“There is no objective truth” / “Objective truth does not exist”Youth need to be fluent in the tactics of false rhetoric, the nature of fallacies, and the disciplined analysis using deduction.
Perhaps the most obviously self-refuting, this claim (or something similar to it) is still uttered in many university settings according to the students I train. Like all self-refuting claims, it can be cross-checked by simply turning the statement on itself. By asking, “Is that statement objectively true?” we can quickly see that the person making the claim believes in at least one objective truth: that there is no objective truth. See the problem?
“If objective truth does exist, no one could ever know with confidence what it is” / “It’s arrogant to assume you know the truth with certainty”
Once again, the professor who makes such a claim appears to be confident and certain of one truth: that no one can be confident or certain of the truth! The statement falls on its own sword the moment it is uttered.
“Science is the only way to determine truth” / “I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process”
University students report this statement often, and it may take a little more thought to recognize as self-refuting. When a professor makes this claim, we simply need to ask, “Can science determine if that statement (about science) is true?” or “What scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?” It turns out that there is no scientific process or procedure can be employed to validate this claim. It is a presumptive philosophical statement that is outside the analysis of science
.
“It’s intolerant to presume that your view is better than someone else’s’” / “Tolerance requires us to accept all views equally”
An even more hidden self-refuting statement lurks here in this common errant definition of tolerance. Folks who hold to this corrupted view say they accept all views as equally true. But if you make the claim that some ideas are patently false and have less value than others, they will quickly reject your statement. In other words, they will accept any view as equally valuable except your claim that some views are not equally valuable. See the inconsistency? People who embrace this definition of tolerance cannot consistently implement their own view of tolerance.
They should be able to detect the difference between education and indoctrination.
3 comments:
Only the one true GOD can account for objective TRUTHS Atheiists are SATAN's tool for hiding thesee TRUTHS! !
I agree Stan that there needs to be a counter-movement to this secular-progressive one presented to students. Those professors are trying to corrupt the minds of people from a young age so as to recruit more 'useful idiots' to echo their lies and support their brand of immorality. As the saying goes, misery loves company.
The basic technique for beginning a refutation is simple: apply the assertion or proposition to itself. If it is inherently self-contradictory, then it can be rejected immediately without any additional argumentation required.
Given the late (now non-existent) Christopher Hitchens' Razor:
'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'
Since this is an assertion of truth without any supporting evidence (especially not evidence of the "material" kind demanded by atheists who revere Mr. Hitchens as the sine qua non of rationality), it can be dismissed without evidence as unproven (and unprovable).
Post a Comment