As a child I heard this story. Once a prominent mathematician was asked by the King to come to court and prove the existence of God. The mathematician solved some complex problem on the board, and wrote below it, “…therefore, God exists.” I don’t know who the scientist was, but do comment if you know more about this story. I found the story hillarious as a kid, and laughed at how stupid the king was.
As an adult, every day I deal with people using such arguments to make their point or worse, enforce their opinions on us. This is a commentary, and as always will follow with some tips on defending yourself against such people (I personally prefer going on the offensive, because it’s just so awesome to see them try and squirm their way out.) Those who are cursed with a logical mind are unfortunately subject to the constant torture of consciously recognising it all the time. Let’s start with a quick real-life story to illustrate the point.
A couple of years ago, I made a comment about some opinion of a famous personality that I felt was misplaced. As you would have guessed, in less than an hour, my mailbox had the first holier-than-thou super-authoritative mail sitting in it, telling me how great the personality was, and how puny I was in comparison. The mail said nothing of the opinion I commented upon, nor my own comment itself. It said nothing about the issue at hand. The crux of the mail exactly amounted to, “*gibbersh* therefore, you’re wrong.”
Have you ever been at the receiving end of such an argument? Do you feel helpless and frustrated? If it’s any consolation, you’re not alone, and many of us still haven’t figured out a good defense yet. I’ve worked in a “corporate” and “business” environment long enough to know that at least in the top tech companies, this kind of talk isn’t entertained. However, it is too common to be coincidence how much people use this kind of argumentative logic and how often they use it. It feels as if there is some academy where such kind of training is imparted on a mass scale.
The basic premises that lead to such situations are:
1. Existence of a subject in need of attention
2. Lack of sufficient knowledge about the object of the conversation
3. An inherent need for self-gratification by appearing involved in the conversation
As the two premises are fundamentally contradictory, how can they be reconciled? You guessed it! *gibberish* (sub-classed by *tech-gibberish*, *economic-gibberish*, *philosophical-sounding-gibberish*, etc.)
Since actually making a well-thought-out argument is beyond question, and the subject has nothing substantial to say anyway, subject chooses path of lease resistence using the logic ‘afterall, so many people can’t be wrong’ (a blog on this is pending). Stick to the “large corporation”, “famous personality”, or “popular choice’, and you’re relatively safe from being interrogated in depth allowing them to preserve the appearence of caring about bigger picture by rehashing some statements they’d have heard here and there.
Your very first defense against such attacks is identifying the attack. You must be self-aware when a discussion or a debate is moving away from issues relevant to the object. In the case of my story above, the author sent me a 3-page biography of the personality and a lot of info about some program that I did not care about. Knowing that a person is changing the issues of discussion is a vital part of defense. Last evening in another such debate, I faced a new one - a commentator simply pulled out one noun from my sentence and responded with, “Since you said…” and created a sentence of his own using my noun with completely different semantics. It was a new learning for me.
Why should you care? Because they may end up being decision makers that affect your life. Managers, politicians, relatives, etc. When such people become decision makers, it is altogether too difficult to argue or escape from them as their objective is self-gratification only. The best defense is a good offense. They are relatively easy to corner. When cornered, they will go on a last-ditch attack effort by stating more “stuff” which could be things from your past or just general stuff they consider to be your flaws. You see, in their world, everyone is a weasel, and all they need to do is find that one time you screwed up so you will back off. See this as a sign of weakness and exploit it! That is the time to strike back and strike hard. Don’t waste time defending yourself, but quickly bring the conversation back to the topic of focus and you shall win the debate.
The end won’t be as satisfactory as them admitting to being ignorant, but rather with them rephrasing your own point and saying, “That’s what I was saying in the first place.” Leave it at that if you can. That’s the best you can expect.
Any similar experiences you’ve had?
I have to say, as a theist I am surprised you feel so bummed. I am a theist on most days–albeit, a weak theist
[if there is such a thing].
I often feel very frustrated when I dialogue with atheists and agnostics. Why? Let’s face it, if debate is a game,
then you guys have the upper hand on us! Let’s say that we are playing some complex game with set rules. Say
that there are 52 facts and both you and I are dealt abotu 4 of those facts.
The object of the game, then, might be to take what you are dealt and make some matches against your own position.
You, being a strict materialist [I presume] can make many, many matches…regardless what the four facts you’ve been
dealt may be! This is because reality begins at a certain fairly defined base and continues up to a certain and
fairly defined tip.
With me, on the otherhand, I see the whole of reality as one might see an iceburg. I see your base all the way
up to your tip…but I also SUSPEcT a BOUNDARY that I call a SURFACE. Above that surface is all that you and
I know to be material reality…the reality you and I live within…3-dimensional, time, space, motion, etc.
I see a boundary and below that surface lies what I believe to be roughly 98% of the whole of reality. Therefore,
in our analagy of a game, most of my matches lie below this surface where I cannot get at them! Talk about
Frustrating! I am losing MOST OF THE TIME!
One thing to remember about this game analogy is that each individual person chooses their own position. In other
words, I am not forced to take on the Massive Reality position, I choose to take on this position, not because
of empiracle proof, but that is not to say that no logic at all has led me to take it. I have been prepared
from my youth to logically trace “things” from my mind or my hand or my lap back to their origins.
I want to know how this walkie talkie in my hand came to be or how it works. I take it apart and discover things
about it. I do some research and discover that at one time it was not a walkie-talkie in my hand at all, but a
mere conception in the mind of some person.
Likewise, I listen to and collect rumors. All rumors are important to me. They are like Marie Curie’s pitchblende.
That mound of rumors that I collect must be sifted through, pounded, centrifuged, heated, beat, and all of this
repeatedly until at last I am able to emerge with a terribly small sample of pure “truth ore,” so to speak.
