squabbles over rituals, and other small stuff.  If that is similar to where you are in your faith now, that is great. The world would be a better place if "faith" was made that simple.  Perhaps you could call yourself a JESUS-ITE. 😄

 

But, if you hang around here, and your logic kicks in, and you decide to consider the information here, you may become one of us.   It took me 40 years from the first questions as a kid, to walking out the door.  I hope you enjoy your visit.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.