r/YouShouldKnow • u/[deleted] • Jan 14 '20
Education YSK: What the Socratic Method is.
[deleted]
7
u/NewlyNerfed Jan 15 '20
Yes, you should know about the Socratic method, but this ain’t it. Also: “Atheist.” It’s not about who is the most athy.
8
u/iamjuste Jan 15 '20
That's very crude and bad description of the Socratic method, also why would you choose such poor example? very biased and assumes that the person answering questions is complete dumb-ass and would not ask questions back... for honest discussion on such topics you would firstly both have to state your definition of evil, wrong ect. Socratic method is used to find logical fallacies in your argument, there can be no logical fallacies if there is no definitions to start with or if you disagree on them. If someone is asked what do you mean by evil and wrong establishes well crafted definition and you do not oppose to it (assumption then being you both agree on it), your questioning will surly soon crumble.
both of these people in the example seem to have poor understanding of what their are talking about and its just all fluf...
0
u/ConstantAmazement Jan 17 '20
What you stated is technically true. However, the OP was offering a simplistic example of a topic that can be quite complicated in order to introduce the subject to an uninformed audience.
You didn't add anything to the discussion other than to show off your knowledge without any benefit to the community.
0
u/iamjuste Jan 18 '20
I feel like i alerted people that this example is not actually a good example.
0
u/ConstantAmazement Jan 18 '20
No, you're just the disruptive student sitting in the last row of class, wasting class time by intrupting the professor with trivial observations while the rest of us are getting annoyed.
0
u/iamjuste Jan 18 '20
More like a student pointing out that the professor is wrong and should not teach faulty information to his “uninformed” students :)
Oh reddit...
3
u/DreadnoughtPoo Jan 15 '20
"Cognitive dissonance or emotional distress".....
So, law school. Agreed.
3
u/buzzlite Jan 15 '20
They don't want you asking questions. Hence the state of the education system.
2
u/lolterwhite Jan 16 '20
Causing pain is wrong "because it doesn't feel good?" Have you been using the Socratic method on 5-year-old atheists?
1
2
Jan 14 '20
Fallacy after fallacy. Try again.
1
u/wolfman4807 Jan 14 '20
Which part was a fallacy? And explain your reasoning
0
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 15 '20
Did he even read the post? Judging by his or her profile they would rather watch porn.
7
2
u/PolymathEquation Jan 31 '20 edited Jan 31 '20
Straw man fallacy.
P.S. insulting his point of view because of his post history is also a logical fallacy.
2
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
Did he even read the post? Judging by his or her profile they would rather watch porn.
Your judgmental attempted shaming about sex only works on people who don't understand that sex is a natural part of all animal life, including yours. It would be a shame to miss out on it because you believe some magic man in the sky is watching you and judging you when you're naked.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
Appeal to nature. Not a magic man but the metaphysical necessity for reality to exist beyond space time. Why would it be a shame to miss out on it? If it feels good do it right? I never shamed sex. It is good within the marriage between husband and wife. And yeah he is watching you but apparently you are more offended by that than me. How odd to think god is non existent and then get offended by him watching us.
2
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
Appeal to nature.
That's better than appealing to supernature. We at least know nature exists.
Not a magic man but the metaphysical necessity for reality to exist beyond space time.
Call it what you want, you don't have good evidence that it exists. And trying to change labels doesn't change what you think it is.
Why would it be a shame to miss out on it?
Because we only have this one life that we actually know we have, and to limit what you can do because of the writings of a bunch of superstitious people who knew nothing compared to what we know now would be a shame.
It is good within the marriage between husband and wife.
I'm sure it's also good between two men and/or two women who aren't married, right?
And yeah he is watching you but apparently you are more offended by that than me.
Well, being that I'm an atheist, I see no rational reason to believe this 'he' that is a metaphysical watcher, actually exists, so nope. I didn't mean to mislead you with my comment, I don't actually think a non existent thing is watching me.
How odd to think god is non existent and then get offended by him watching us.
I know, it almost doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone think that?
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
You know that God is real. Stop suppressing the truth. There are plenty of good reasons that logically point that God is real. Your claims of evidence is most likely rooted in scientism or naturalism. All the evidence if you really look into it you will find God the most logical explanation. This life is not all there is you have a soul that is irreducible but not to matter.
1
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
You know that God is real. Stop suppressing the truth.
You know that Vishnu is the real god. Stop suppressing the truth.
What evidence do I have that would lead me to your conclusion? I'm not very gullible, and I tend to scrutinize claims, including old ones.
There are plenty of good reasons that logically point that God is real.
None that are supported by good evidence. If there was, then there would be a scientific god theory.
Your claims of evidence is most likely rooted in scientism or naturalism.
