“The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.”

– Aristotle

Monsieur Blanc,

The last time we engaged each other in this format, we were still lingering on postmodernism and we were starting to delve into the realm of aesthetics. We were also discussing whether or not one can separate the art from its soul, as it were. And even if it was possible, is it even prudent? Anyways, in the spirit of postmodernism, I’ve decided to talk about something completely different entirely.

It seems to me that debate and discussion have been an integral part of the internet, at least since as long as I can remember. Whether it is YouTube comments that insult each other, or livestreams of intellectuals debating the merits of tradition, discussion seems to always be around. I have recently had a number of quality in person discussions with people regarding more contentious topics, like female preachers and baptism. One thing I have noticed is that having a shared framework for the discussion seems to work wonders. If some points can be agreed on in the beginning, then the debate can be taken all the way up to the moon and back.

I also recently had a discussion related to atheism and the arguments for and against God. Unfortunately, this discussion did not quite go as well as I had hoped. Not because someone won or lost, but because it was hard to find a good starting point. When arguing about the existence of God, it seems like you really have to dive down to the deepest level in order to build the argument back up. You could start with the question of evil, by asking why there are children who die of cancer, and how a good God could allow that. However, that is already assuming too much. This assumes that if there is a God, then there has to be a good God. Which, is an assumption and is not necessarily a certainty, at least if this topic is not first approached from a Christian lens. Then, who are you to say that children having cancer is a bad thing. It certainly seems terrible, but then the question arises of if there is objective good and bad. And if good and bad can be objectively defined, then how do we learn about it? Would we know this from some feeling, from religion, from physics? It is hard to tell. My point here is that so many discussions ought to be broken down to their core components before a meaningful discussion can take place. But if this is the case, then it would appear that all arguments are about one thing. Namely, how things are defined.

It’s all about definitions. At the end of the day a discussion is pointless if everyone doesn’t agree on the definitions. This is even true about little things. Let’s say two people are arguing about the best color, and one person thinks the most beautiful color is chartreuse, and the other person thinks it’s indigo. They both have to agree that they are trying to define what the best color is and that best color means most beautiful. Plus, there is a difference between whether chartreuse is the best color objectively, or only to the person making the argument. I personally really enjoy the movie Tenet directed by Christopher Nolan, but I would not say that this is objectively the best movie of all time.

The issue here is that when most people argue between chartreuse and indigo, they are not arguing with the same baseline definitions, meaning the argument will go nowhere. In my experience, most arguments do go nowhere. That is until the definitions are agreed upon. It is hard to pick the best restaurant to eat at, until the best restaurant is defined by the one that is the cheapest, nearest, and with the best quality, then the answer is easy to surmise. This feels a bit cold and analytical though, is it really the case that all arguments are just over definitions?

Well, yes, I think so. It seems like it at least. Though sometimes this fact is obfuscated pretty well. For example, Christians and Muslims both have a very different concept of God. It is helpful that both believe that there is only one true God who created the universe, life, and everything in it. This helps to set the frame of the discussion, but even with this frame, both sides come at it with completely different attributes and characteristics that they would both apply to God. Meaning that the argument becomes more of whose definition of God is the correct one. Based on our last few posts, the answer should hopefully be obvious that it is Jesus Christ who is God, but the argument is still one of definitions regardless.

Arguing about trivial things like movies depends on how the people involved define what the best movie is. More complex discussions, like whether God exists, are the same way. The definitions are what are in question, even if the two sides can agree on some common ground rules. Dr. Jordan Peterson’s professional gymnastics in dodging the question of whether he believes in God is somewhat valid in this context. He is right when he says that believing in God does depend quite a bit on what is meant by God. A universalist understanding of God will be very different to a Lutheran one. Though, another question still arises, is breaking everything down into definitions not just reducing the subject matter into a form that is meaningless? Irreducible complexity? Said another way, is an argument more than just a sum of its definitions?

Truth be told, I don’t know. This would be a fair critique. Starting a debate by defining every little term and even the question itself seems to be excessive. However, if nothing is defined, the arguments just become people yelling at each other because they disagree on the definition. This too seems pointless. What then could be the solution? How can good debates and discussions be held, while not getting bogged down with either having to make sure everyone is using the same dictionary, or that personal opinions are the main arguments? This is where having a shared worldview and foundation of beliefs becomes priceless.

Two trinitarian Christians arguing about the nature of salvation seems like a discussion that could be quite fruitful. They both agree on the nature of God, Jesus, and hopefully salvation, meaning that this hypothetical debate should not just be one of definitions. However, this too is maybe not the best assumption. Two Reformed Baptists probably have the same views on most things, making the one percent of differences interesting. But a Baptist versus a Catholic will probably yield the same problem as before, though there are many more similarities. Given this, I think that there is probably a sweet spot somewhere between agreeing on enough of the basics that a discussion can be fruitful, while not agreeing on absolutely everything. If two people have no disagreements, then there is really nothing interesting to discuss, the two people can only serve to convince each other of how right they are.

Nevertheless, I think that my initial thesis still stands. All arguments are just about definitions. I do not think there is any way around this. Trying to tie in a bit of contiguity with our past discussion. Could we not boil down our discussion on postmodernism to this? A disagreement on the definition? We were basically just discussing whether the aesthetic and the philosophy of postmodernism could be separated. Which is just a question of definitions. How you or I define the idea of postmodernism affects how we answer the question, and the tasty part of the discussion comes when our definitions diverge. If we believe in objective truth, which we both do, then we have to acknowledge that one of us is right and the other is wrong. Because, definitionally, we can’t both be right. This kind of takes the fun out of any discussion, because it seems to me like there always is a right and a wrong answer. Whether the truth can be easily ascertained is a different question, but there is a definition that objectively rings true throughout the cosmos. The quest for truth would appear to be pretty important then and if the truth is important, then it stands to reason that the definitions that we use to define our points should not be taken lightly. Words have meaning and by proxy definitions have meaning.

There is an objectively correct answer on which form of baptism is correct, and likewise there is a correct form of Holy Communion. If, just as an example, we say that Catholics have the correct view on baptism, then wouldn’t everyone else be sinning by practicing it any other way? Similarly, if Presbyterians have the correct view on the Eucharist, then arguably everyone else is sinning by doing it differently. Of course, these two examples are also assuming a lot. We are assuming here that the truth is binary and that there are either completely correct answers or completely wrong answers, like in math. Though, I imagine that the truth lies on a spectrum. There are probably more correct and less correct ways of doing things and definitions that are more or less correct. The second assumption is that the truth is good and the opposite of truth is bad. This one is a little harder to unpack. If someone is sinning, is it bad because they know that it is bad and they are doing it anyway, or is this sinning objectively bad and it does not matter whether they are aware of it or not?

Either way, I think my thesis holds up that all arguments can be boiled down to a difference of definitions. Whether or not all arguments should boil down to definitions is a different story. When it comes to questions related to the existence of God, then yes, it is probably good to start at the very beginning. However, when it comes to other topics, especially less important ones, this feels a bit asinine. Making everyone agree on what defines the most orderable beer before each person orders a beer feels pedantic. Then again, good taste in beer is passed down genetically. One must be born with a taste for God’s gift of liquid bread, while the plebeians are content with yeasty water laced with ethanol. I shutter at the thought.

Veritas vos liberabit.

Ihr ergebener,

Nate Martin