Paul Graham - How to Disagree

[Josh]

But I think there's a deep skepticism that facts exist at all.

I think absolute truth exists and is embodied in Jesus, the Logos. I also think “facts” exist as a subset of this.

I am sceptical of fact gatekeepers - people like Paul Graham, who inform me that a man can turn into a woman and two men can be married, but also claim God doesn’t exist. I don’t trust someone like that to figure out any “facts” since they have rejected truth itself. (This isn’t meant to pick on pg, but his stances on these things are public knowledge.)

[Bootstrap]

But I think there's a deep skepticism that facts exist at all.

I think absolute truth exists and is embodied in Jesus, the Logos. I also think “facts” exist as a subset of this.

I agree with you about truth from a biblical perspective. But I think the Bible also talks about false witness and gossip where it is talking about a much more mundane kind of truth. If you search for "fact" in the Bible, you find things like this:

They told him, “Joseph is still alive! In fact, he is ruler of all Egypt.” Jacob was stunned; he did not believe them.

When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land.

Now if it pleases the king, let a search be made in the royal archives of Babylon to see if King Cyrus did in fact issue a decree to rebuild this house of God in Jerusalem. Then let the king send us his decision in this matter.

That kind of fact matters too. And if there is any question, we need evidence - for instance, by searching the royal archives of Babylon.

For much of what we discuss here, "facts" are things like this: What did a report say? What evidence did they give? Was someone found guilty or not? What did the Supreme Court decide? How many deaths were reported? How were these deaths tallied and corroborated? How do experts in various fields reach their conclusions?

Jesus didn't tell us the answer to these things.

I am sceptical of fact gatekeepers - people like Paul Graham, who inform me that a man can turn into a woman and two men can be married, but also claim God doesn’t exist. I don’t trust someone like that to figure out any “facts” since they have rejected truth itself. (This isn’t meant to pick on pg, but his stances on these things are public knowledge.)

His basic point is that name calling and ad hominem attacks crowd out the kind of conversation that lets us actually start to understand facts together. Whatever he says about other things in other places, that basic point rings true to me.

And what on earth is a "fact gatekeeper"? Can't we each search for facts? Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that. Of course, in most political discourse, facts are scarce. Not because some gatekeeper prevents us from looking for them, but because repeating talking points and accusing the other side is so much easier than thinking for ourselves. If we choose not to do that, it isn't Paul Graham's fault.

I guess I think that people who spend a lot of time on name calling and ad hominem attacks are rejecting truth in a different way. And making it hard to do truth in our conversations. By doing things I think the Bible teaches us not to do. By flooding out discussion of facts with emotional heckling.

[Josh]

I don’t think pointing out someone is of poor character is “as hominem”. Basically. I don’t think people of poor character and with a fundamentally anti-Christian worldview are the right place to go for either the truth or facts.

Of course, some people want to divorce their poor character from their ideas and still try to be an authority on things. pg would be an example of that. Nonetheless, he isn’t an epistemological authority nor an authority on morals, right, or wrong. If his ideas are so good, find someone of good character and who recognises the truth of Jesus promoting those ideas.

[Bootstrap]

I don’t think pointing out someone is of poor character is “as hominem”. Basically. I don’t think people of poor character and with a fundamentally anti-Christian worldview are the right place to go for either the truth or facts.

Actually, I think this the very definition of "ad hominem".

Webster's - Ad Hominem

1. : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
   an ad hominem argument
2. : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
   made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival

Purdue Owl:

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

You may be suggesting that ad hominem attacks are precisely what we should be doing, and that they are not a logical fallacy. But I think you will find ad hominem on just about every list of logical fallacies. And I think it's deeply related to some things the Bible discusses as sins of speech.

[Josh]

Where does the Bible say we have to accept as authorities on topics of morality people who are anti-Christian?

The Bible talks about sins of speech, but it doesn’t say I have to accept as a moral authority in righteousness every person who makes claims to be one. And the Bible does teach we should actually evaluate character. If I recall correctly, you are sceptical of some political candidates due to seeing them as having poor character; how is this different?

[Bootstrap]

Where does the Bible say we have to accept as authorities on topics of morality people who are anti-Christian?

The Bible talks about sins of speech, but it doesn’t say I have to accept as a moral authority in righteousness every person who makes claims to be one. And the Bible does teach we should actually evaluate character.

We agree on all of that.

But you seem to be offended that I chose to discuss an article written by someone who is not an authority of morality. I consider very few people authorities on morality. And they are rarely quoted here.

I think it's helpful to think about why the Bible tells us to evaluate character and in what context. Jesus has problems with the character of the Pharisees, but still tells his disciples to do what they teach. In the Bible, truth comes from odd places. I don't think Balaam's donkey was an authority on topics of morality either. Balaam was clearly of bad character, but his prophecies were of God. Pilate's wife, Caiaphas the High Priest, and the Roman centurion at the crucifixion all spoke truth, but I don't think I would accept any of them as moral authorities.

I really don't think the Bible says ad hominem attacks or name calling are good things. And in the Bible, good things come from unexpected sources. "Can anything good come from Nazareth"? Well, yes. And a church of Gentiles can teach the Jewish church at Jerusalem new things about God's kingdom.

If I recall correctly, you are sceptical of some political candidates due to seeing them as having poor character; how is this different?

It's no different.

What Trump says needs to be evaluated to see if it is true. His actions need to be evaluated to see if they are right. He should have his day in court just like anyone else. Votes should be counted the same way regardless of the candidate. I don't think you will ever see me saying we must reject everything Trump says or assume he is guilty of everything because of his bad character.

You have used the phrase "moral authority". I don't think Trump's character is consistent with moral authority. In American Christian circles, Trump sometimes does seem to have a degree of authority and power that seems inconsistent with his character. I don't know of any other politician who has that degree of authority and power in American Christianity. That doesn't mean nothing Trump says is true.

Regardless, the Bible is our guide. And sins of speech are a real danger for Christians. Beyond that, name calling, ad hominem attacks, and all that are tools that propaganda uses to encourage group think. If we want to think for ourselves, we have to spend time thinking about the topic we are supposedly discussing, looking at it from various angles, asking how we can know what is true.

[Josh]

Is there somewhere Jesus tells us to do what Paul Graham teaches?

[Bootstrap]

Is there somewhere Jesus tells us to do what Paul Graham teaches?

No. But some of these levels are Paul Graham telling us to do the same things Jesus teaches. Particularly at the name calling level. And some of these levels are Paul Graham telling us to do things that we see in the rest of Scripture.

I was hoping you would respond to these Scriptures and the content of what I said. Do you believe that name calling and ad hominem attacks are appropriate for God's people? How do you think God's people should discuss topics where we disagree?

[Josh]

Is there somewhere Jesus tells us to do what Paul Graham teaches?

No. But some of these levels are Paul Graham telling us to do the same things Jesus teaches. Particularly at the name calling level. And some of these levels are Paul Graham telling us to do things that we see in the rest of Scripture.

I was hoping you would respond to these Scriptures and the content of what I said. Do you believe that name calling and ad hominem attacks are appropriate for God's people? How do you think God's people should discuss topics where we disagree?

Why not just start with what the scriptures say to do, then?

[Soloist]

I have to admit, I agree with Josh. If someone of disreputable character quotes Jesus, that’s not wrong but why not just quote Jesus instead of some random no name I’ve never heard of?