Help! -Basic Arguments vs Agnostic Existentialism

[Edmond_H]

Hi All,
I’m in a jam. I have been in dialogue with someone for over a year and am making little headway (other than planting seeds!). I could use some advice.

Background:
This person is agnostic, open to the possibility of believing in God but currently doesn’t. For him, God could be a reality if he chooses to accept the idea (all reality are constructs). That said, this person is an existentialist for the most part in the sense that he thinks he shapes his own meaning in life as does everyone else.

When I point out the inconsistencies of this type of relativism, his retort is that either A) I am using verbal gymnastics on him,or B) “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” (Ralph Waldo Emerson). Both are mere mudslinging and keep him in his loop of lies. In addition, they shut down further discussion.

Any ideas? I have been praying for him daily, and continue discussing and defending the Catholic faith in a loving way.

If a secularist says that you are using verbal gymnastics on him. And you reply that his own system that he values for truth claims utilizes logic and that is what you are trying to do. And at that point the comment is that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”, where would you go from here?

Any ideas would be helpful. These two statements that lead to a circular pattern are driving bonkers

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Universe has to have come from somewhere. That is something that no one can be agnostic about. Either it came into being due to an external cause (aka Prime Mover, aka God) or it is a random occurrence.

The probability of the Universe having been randomly generated is zero. Here is why.

 

[saveusfromhell]

give him a green scapular and say the prayer for him

 

[The_Exodus]

Existentialism supposes that an accident of the operation of the intellect (discovering meaning) is actually a per se determinating property of the intellect itself. Reality and existence are merely projected by the intellect, instead of being absorbed or comprehended by it.

This is absurd because it renders unintelligible a) the object (or reality as it is); b) the idea; c) the principles of reasoning; d) and the act of thinking.

Since its presuppositions are nominalistic, it must concede that all things whatsoever the intellect “knows,” it knows entirely by itself and of itself. If this were true, however, discovery would be impossible (for that is what occurs when something outside the intellect is presented to it for the first time). It would also follow that everything the intellect concieves would have to be determinate by the will, presumably, or the unconscious or subconscious ego arbitrarily project whatsoever is projected from itself, which again cannot get this information from outside itself, or a reality which exists independently of thought would then be admitted.

This person may not realize this, however, and may not see the inherent absurdities in nominalism. He/she probably suffices with the general statement “we give reality our own meaning.” There needs to be a distinction drawn, however, between what he/she can mean by “reality,” if such a thing does not exist independent of mind, thus making his statement a “mere” tautology. By the words “we give” a distinction must also be made concerning how much power “we” have to determine the “meaning” in our life. If the will is all there is, for example, then what ought we to make of the fact that, when put our hand on the stove, we (against our will) draw back? Or what are we to make of the fact that, though we can will to believe all we want that Johny was innocent, when his DNA is found on the body (or whatever else is veridical proof), how is it we can be wrong? If existentialism is true, how could we change our mind about things, since things are objects outside our intellectual determining capacity, and rather determine us, than vice versa?

Furthermore, if “whatever is true is what we decide to make true” then this very statement, unless we decide to make it true, cannot be true. But a thing can only be true, if it conforms to reality, and a statement, if it represents a false relationship between intellect and being, is false. Therefore, since it is obvious that many things are true, regardless of our personal disposition, if follows that the statement represents a false relationship between us and reality.

“Ah, but you’re confirming the principle, even in denying it!” the existentialist would say. In effect, however, we make a distinction between how it is we come to know reality, by first of all making a distinction between ourselves and reality. We maintain the two are not the same, as existentialism vainly tries to show.

Hence that “existence precedes essence” is nothing more than a nominalistic a priori judgment, and is unverifiable unless already admitted to be true. In other words, a person is just as justified (on nominalism) in denying this premise and saying “existence does not precede essence” for no other reason than one just does so, a priori.

 

[Edmond_H]

Thank you for your very very thoughtful reply. I really appreciate the time you took.

