One of the most important steps you can take in evaluating the issues that come up in life is to ask what assumptions are being made at the beginning of a discussion. Is the conversation starting where it ought to? Are people beginning their reasoning with some false assumptions, in terms of a false concept of what happened in a certain historical context, false priorities, or whatever else?
For example, when critics of Christianity try to cast doubt on something like the authorship of the gospels or their genre, and they object to how few sources Christians are citing in support of their position or how late the sources are, how does the critic's position compare? How many and how late are the sources supporting his position? If there's an assumption that the skeptic shouldn't be expected to show any support for his positions among the ancient sources, is that a valid assumption?
Or when there's a controversy surrounding a Marian apparition or a paranormal case of some other type, what explanatory options are people starting with? Are they taking the relevant factors into account?
Or when an advocate of baptismal regeneration begins a discussion with a large number of exceptions in mind to the rule of baptismal regeneration that he's advocating (people who lived in the Old Testament era, people who lived during Jesus' public ministry, Cornelius, martyrs who died without being baptized, catechumens who died without being baptized, etc.), should those exceptions be granted without supporting arguments? If supporting arguments are offered, are they adequate? Even if it's popular to allow the advocate of baptismal regeneration to assume a lot of exceptions to the rule without arguing for them, should you be going along with that popular practice?
It's important to think through issues like these. Be cautious about how discussions are framed and how they proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment