This is what we know: There are planets that lie beyond our Solar System. This is what we don’t know: Planets beyond our Solar System harbor life, possibly even “intelligent” life.
That there is life beyond Earth has been a topic since people burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. That means that for hundreds of years we have pondered, joked about, and spoken about the possibility of unearthly life and intelligent extraterrestrials. Intelligence, of course, is variable, so we still argue about its nature as some would say it’s just a matter of degree as much as of kind. Then, there are the peripheral arguments. There are some, such as those who burned Bruno, that argue any such life would negate their religious beliefs. And we even have jokes and serious essays about that negation.
The argument that finding life outside the boundaries of Earth would overturn many of the world’s religions is an “argument from.” Many arguments are “arguments from.” Predisposed to a position, those who “argue from” are locked into established beliefs of any kind, even personal, individual beliefs. In contrast, those who argue the acquisition of knowledge or even new mysteries can only enhance our understanding of the context of belief, “argue to.” Arguing to is a reaching out even when the goal is uncertain.
Let’s take belief in a Creator and the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe as an example of “arguing from.” If the Creator is capable of making by fiat a universe for which we can find no boundary, why is there a limit on the fiat? If one accepts the fiat, one already acknowledges an act beyond understanding. Is there a limit on a fiat that engendered a universe? My asking, of course, is an affront to those who would limit a Creator in a fiat that produced a universe with an estimated two trillion galaxies. But I am not arguing for a particular religious position, nor am I arguing against some general fundamentalist position. Beliefs are beliefs, and I am bound just as everyone else is bound to a set of beliefs, assumptions, and axioms. I think, however, that we need to assess process and goal in argument. With respect to a universe of ubiquitous life, I pose this: To argue against a universe in which life occurs universally is to argue from a conclusion; it is to “argue from.”
And that’s what we often do when we argue almost anything. We don’t argue to a position, we argue from one. That’s what gets us into unresolvable problems. If everyone argues from, then no one argues to something else. Or, if someone argues from and another argues to, then neither sees the other’s argument as tenable. In personal arguments that become shouting matches, both sides argue from.
Are we locked into our own fiats? That is, are we, when we insist the solution is an “argument from,” just saying, “Let it be” as we take on the role of Creator. “This is the way things are. This is how ‘I’ have made them. There’s an axiom of creation, and all arguments need to conform to such self-evident truths. Particularly, ‘My’ truths.”
Again, this isn’t about accepting an unbound Creator. This is not about your religion if you are a fundamentalist. It’s about the way you might argue to an impasse: You arguing from while another is arguing from a different from, or you arguing from with someone arguing to.
A note: You will say, “I have to start somewhere. I can’t just begin an argument without a foundation of some accepted truth.” Yes, you are correct. We all begin from some assumption we accept. In violent arguments, the assumptions are rooted in emotions, in deep parts of the brain. But when we can dissociate ourselves from emotion, can we see our argument as “reaching” rather than as “defending”? As open rather than as closed?
Some “look outward” to explore an unknown universe that might contradict belief, add to knowledge, or even befuddle them more by discoveries of mysteries as yet not contemplated. Such arguments are movements toward a more encompassing perspective, maybe even a fuzzy perspective that merely hints at truth.
In practical terms, merely ask yourself in your next debate or argument whether your position falls into either the from or to category. You might not win your argument, but at least you’ll have a better grasp of its nature. And you’ll know that if you end up where you started, you did so because you argued from.
That there is life beyond Earth has been a topic since people burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. That means that for hundreds of years we have pondered, joked about, and spoken about the possibility of unearthly life and intelligent extraterrestrials. Intelligence, of course, is variable, so we still argue about its nature as some would say it’s just a matter of degree as much as of kind. Then, there are the peripheral arguments. There are some, such as those who burned Bruno, that argue any such life would negate their religious beliefs. And we even have jokes and serious essays about that negation.
The argument that finding life outside the boundaries of Earth would overturn many of the world’s religions is an “argument from.” Many arguments are “arguments from.” Predisposed to a position, those who “argue from” are locked into established beliefs of any kind, even personal, individual beliefs. In contrast, those who argue the acquisition of knowledge or even new mysteries can only enhance our understanding of the context of belief, “argue to.” Arguing to is a reaching out even when the goal is uncertain.
Let’s take belief in a Creator and the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe as an example of “arguing from.” If the Creator is capable of making by fiat a universe for which we can find no boundary, why is there a limit on the fiat? If one accepts the fiat, one already acknowledges an act beyond understanding. Is there a limit on a fiat that engendered a universe? My asking, of course, is an affront to those who would limit a Creator in a fiat that produced a universe with an estimated two trillion galaxies. But I am not arguing for a particular religious position, nor am I arguing against some general fundamentalist position. Beliefs are beliefs, and I am bound just as everyone else is bound to a set of beliefs, assumptions, and axioms. I think, however, that we need to assess process and goal in argument. With respect to a universe of ubiquitous life, I pose this: To argue against a universe in which life occurs universally is to argue from a conclusion; it is to “argue from.”
And that’s what we often do when we argue almost anything. We don’t argue to a position, we argue from one. That’s what gets us into unresolvable problems. If everyone argues from, then no one argues to something else. Or, if someone argues from and another argues to, then neither sees the other’s argument as tenable. In personal arguments that become shouting matches, both sides argue from.
Are we locked into our own fiats? That is, are we, when we insist the solution is an “argument from,” just saying, “Let it be” as we take on the role of Creator. “This is the way things are. This is how ‘I’ have made them. There’s an axiom of creation, and all arguments need to conform to such self-evident truths. Particularly, ‘My’ truths.”
Again, this isn’t about accepting an unbound Creator. This is not about your religion if you are a fundamentalist. It’s about the way you might argue to an impasse: You arguing from while another is arguing from a different from, or you arguing from with someone arguing to.
A note: You will say, “I have to start somewhere. I can’t just begin an argument without a foundation of some accepted truth.” Yes, you are correct. We all begin from some assumption we accept. In violent arguments, the assumptions are rooted in emotions, in deep parts of the brain. But when we can dissociate ourselves from emotion, can we see our argument as “reaching” rather than as “defending”? As open rather than as closed?
Some “look outward” to explore an unknown universe that might contradict belief, add to knowledge, or even befuddle them more by discoveries of mysteries as yet not contemplated. Such arguments are movements toward a more encompassing perspective, maybe even a fuzzy perspective that merely hints at truth.
In practical terms, merely ask yourself in your next debate or argument whether your position falls into either the from or to category. You might not win your argument, but at least you’ll have a better grasp of its nature. And you’ll know that if you end up where you started, you did so because you argued from.
RSS Feed