I have used some of the arguments you gave myself. His reply is that this type of reasoning is all just verbal gymnastics. Regardless if it is all logically consistent. When I bring up the consistency of the argument, he would retort in some fashion “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” And the worst of it is that this completely unreasonable circular pattern is the final word.

If people aren’t buying into logical consistency for whatever reason, how does one turn the argument on its head utilizing personal examples instead of a detailed philosophical explanation which point out the flaws of the argument?

What analogies/examples could be given to uncover how flawed the logic is? The only vehicle I’ve used is in the area of moral theology. Morals are dependent on culture, he says. I give several examples that are universal, he agrees that they are, but refuses to accept the case for moral truths despite these examples. Again, it is clinging to a notion despite ample evidence to the contrary. It is a refusal to let go. What allows a person to do this? Fear? Pride? I hate to psychologize, but I’m really not understanding why this pretty intelligent and rational human being will NOT budge.

Any ideas? I’m at a loss at this point and I feel defeated. I really wish I could reach him utilizing his own presuppositions and have it “click.” Outside of philosophical reasoning, what breaks a pattern of flawed circular logic? Is prayer my only weapon at this point?
I wouldn’t care, but I love this person very much and hate seeing him run so hard away from Happiness.

 

[The_Exodus]

Thank you for your very very thoughtful reply. I really appreciate the time you took.

I have used some of the arguments you gave myself. His reply is that this type of reasoning is all just verbal gymnastics. Regardless if it is all logically consistent. When I bring up the consistency of the argument, he would retort in some fashion “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” And the worst of it is that this completely unreasonable circular pattern is the final word.

Circular is the precise way to explain it. In truth, when someone is in such a circle of error, I dont’ think they can come out of it of their own power. Your friend could be given all the evidence in the world, but none of it will be convincing because his mind is warped in regard to reality.

This is how the schools of the absurd function. They are essentially unverifiable, undemonstrable, and impossible to prove or disprove. Sarte and Nietszche holler up from a pit and say “come down here and play,” and once one does, there is no getting out without divine help I don’t think. The key is not to agree to play by their standards to begin with.
edmond:

If people aren’t buying into logical consistency for whatever reason, how does one turn the argument on its head utilizing personal examples instead of a detailed philosophical explanation which point out the flaws of the argument?

It’s best not to get in to logical discussions, I agree, since this person concedes nothing as reasonable in and of itself. I’m not sure you can do anything else, other than pray and fast for the person.
edmond:

What analogies/examples could be given to uncover how flawed the logic is? The only vehicle I’ve used is in the area of moral theology. Morals are dependent on culture, he says. I give several examples that are universal, he agrees that they are, but refuses to accept the case for moral truths despite these examples. Again, it is clinging to a notion despite ample evidence to the contrary. It is a refusal to let go. What allows a person to do this? Fear? Pride? I hate to psychologize, but I’m really not understanding why this pretty intelligent and rational human being will NOT budge.

Many intelligent people fall prey to the evil ideas circulating in the world. We battle not against flesh and blood, says St. Paul, but spiritual principalities, which can sway the minds of men.
edmond:

Any ideas? I’m at a loss at this point and I feel defeated. I really wish I could reach him utilizing his own presuppositions and have it “click.” Outside of philosophical reasoning, what breaks a pattern of flawed circular logic? Is prayer my only weapon at this point?
I wouldn’t care, but I love this person very much and hate seeing him run so hard away from Happiness.

The only thing you can appeal to using his own presuppositions is that everything he claims can be denied, and the opposite can be claimed, if he is right: i.e. if one wishes to make it true, so to speak. Thus you can simply say he is no more justified in anything he says than you are, or the next person is who believes he is Santa Clause.

You can also make the point that belief does not change the fact of reality: i.e. whether or not we believe there is life on Mars, there either is life, or there isn’t. Your friend would have to deny this is possible. Reality is reality, whether we believe it or not.

