I find myself laughing and crying at the same time, every time I come across, well just about any article on WorldNetDaily. Here’s a quote for today’s discussion.
“It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.”
And it made me think about perspective in arguments. I think about this a lot, being married into a devoutly religious family, but this one is worth expanding on.
It’s about the premises of an argument. Every proof or argument always begins with a few basic assumptions, known as premises, right? Because if we started every discussion from the beginning, from absolute proof of every premise we started with, we’d never get to our points, right?
But it’s always funny (not always funny-ha-ha) to me when people make a case or argument based on the assumption that we agree on the premises of the argument.
In the case of a subject like teaching the bible in schools, for example, I agree (sort of) with the conclusion, but none of the premises.
|Basic Premise||bible is the inerrant word of god||bible is based on oral traditions of superstitious nomads|
|Supporting Premise||Much of our culture is based on xian culture, and this is because that’s the way god wants it||Much of our culture is an unfortunate side-effect of xianity|
|Conclusion||The bible should be taught in schools|
.. I’ll continue this