Pliny's Postulate

Pliny's Postulate:
A person who believes that their's is the only absolute and therefore valid world view, cannot logically use any argument against any other viewpoint derived from the doctrine of fairness.


Saint Brian the Godless said...

I would agree with the Pliny Postulate.

Such a person is no longer affected by any proofs that reality has to offer. They've opted out of reality in favor of their fantasy. The Doctrine of Fairness isn't even fair in their definition of the word. What is fair to such a person is to agree witht them. Anything less is not acceptable.

But what exactly do you mean by 'cannot logically use any argument against' etc? That their arguments should be declared invalid right from the start? I think I agree with that too. But it makes little difference to them one way or the other I think. It's their psychosis or the highway.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

What I am trying to articulate in "cannot logically use any argument against" is that if you adhere to an absolutist position you cannot logically try to use a relativist argument against another world view. For example: creationists who are so because of Biblical canon cannot turn around and accuse those who believe in evolution as practicing a form of religion. To do so is to argue that their religious position is faulty because of the allegation that the belief is unsubstantiated, while continuing to claim an absolutist position that is based upon an unsubstantiated belief.

Harvey said...

Logic is not an issue in an absolutist universe. Sonce they know that hteir worldview is correct a priori, no argument to the contrary, logical or illogical, has any meaning. QED

Harvey said...

Sorry for the mistyping.

mac said...

That one drives me up the wall!

A religious person will tell me, "Atheism just makes no sense". And then go on with the silliness contained in the Bible as if it DOES make sense.

It's funny, in as much as, they can see it in OTHER religions, but not their own.

Michael Lockridge said...

As one who has explored a number of the many avenues that exist within Christianity, I would contend that absolutists exist largely within well insulated communities. They also tend to be tightly focused on a small set of doctrines to the exclusion of many others.

Prior to conversion to Christianity I had, for a time, held to atheism. I later abandoned it recognizing that I did not have enough knowledge to declare that there was no God. I also recognized that I could not know enough to so declare, and embraced agnosticism instead.

A self-styled mysticism followed, and then devinely guided random events that swept me into the Christian faith.

Am I an absolutist? I believe what I believe, and most of what I believe is consistent with historically orthodox Christian doctrine.

I also continue to recognize the limitations of what I can know. I do not presume to direct the beliefs of others, or pretend that I know more than the edges of what is true. I am defined as much by my agnosticism as by my faith.

I like to enter into discussion with others, but do so more in the hope of being God's catalyst than His evangelist. It is God who defines truth and generates faith, not me.

I am also willing to grow, allowing that which God brings into my life to shape me. I don't just accept everything that comes along, but I let it rub up against my own beliefs. They are sharpened and defined by the interaction.

So, I remain a mystic. I respect science, I recognize its value and find it quite interesting. It is part of my experience, and I like rubbing up against it.

As presented and clarified, I find that I do agree with the Pliny Postulate.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Ste B - Internal consistency of philosophy is what I'm driving at. One cannot logically debate differing topics without a common definition of what constitutes truth or proof. Variable definitions are illogical.

Harvey - I agree but I think we need to stop letting people off the hook for using that kind of approach.

Mac - that old internal consistency thing again. It solves a lot of problems.

Micheal, Thanks for the insight. I've learned a lot more about you and OneBlood's philosophies over the last few posts.

What's interesting and educational to me is how close we all often are in actual thinking and behavior despite what normally would be considered crucial philosophical differences at least by labels.

I learn a lot more from all you guys than any of the ranters on the old DD site. Not because you are all not strongly committed but because you try to communicate.


Harvey said...

"Harvey - I agree but I think we need to stop letting people off the hook for using that kind of approach."

Let me rephrase. It is apparent that what most "believers" have in common, regardless of their particular form of belief, is either fear of or unwillingness to examine those beliefs. Botts, Oneblood, and Michael seem to have found faith strong enough to withstand or even strengthen themselves in their beliefs by sincere dialogue and inquiry, but I believe such are few and far between. As a result, logical or internally consistent arguments cannot have much, if any effect. Sad as this may be, it unfortunately explains that those of us who seek such consistancy or logic in these discussions are generally "beating our heads against a stone wall", with the few exceptions noted above. It is the way it is and I don't think recognition of this situation lets anyone of the hook.

GearHedEd said...

Harvey said,

"Logic is not an issue in an absolutist universe. Since they know that their worldview is correct a priori, no argument to the contrary, logical or illogical, has any meaning. QED"

(I took the liberty of correcting the typos)

Try telling that to Observant, and see if he doesn't reply, "Hee haw, hee haw."
That's his standard comeback when you've pegged him and he doesn't have an answer.