Logical Arguments

I've come to sense that we have a growing problem with people simply thinking that premises no longer need to be established. That there is a set of "givens" in the world, and all arguments proceed from there. Unfortunately, there's no agreement on the validity of those givens, and thus debate has devolved into bickering.

And it's not hard to see why. "Of course Y follows from X, you fool!" But not if X hasn't been agreed upon.

But people sense that premises are the building blocks to conclusions, and they won't cede an inch on those. Why crack the door open on a premise -- assume it's true and argue from there.

Note: I first got to thinking about this in the course of thinking about arguing on behalf of the Christian faith. It has long bothered me that Christians point to the Bible and say, "See! It's right there!" What they're doing, of course, is assuming a premise: "The Bible is an established authority." Well, to the listener that premise may not yet be established. In many cases -- thank you Dan Brown and "The Da Vinci Code" -- it is not. (Which is why, incidentally, I believe that work is of the devil in some way ... I'm not saying Brown is possessed or evil, just that his book has done considerable harm to the furtherment of the Kingdom, and therefore Satan's fingerprints are on it. But God will turn it into good, as he always does. :-)

I don't wish to get into a debate about whether the Bible is or is not true, authentic, or to be believed. But from a purely logical point of view, that's what people are doing when they don't first gain agreement on the validity of the Bible as a source for established premises.