# Debated a relativist for the first time



## srhoades (Apr 16, 2006)

It actually started out when he made the statement that every rule has an exception. I thought nothing of it at first but then I started to think. If every rule has an exception, so would the rule that every rule has an exception so that it could have an exception that every rule does not have an exception. I pointed out that his position was logically absurd and he counters with truth is subjective.

I won't go into extreme details because I tend to ramble but his feet were definitely planted in mid air. At one point I got him to agree that murder, in its most basic form, is a transcendent absolute. He failed to see the logical consequences of admitting that in contrast to his position. And further, he couldn't explain why that was an absolute or where we get it from. He basically explained it was more or less because no one wants to be murdered, not that it is immoral. In fact he denied morality all together. If something to you is true, then it is good, an likewise if it is false, it is bad. And what is true and false is a construct of what society you live in.

What I found most amazing though was this has to be the most bitter man I have ever met in my entire life. And that was prior to his wife leaving him and taking everything. He was very pleasant to debate. He actually would not interrupt during my arguments and I likewise gave him the same respect. 

We got to speaking briefly on worldviews and I briefly explained that the Christian worldview is the only one which can adequately explain morality, existence, and human behavior. I expected him to retort with some sort of ad hominem or straw man but he didn't. 

Overall I found it comical that he was trying to convince me that not only was his position that all truth is subjective is true, but somehow mine is false and his is still true. He has already expressed interest in debating further, and since we work 12 hour shifts I expect we will have plenty of time for it.

Defending my faith well is probably one of my biggest deficiencies of my Christian pilgrimage. (sorry just finished Pilgrims Progress) But from this point forward I don't plan on trying to refute his position so adamantly, since that has been adequately done, but instead trying to show why the Christian Worldview is superior.

If you guys have any suggestions or encouragements for me I am welcome to them all.

Forgot to add. He is a definatley post modern. All historical accounts of anything are written from the standpoint of the victor of the oppressed, and so they are not objective and therefor the Bible is unreliable.


[Edited on 4-16-2006 by srhoades]


----------



## caddy (Apr 16, 2006)

I have had similiar "run-ins" with a guy on a car forum I have frequented for years. There is a Relgion / Politics forum there. J. Budziszewski's book, What We Can't Not Know  was a big help to me, but these guys are hard to reason with.


----------



## Presbyrino (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by srhoades_
> Forgot to add. He is a definatley post modern. All historical accounts of anything are written from the standpoint of the victor of the oppressed, and so they are not objective and therefor the Bible is unreliable.
> [Edited on 4-16-2006 by srhoades]



Ask him if there is an exception to this rule as well...

And if all truth is relative, then can there really be some one who is oppressed? Can there really be someone who is an opressor? To judge someone as oppressed/oppressor presupposes some objective, transcedent, invariant standard to judge by.


[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Presbyrino]


----------



## srhoades (Apr 17, 2006)

Now that I have had a while to stew over the conversation I had, let me ask this. If someone continues to hold to this position, and fails to see how it is logicaly self refuting and therefore holds to a postion of irrationality, does it even make sense to continue to debate them? Obviously any defense they have is actually a support for their own self refutation. But is it profitable to debate someone who holds to irrationality? I understand that all false systems can be reduced to irrationality but is it different when your entire premise on which you form your worldview is self condradictory?


----------



## Scott (Apr 17, 2006)

Nice job, Sean!


> If someone continues to hold to this position, and fails to see how it is logicaly self refuting and therefore holds to a postion of irrationality, does it even make sense to continue to debate them? Obviously any defense they have is actually a support for their own self refutation. But is it profitable to debate someone who holds to irrationality? I understand that all false systems can be reduced to irrationality but is it different when your entire premise on which you form your worldview is self condradictory?


I know Bahnsen used to say that if he can get his opponent to admit that his view was irrational and did not make sense, he would just ask them to speak into the microphone, meaning that it is a good admission and there is not much more you can do.

I think, though, that you can simply introduce a parade of horribles. In other words, start listing bad consequences consistent with his worldview. This, at least, makes him self-conscious of the problems that spring naturally from his view of life and makes it less attractice to him.


----------

