Reductio ad absurdum
from the trickier dept.
There is an incorrect notion that "reductio ad
absurdum" means "dumb argument." Christian Apologists tend to use reducto ad
absudum to argue with those who believe there is no objective
truth.
It is postulated by some that there is a need to respect all beliefs because they are all true. This is what's called "being tolerant" of one's belief and is also known as "moral relativism" because it's true for one person and not the other. There is a level of tolerance that we all use to be polite or to keep from causing problems in certain situations, but when it comes to objective truth, tolerance is incompatible.
"I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out." - Judge Harold T. Stone
The tolerant belief is that everyone should respect everyone else's beliefs, and that no one person can preach at anyone else because preaching is antithetical to being tolerant.
One logical problem is that tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. This is dismissed as an exception to the rule.
Why is that, anyway? How come a simple axiom like tolerance can be refuted so simply, but that refutation can be ignored just as simply?
So what about other beliefs? For example, is killing babies for fun something that should be tolerated? This example is usually also dismissed as an exception and sometimes accepted as a valid belief just to allow the original tolerant belief to continue unmodified!
Both of the above examples that attack tolerance are examples of reductio ad absudum. They are logically valid, but usually the are seen as "dumb argument" or hyperbole.
But hyperbolic arguments are very different from reductio ad absurdum. In fact, hyperbole is intended to be obviously false on face value, where reductio ad absudum is intended to reveal some intrinsic truth by showing an example of how something else is intrinsically false.
It is postulated by some that there is a need to respect all beliefs because they are all true. This is what's called "being tolerant" of one's belief and is also known as "moral relativism" because it's true for one person and not the other. There is a level of tolerance that we all use to be polite or to keep from causing problems in certain situations, but when it comes to objective truth, tolerance is incompatible.
"I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out." - Judge Harold T. Stone
The tolerant belief is that everyone should respect everyone else's beliefs, and that no one person can preach at anyone else because preaching is antithetical to being tolerant.
One logical problem is that tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. This is dismissed as an exception to the rule.
Why is that, anyway? How come a simple axiom like tolerance can be refuted so simply, but that refutation can be ignored just as simply?
So what about other beliefs? For example, is killing babies for fun something that should be tolerated? This example is usually also dismissed as an exception and sometimes accepted as a valid belief just to allow the original tolerant belief to continue unmodified!
Both of the above examples that attack tolerance are examples of reductio ad absudum. They are logically valid, but usually the are seen as "dumb argument" or hyperbole.
But hyperbolic arguments are very different from reductio ad absurdum. In fact, hyperbole is intended to be obviously false on face value, where reductio ad absudum is intended to reveal some intrinsic truth by showing an example of how something else is intrinsically false.
Posted: Tuesday - May 08, 2007 at 06:50 AM |
Distractions