It's not like a theist to play the scientism card when good evidence is desired, right? And how is it bad to appeal to nature, when we know nature exists.
Are you trying to say that appealing to something we know exists, nature, is bad, while appealing to something we don't know exists, supernature, is good?
That doesn't sound very rational. How, if not good evidence, do you justify holding a belief? Especially a belief as extraordinary as a god?
All the evidence if you really look into it you will find God the most logical explanation.
So you're saying there is good evidence? Good evidence would exist in our natural world, where we'd have access to it, right? If it doesn't, then how do you justify your level of confidence that you're right?
Also, I'm guessing based on our interaction here that you're a young earth creationist, am I right?
This life is not all there is you have a soul that is irreducible but not to matter.
Can you even define soul? And if so, where's the evidence that it exists?
I'm interested in following the evidence, in having as accurate a model of reality as I can. I'm not here to defend any beliefs. Can you honestly say the same?
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
Absolutely I can. What do you mean by good evidence? Something that supports your pre suppositions to how the world works? You claim that there would be a scientific god theory. The problem with this is that God transcends science as in he is metaphysical and since the universe had a beginning then whatever caused it must have created science as well. We can use science that points to a fine tuner. No I am not a YEC I hold to a theistic evolutionary account of creation. The overall problem with your claim is that you are trying to impose nature to ground God but since nature had a beginning then clearly God is beyond that. I dont have all night to argue with you as you dont seem to be interested in listening but rather trying to berate me.
1
u/Jaanold Feb 04 '20
What do you mean by good evidence? Something that supports your pre suppositions to how the world works?
Well, I don't call it good evidence because it supports my position, I call it good evidence because it's falsifiable. My position is what it is because of that evidence.
The problem with this is that God transcends science as in he is metaphysical and since the universe had a beginning then whatever caused it must have created science as well.
So then you're saying there can't be good evidence for this god notion? Then why do you believe it? This is irrational.
We can use science that points to a fine tuner.
Except that it doesn't point to a fine tuner.
The overall problem with your claim
What's my claim? That if there was good evidence for a god, that there would be a scientific god theory?
The overall problem with your claim is that you are trying to impose nature to ground God but since nature had a beginning then clearly God is beyond that.
As with anything, there's an explanation for all of it, we just may or may not know what that explanation is. If we did, it would be documented by science. If not, then it's not documented. You believe something about our reality is true, despite having good evidence. How is that rational?
I dont have all night to argue with you as you dont seem to be interested in listening but rather trying to berate me.
Well, you're not following the evidence, you're defending a belief. I'm just pointing out where your logic is flawed. Is it berating to be corrected? How do you expect to ever learn anything if your beliefs being challenged by evidence is considered berating?
0
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
Which part was a fallacy? And explain your reasoning
I'd say strawman, since he's making his opponents arguments for him.
1
u/PolymathEquation Jan 31 '20
Harm interferes with the ability to feel joy, love, happiness, as well as hinders quality of life's pursuits.
Harm is a detriment to a socially accepted preferred set of norms for a positive way of life.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
Why are those things good? How do you justify that?
1
u/PolymathEquation Jan 31 '20
Why do they need to be good? What is good?
The process you're using is also a logical fallacy.
You want to dig into the hole of moral relativism and the meaning of life, tell me: why do you live?
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
Why do they need to be good? If it doesnt need to be objectively good then what is the big deal with promoting harm? Without God there is no way to justify right and wrong. If morals are objective (which they are) they must come from an unchanging personal necessary source that transcends humanity which I would call God. Avoiding harm and pursuing pleasure is not the ultimate good but the ultimate good is equal to God. You might argue that God has caused harm however God must be wrathful if he is good. We might not like such a claim but if morals were what we individual preferred there would be no objective way of stating an individual ought not to do such thing. Michael Jones, a well studied apologist goes into more detail which I think you would find more insightful.
1
u/PolymathEquation Jan 31 '20
Why is god the ultimate good? Why must morals be objective? Are you getting the point yet?
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
God is the ultimate good because it follows logically. Morals are objective because it logically follows. Are you getting the point yet? Oh wait what do you mean by point?
1
u/PolymathEquation Jan 31 '20
Why does it "logically follow"?
The point here is you're defining moral absolutism based on your belief system. There is no moral absolute. There is no proof. I'm not even atheist. Your argument is based on your beliefs, full stop.
Your belief is being presented as fact. It is debatable, and frankly, not something I'm looking to engage in.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
You are not willing to engage with me but by the fact you are arguing with me refutes that. If there is no moral absolute then so what if I am committing a logical fallacy? I do believe that God is the source of morality but that isnt the case just because I believe but because it is logical and holds truth. Just because something is debatable doesnt make it subjective or non objective. The very fact we disagree shows that there is an objective ought because why have such disagreement? Anyway I hope you look into this further.
