Invalid World-Views

Question 1

When is a world-view invalid

Answer 1

When it is self-defeating or self-referentially absurd.

Logically Self-Defeating: Views that are false because the violate the law of non-contradiction

Self-Referentially Absurd: Views that when applied to itself invalidates itself

Question 2

Skepticism

Answer 2

The believe that nothing is really true, and that no one can really know anything.

The questions Is that true? and How do you know that? Illustrates the absurdity of this view, because if you say that Yes, it is true, then you contradict the statement “nothing is true”, and if you say no, then the opposite of nothing is really true is true namely “somethings are true”

Question 3

Epistemological Relativism (Post-Modernism)

Answer 3

The believe that everything is True. (All religions are true, Co-exist, Universalism etc)

The absurdity can be demonstrated by stating a contradicting view.

“I believe the earth is flat” , “Well, I believe you are wrong, the earth is round”

Question 4

Evidentialism

Answer 4

It is immoral to believe anything without sufficient proof.

1. Where is your proof for this thesis? Evidentialism has never been proven.
2. Beliefs can be self-evident and incorrigible, meaning they are reasonable to accept without evidence.
3. The claim that it is immoral to believe “Anything” without proof is itself a Universal claim, which is self-refuting.

examples of self-evident propositions:
“There are other minds, other than my own”
“reason and logic exists”

Dealing with the evidentialist.

“Where is your proof?”
“Why do I need proof?”
“Without proof, I cannot believe it is true”
“Ok, then prove what you just said, otherwise I can’t believe you”

“Unless you can prove to me that God exists, I cannot accept it”
“The existence of God does not require proof, as it is self-evident, it is reasonable to believe that because there is a creation, there must be a creator.”

Question 5

Universal claims

Answer 5

All x is p. (All men are bad, All woman are mothers)

Universalism is self-refuting because you cannot know all x. The universalists will rarely shift to a more moderate claim (some woman are mothers), because that would trivialize his position.

Question 6

Evidentialism and faith

Answer 6

The case of friendship is equally interesting.
William James (1842-1910) claims that one’s belief
may justifiably run ahead of one’s evidence. He
argues that there are times when preliminary faith is
needed for affirming a belief in question, and as such
is antecedent to its evidence. There is a kind of faith
that creates the facts of friendship. While not based
on evidence, this faith is a requisite, lawful and
indispensable for friendship (James 1897:25). This is how he builds his case:

Whether you do or not like me
depends... on whether I meet you
half-way, am willing to assume you
must like me, and show you trust
and expectation. The previous faith
on my part in your liking’s existence
is in such cases what makes your
liking come. But if I stand aloof,
and refuse to budge an inch until I
have objective evidence, until you
have done something apt... ten to
one your liking never comes. The
desire for a certain kind of truth
here brings about that truth’s
existence (23-24).

Here we find a person who has to act in a
particular way in order to make friendship happen.
Such efforts to befriend the other rests upon the
question: “Do you like me or not?” Stated in a slightly
different manner: “Is it true or false that you (person
B) like me (person A)?” If A believes that P (B likes
A), A has reason to believe that he (A) will have to
act in a way that will produce the truth of “B likes
A.” The belief is why A acts the way he does. If A
withholds belief, the situation renders friendship
with B highly improbable, because such states of
disbelief yields unfriendly actions – “Ten to one, the
liking will never come.” The evidentialist may have this
truth the hard, and perhaps painful, way
to accept

Question 7

Scientific Positivism

Answer 7

Scientific Positivism

It is irrational to believe anything that cannot be verified by the scientific method.

Killer question - What scientific experiment proves this statement?

Science cannot prove Science, as that would be a logical fallacy, namely circular reasoning, begging the question.

Science also cannot prove reason and logic, as it has to assume reason and logic in order to work.

Question 8

Misology

Answer 8

1. A hatred for reason or logic (Radical Feminism)

The statement “Logic must be rejected because it is a tool used by chauvinistic men to oppress woman” is itself a statement of logic and therefore self-refuting.

If the feminist reject logic, then they cant prove that their position is true, or that another position is false. Without logic, your believes are without basis.

Question 9

Deconstructionism

Answer 9

It is impossible ever to know the meaning of any written text. That all meaning is subjective. A text means whatever it means to YOU, not what the author meant.

If this is true, then how can you ever get a bad grade, when taking a literary deconstructionism class?

Deconstructionism states that no religion can make claims of a transcendent nature (claims that are true for everybody, everywhere, for all time.) Because the meaning in the text is the result of communal bias (it means what the community makes it mean), and therefore it only holds true for that community.

Deconstructionism claims that the Truth consists of fallible, faulty, opinions (which ironically, would make it a lie). Like Sophism, something is true by virtue of it being your opinion.

If the Deconstructionist is correct, then that is only their own opinion born out of their own communal bias, and only holds true for them.

Deconstructionism is an attempt to trivialize, relativize, and marginalize the christian faith, because it cannot be proven to be false