 

[Edmond_H]

Many intelligent people fall prey to the evil ideas circulating in the world. We battle not against flesh and blood, says St. Paul, but spiritual principalities, which can sway the minds of men… Reality is reality, whether we believe it or not.

The Exodus! You rock. Thank you so much for your time and insight. I really appreciate it. I feel a little more at ease. I will continue praying for him (he’s my Dad…please pray for him also…oh, and anyone else who reads this…thanks!).

Finally, what books would you recommend to study the flaws of existentialism and the general “who cares…I’ll find out when I die” attitude? Peter Kreeft seems to be someone who focuses on this demographic. Would you recommend him? If so, what titles? He’s got a million of em. Also, any other authors under the radar that might help in further discussions as they come up.

Thanks again! God bless!!

 

[awatkins69]

Existentialism is ridiculous. If he had no essence then his essence would be indistinguishable from his existence. If that were the case, he’d be God.

With people of this type (Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus) no amount of logical reasoning is going to convince them. You’re going to have to appeal to emotional arguments and rhetoric.

 

[Ben4077]

*Circular is the precise way to explain it. In truth, when someone is in such a circle of error, I dont’ think they can come out of it of their own power. Your friend could be given all the evidence in the world, but none of it will be convincing because his mind is warped in regard to reality.

This is how the schools of the absurd function. They are essentially unverifiable, undemonstrable, and impossible to prove or disprove. Sarte and Nietszche holler up from a pit and say “come down here and play,” and once one does, there is no getting out without divine help I don’t think. The key is not to agree to play by their standards to begin with.*

---

He’s right, they have to decide to “come out of it on their own power”.

The person you are trying to get probably thinks you are in an “unverifiable, undemonstrateable, and impossible to prove or disprove ‘school of the absurd’”.

Move on to someone where you can actually make a difference. If he figures it out, great!

Ben

 

[ADouglass]

Would it be possible to convince a doctor that your father is gravely disabled? You could get a psychiatrist to evaluate him, even if he isn’t gravely disabled. But if he is gravely disabled, then he could be forced by police into a mental hospital, where he could get treatment. There, he would have a good chance of coming to terms with objective reality.

Have you considered he might be possessed? What does he do if a crucifix is in front of him or if you mention your testimony of Jesus Christ? Can he stand to listen to christian music? While not definitive proof that he is possessed, it does leave open that possibility. Good books on exorcism are The Rite and Hostage to the Devil. Sometimes with those who are possessed, there are deeply held irrational beliefs, like with psychosis. To help one who is possessed i would suggest finding a Catholic exorcist, one that has been appointed by the bishop. They are very strict in determining whether or not someone is possessed. It’s not at all like some people who give an exorcism just because you asked for it. Exorcisms can take minutes, hours, or even days in a row, with breaks only for the barest of necessities. Its serious stuff.

 

[Patty23]

Existentialism is ridiculous. If he had no essence then his essence would be indistinguishable from his existence. If that were the case, he’d be God.

With people of this type (Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus) no amount of logical reasoning is going to convince them. You’re going to have to appeal to emotional arguments and rhetoric.

I have to disagree. Existentialism is not just a lack of logic. I’m a theist but my favorite philosopher is actually. Aquinas and Sartre actually.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If a secularist says that you are using verbal gymnastics on him. And you reply that his own system that he values for truth claims utilizes logic and that is what you are trying to do. And at that point the comment is that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”, where would you go from here?

Any ideas would be helpful. These two statements that lead to a circular pattern are driving bonkers

There is nothing you can do but pray.

Most people don’t realize that atheism is not about G-d. Its about excusing our own behavior. This is the perfect example. Do you really believe that your friend is unaware of the contradictory nature of such statements. ? The fact is he knows as well as you.

Thinking to converting an atheist is a fools errand. There is always an ulterior motive for the atheism. I say this as a former atheist, a person with many atheist friends and relatives. I know them very well.

If you insist and need actual argumentation, we can provide it, but I don’t think that anything will “convince” someone willing to make such contradictory statements.