I would like to open an invitation to some of the members of this forum.
I truly love philosophy, science, learning, and furthering my understanding of this reality. And while I’m certain a great majority of the forum users that post here also enjoy life in the same way, it seems progress is being impeded by fruitless discussions in which one group of posters is trying to convince another group that an idea or concept is correct, and standing behind it with no intention of backing down, regardless of the evidence presented. And while it might seem that both groups are taking the same approach, there is one drastic difference: one group is actually correct, or at least more accurate, than the other group.
It seems that many are convinced that philosophy doesn’t really lead to answers, or that it isn’t really possible for anybody to be “right†or “wrong,†but I beg to differ. I’ll cite some examples.
In the religion forums, there was recently a post that was started regarding the historical existence of Jesus. After what seems a thorough discussion of the topic, I’m certain there are still some who are convinced that there is a 100% chance that he existed, or that he probably did (in a historical sense), some who are convinced that there is a 100% chance he did not exist or probably did not, and then some who remain agnostic about his existence. Only one of these groups is most accurate in their thinking, and it is those who remain agnostic about his existence, or think he probably didn’t exist. Now let’s examine the evidence:
-
Unlike other historical figures, Jesus doesn’t have a documented date of birth, date of death, and none of the details of his life are very clear.
-
The only writings that we have that talk about Jesus are not only strikingly similar to other fictional characters of the time, but were also written many years after Jesus had supposedly died (assuming we can guess an accurate date of birth and death).
Taking these into consideration, the most that could be said about a historical Jesus is that he might have existed. Again I’ll cite the example of a sliding scale of probability, where historical figures with a lot of evidence for their existence (a definite date of birth, date of death, details of their life documented in various places by different authors at the time they were alive, works written by the person, etc.) would be much closer to 100%, whereas “historical figures†such as Jesus would be much closer to 0%, or easily under 50%. It seems safe to say that this is the most accurate conclusion to reach, and it doesn’t seem there should be any disagreement with this conclusion, unless one is really trying to find a conclusion that lies past the evidence, which wouldn’t be an unfair accusation for Christian forum users.
Another example is the abortion debate. Many users on the forum have spent countless hours trying to convince another group of users that abortion is wrong due to some inherent right to live from the moment of conception, or that abortion should be considered murder.
Obviously, the burden of proof rests upon those who actually believe this to prove that it is true, but the unfortunate fact remains that it’s simply not. The reasons a conclusion cannot be reached for this subject are as follows:
-
One cannot state as a fact that a “human being†becomes a “human being†at the moment of conception, regardless of how many chromosomes the zygote or blastocyst possesses.
-
There is no way to nail down, as a scientific fact, when life begins. Even if scientists did define when life began, it would simply be a way of categorizing. A similar example is the declassification of Pluto as a planet. That doesn’t change, in any way, what Pluto is, but for conventional purposes, it was necessary to define a planet to organize facts, and this definition removed Pluto as a planet.
-
Trying to argue when life begins is a slippery slope that can be argued all the way back to pre-conception. Preventing people from having sex could be considered murder, or a condom could be considered murder, etc. etc.
-
When one is arguing for the morality and ethic of abortion, or stem cell research, it is clear that the “greater good†would undoubtedly be curing the millions alive currently that suffer with devastating diseases through stem-cell research, and preventing children who would normally be born into a torturous environment.
As previously mentioned, countless hours are wasted debated these topics over and over, and it’s usually those who believe abortion or stem-cell research is “wrong,†or those who believe Jesus as a fact existed historically, and who are trying to convince everybody else of these assumptive beliefs, when those who are truly interested in truth do not wish to make the assumptions necessary to believe such things as “fact†or “truth.â€
I’m not insisting that these topics never be discussed when new evidence comes to light. It obviously impedes the progress of discovery, however, when the same topics have to be debated, and re-debated, every time it is brought up again. When such a topic arises, it should be immediately brought to attention that the answer is “abortion isn’t wrong,†and that “historical Jesus most likely didn’t exist, or one must at least be agnostic (completely unsure one way or the other) about it.â€
To use an analogy, it would be similar to a student running into a physics classroom trying to debate the currently established laws of physics, and receiving equal time in that classroom to do so, instead of being politely informed and taught the currently established laws and theories. It would make sense that the student is first shown why it is an established fact or theory, and if the student still doesn’t think this is correct, they’d better have a fact or theory that makes a lot of sense. If this fact or theory doesn’t convince the teachers and professors of physics, then it should be discarded as superfluous, false, or incorrect.
I have no doubts that there are many great philosophical discussions that are just waiting to be uncovered, but aren’t being found due to the time effort spent trying to get everybody on the same page, because so many are convinced that everybody’s own page is equally correct, or is equally true. My invitation is to those who are ready to move on to the next phase of philosophy, who are ready and willing to begin building a foundation of philosophical truths, many of which it seems have been partially revealed by science and our understanding of reality and the universe. Now is the ideal time to begin building a foundation, one that is as strong as that science has laid down for us, for the philosophical truths that have been and can be revealed through discussion, discourse, and unbiased consideration of evidence, facts, sound reason, and logic.