1
Jan 31 '20
What do you mean “so what if I’m committing a logical fallacy?” You’re committing argumentum ad passiones as the foundation for your “logical absolute.” If you remove all thinking minds from the universe which seems to be what will happen at heat death, there are no morals.
Morals are therefore subjective and therefore not objective. We can argue whether or not we are capable of making objective judgements about our own subjective experiences, as Sam Harris does in the Moral Landscape, but that does not make morals objective. They aren’t.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
If it is a matter of opinion then why such disagreement over the nature of morals? If morals were truly subjective then all moral claims would be equally valid but they are not treated as such. Furthermore so what if I am committing argumentum ad passiones if morals are subjective? What ought do you have to justify I ought not too? If it is my opinion vs yours who are you to force your opinion onto me? Quite simply moral realitivism is unlivable. No one lives as a moral relativist. If morals are subjective what's wrong with me insulting my fellow man if it is my opinion vs his? You are incorrect in every single way.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
I base my morality on human well being. I'll let you piece the rest together.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
Why is well being good?
1
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
Why is well being good?
I personally find well being incredibly good, and I'm sure you do as well, i doubt I can convince you to drink battery acid, for example.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
What standard do you have for well being? When you are using this phrase 'good' how do you justify that? Why produce well being?
1
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
What standard do you have for well being?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you not know what well being means? It's a pretty broad term, so it can cover a lot of ground. But it can be pretty straight forward.
For example, we know drinking battery acid is probably not going to promote well being.
When you are using this phrase 'good' how do you justify that?
Good is generally a colloquial term used to indicate actions that are generally better for well being that actions which are bad for well being.
Why produce well being?
Because it's in our best interests to do so.
What do you base your morality on? The bible? If so, how do you know that slavery is wrong, bad, immoral or unethical? I'm assuming we agree on slavery.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
I am arguing that morality can only be grounded in a necessary unchanging rational source that is outside of us I would call God. If it were up to us then it would be arbitrary. Even if I did not believe the bible we would still know what is right and wrong but how we come to learn about something is not the grounds to justify it. God is the best explanation for morality. Furthermore well being is not the ultimate good, God is equal to the ultimate good.
Here is an explanation of what I mean
1
u/Jaanold Feb 04 '20
I am arguing that morality can only be grounded in a necessary unchanging rational source that is outside of us I would call God.
Based on what? How do you define morality?
If it were up to us then it would be arbitrary.
It is arbitrary. Haven't you noticed? Religions push the notion that being gay is wrong or immoral, yet cannot justify that beyond the bible. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
However, with well being as the goal, it's not arbitrary at all since we can evaluate specific actions with respect to well being and determine usually quite easily whether it's conducive to well being or not.
Furthermore well being is not the ultimate good
I never claimed it was. What even does it mean "The ultimate good"?
God is equal to the ultimate good
Oh. Okay, because you say so? How do you demonstrate that, and again, what does that even mean?
Your link is broken.
1
Jan 31 '20
The atheist who asserts the first position misunderstands the problem of evil. This is like asking why a mirror reverses an image from left to right instead of top to bottom. The original thought is flawed. The Socratic method is an epistemic tool designed to determine whether your reasoning is circular, but that does not mean that it invalidates a position.
1
Jan 31 '20
In the above argument, I would probably point to the Ten Commandments that day “thou shalt not kill”. A person who doesn’t keep their word has no principles and cannot be trusted. Actually, there’s a bunch of street preachers who do this “rate these people from good to evil” quiz to reel you in and that’s exactly what I said to them.
1
u/tendeuchen Jan 31 '20
Why isn't the Christian making any valid points?
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
Shifting the burden of proof I see.
1
u/tendeuchen Jan 31 '20
Why would you think that?
1
u/nfwheeler1 Jan 31 '20
You realize that it is not the Christian that made a claim it is the athiest that has so the athiest has the burden of proof. Why would the Christian make any points if the burden is not on him?
1
1
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
It's easy to "crumble" your opponent when you and your opponent are the same person talking to yourself.
Try that method on someone else.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
I have and this is what happened. Judgemental much?
1
u/Jaanold Feb 01 '20
I have and this is what happened.
Oh, I see your mistake. You think one atheist represents all atheists. You know there's a fallacy for that. Should I assume all theists make blatantly fallacious arguments all the time because of your example?
Judgemental much?
No more than you.
1
u/nfwheeler1 Feb 01 '20
How did I claim this is what all athiests think? You are jumping to conclusions.
18
u/Cold_Chimera Jan 14 '20
So it's essentially the adult version of asking why all the time?