From my mound of rumors, I have been able to deduce, not that there is a god or gods or how you say it. What I have
been able to deduce is that the reality we know and love appears to be only a very, very…almost negligible
piece of the whole mass of reality. There seems to be more which lies below the surface of our ability to perceive,
or the basic human perceptibility surface.
Now, I begin to play the debate game with the atheist. And EVERY time, he gets more matches than I do! Why? Because
he has limited himself to the most sensible aspect of reality, namely the one we are privy to. But I’m telling you,
whether or not there is a mind behind it all–a conscious rationale–I cannot prove, let alone push it upon another
as my own well versed opinion.
All that I can say is that even mathematics whispers rumors of a reality which, although not directly suggesting
a god or gods, it certainly whispers awe and brilliance, even possibly the numinous—and that there is certainly
MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE, according to our current senses.
If a walkie-talkie can be rationally traced back to a mere conception in a mind, then why not a red-winged black
bird?
What I most often run into is this. I am accused of being closed minded. I am accused of not employing critical
thinking. I’d certainly humbly take my losses and go away saying to my opponent, “you are worthy,” but to have
my opponent tell me I cannot and do not and must not think critically if I contemplate such gibberish is much
worse than losing an argument…I’m sure you agree.
So, don’t feel bad. You guys are winning, to be for sure. You have the upper hand and you are certainly ahead
of the game…by a land-slide. Of course, I say this with a strong SUPPRESSED CLAUSE. I say, you are winning…
until “x” occurs or is discovered.
Regards.
Kate.
Comment by katejohnson77 — May 12, 2010 @ 8:33 am
Kate, I’m sorry if this came off in the wrong direction. Perhaps I wrote it in a fit of anger and should have known better. I am, afterall, human. The title was just from the story, and the contents are not about theology. Personally, I do believe in God, and surprisingly so since I’m also a materialist as you correctly noted.
I too subscribe to the notion that there is so much that we don’t even know we don’t know! To start with I will say, I totally and wholeheartedly 100% subscribe to everything you just said and am a weak theist just like you.
The line between a closed-minded idiot and an open-minded genius can sometimes be very thin. For instance, if shown a well, and given enough warnings to not do it, you were to still go ahead walk into it, then complain about how the world is cruel, that’s stupidity by all standards not open-mindedness. Whether we are atheists or theists or whatever else, there are many common-sense things we can agree with. Not walking into a deep well is one of them. I mean this quite literally and physically not metaphorically. Whether it’s a perception, or reality or whatever, I am no authority to comment. I can however sufficiently deduce that if you walk into an unprotected well, you will not find the experience enjoyable as per your perception.
My blog here had nothing to do with God or religion at all, but rather the general weasles who will not express an opinion and stand up for it. Perhaps the greatest ability in this world is the ability to say, “I don’t know.” It sounds like the easiest thing to say, and yet people will not say it. People will get into big debates, and big wars for no reason rather than just sit back and say, “I honestly don’t know.”
For example, you expressed a firm opinion. You neither asked me, nor anyone else to subscribe to it. You didn’t preach. Even if I hadn’t agreed with you, I would still respect you as much as I can possibly respect any person. What this means is, you have the courage to risk being wrong, for the benefits of being right. You have posted your opinion clearly and frankly. That is by all accounts open-mindedness.
Most people will not do that. That is what disturbs me. It is the person who is looking for insurance that irritates me. Suppose I were to make a statement, “Not paying taxes is wrong.” I would respect anyone who agreed with me, and would respect equally on a high pedestal those who would say, “You’re wrong. In fact paying taxes is wrong.” Then there are those who want a foot on both sides. They’ll counter with “What really is right and wrong?” Frankly, and I wrote a blog on this, I’m not interested in discovering “The Truth”, but I do like it when people take a stand either way. I don’t mind what that stand is. There may be no Gods, a single God, 330,000,000 Gods, or they can just say, “I don’t know” and leave it at that. It’s upto them. When they try and get into long debates without having a stand, that’s what I was commenting about, because as you say, I find myself at a severe loss since I’ve made up my mind, and I can’t counter a moving target.
This is a bit counter-intuitive for most, but open-minded people are the very ones who take a stand. That’s because they’re not ashamed or afraid to admit they were wrong, should they be proven so, and change their minds later. Those who won’t take a stand want to come out on the correct side no matter what the outcome. They are afraid to admit they don’t know, and they’re ashamed of being proven wrong.
Many people call me egoistic, and while I don’t mind, I consider it confidence. When proven wrong, I’d go publish a newspaper retraction that I was mistaken, and hope that my new point of view is for the best. I see people who’re supposedly not as arrogant as me, but who will never admit they were mistaken. That’s ego, in my opinion.
If there is a God, as I believe, I believe she or he would respect those who took a firm stand more than those who didn’t have the courage to take any stand.
I believe rather than commenting on atheists, you’re really commenting on those who’ve not taken a side. I have atheist friends and I get along with the just fine. We just know we believe in different things and leave it at that. When we have questions about each others’ beliefs we exchange information. Sometimes beliefs change. We’re fine with saying, “Hmm… maybe I was indeed mistaken. All the better, since I now know better than that.”
We get one shot at life. We can either live it believing in something firm and improving on it, or we can weasel our way hoping somehow “The Truth” will be revealed to us on a platter for free.
Comment by archisgore — May 12, 2010 @ 11:53 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Archis. Archis said: …therefore God exists: http://wp.me/pw15S-68 [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention …therefore God exists « Archis's Blog -- Topsy.com — May 14, 2010 @ 1:22 am
If only more than 12 people could hear about this.
Comment by Jerome Deal — May 28, 2010 @ 2:03 pm