Spring Break
Reflections on the Socratic Club debate
Scott Conover
Issue date: 11/14/08 Section: Forum
On Monday night, Nov. 10th, I attended the Socratic Club debate between Rev. Martin Emmrich and Tom Walmsley. The debate essentially consisted of a philosophical standoff between Emmrich and Walmsley, in which Emmrich stated that truth was objective and real, and that Walmsley said it was not. Although an interesting debate, I felt, and stated offhandedly after asking a question to the two gentlemen, that it was all "philosophical pie in the sky to me."
The reason that I feel this is the case is due to the simple fact that both of them used very few facts and relied largely on presuppositions, especially Mr. Walmsley. Not to pick on Mr. Walmsley, but Dr. Emmrich actually admitted that their viewpoints came from presuppositions. Mr. Walmsley, although charismatic and charming, unfortunately made me feel like we were talking in circles and engaging in self-referent discussions of cause-effect relations.
Mr. Emmrich argued that truth was objective and transcendent. His presupposition is essentially based on the concept that God bestows truth unto us through His will. Now, I would tend to argue that as a Christian, it is built into the framework of the universe itself and into the basic integral unit of mankind (a person), and thus does not require His direct interference, thus preserving freewill and also making the universe a happy place to live. However, in order to accept this, you have to believe in God, so unless you are a Christian (or some sort of similar theist), this is a thoroughly unsatisfying explanation either way.
Mr. Walmsley, unfortunately, did not fare better from my perspective. He spoke of tolerance, and how its lack thereof in the world was the cause of great disharmony and conflict in the world. He felt that everyone needed to be tolerant in order to promote peace and understanding in the world. In fact, this is his primary critique of religion - he feels it's too intolerant. It needs to have more dialogue and discuss things more together and with disparate groups.
The reason that I feel this is the case is due to the simple fact that both of them used very few facts and relied largely on presuppositions, especially Mr. Walmsley. Not to pick on Mr. Walmsley, but Dr. Emmrich actually admitted that their viewpoints came from presuppositions. Mr. Walmsley, although charismatic and charming, unfortunately made me feel like we were talking in circles and engaging in self-referent discussions of cause-effect relations.
Mr. Emmrich argued that truth was objective and transcendent. His presupposition is essentially based on the concept that God bestows truth unto us through His will. Now, I would tend to argue that as a Christian, it is built into the framework of the universe itself and into the basic integral unit of mankind (a person), and thus does not require His direct interference, thus preserving freewill and also making the universe a happy place to live. However, in order to accept this, you have to believe in God, so unless you are a Christian (or some sort of similar theist), this is a thoroughly unsatisfying explanation either way.
Mr. Walmsley, unfortunately, did not fare better from my perspective. He spoke of tolerance, and how its lack thereof in the world was the cause of great disharmony and conflict in the world. He felt that everyone needed to be tolerant in order to promote peace and understanding in the world. In fact, this is his primary critique of religion - he feels it's too intolerant. It needs to have more dialogue and discuss things more together and with disparate groups.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.