Q&A: Persuasion in an Argument
Persuasion in an Argument
Question
Hello and greetings,
It is well known what you have said (and it is clear) about the fact that people believe in something, and that proves certain underlying assumptions they have. For example, if they believe in morality, then they are supposed to conclude that they believe in God.
My question is: when, in your opinion, should one “give up” an assumption if one cannot find a justification for it, and when should one continue believing that there is a justification even if I cannot find it?
For example, I believe in motion, and even if someone asks me Zeno’s paradox and I do not have the tools to solve it, I would still continue to believe in motion, and the question would remain “open” in my eyes.
Or in the case of morality: if you ask an atheist why he believes in morality, perhaps he does not have the tools to understand that he really believes in God, and he would answer, “I don’t know why, but I believe morality is important.”
On the other hand, there are many beliefs for which it is hard to find justification. Are they worthy of being neglected? Should one think that if they do not have an immediate basis, then they are mistaken?
What determines this? The strength of the intuition?
Thank you
Answer
There is no textbook answer to this question. You have to weigh what seems stronger and more convincing to you. Sometimes it is possible to cross-check with other arguments and evidence and examine the overall picture. The only thing that can be said clearly is that there is a contradiction between the assumptions and your position (against the conclusion), and you have to decide what to adopt and what to reject (or remain in doubt, which is also a legitimate state).