Reflections on the Socratic Club debate

By: Scott Conover

Posted: 11/14/08

On Monday night, Nov. 10th, I attended the Socratic Club debate between Rev. Martin Emmrich and Tom Walmsley. The debate essentially consisted of a philosophical standoff between Emmrich and Walmsley, in which Emmrich stated that truth was objective and real, and that Walmsley said it was not. Although an interesting debate, I felt, and stated offhandedly after asking a question to the two gentlemen, that it was all "philosophical pie in the sky to me."

The reason that I feel this is the case is due to the simple fact that both of them used very few facts and relied largely on presuppositions, especially Mr. Walmsley. Not to pick on Mr. Walmsley, but Dr. Emmrich actually admitted that their viewpoints came from presuppositions. Mr. Walmsley, although charismatic and charming, unfortunately made me feel like we were talking in circles and engaging in self-referent discussions of cause-effect relations.

Mr. Emmrich argued that truth was objective and transcendent. His presupposition is essentially based on the concept that God bestows truth unto us through His will. Now, I would tend to argue that as a Christian, it is built into the framework of the universe itself and into the basic integral unit of mankind (a person), and thus does not require His direct interference, thus preserving freewill and also making the universe a happy place to live. However, in order to accept this, you have to believe in God, so unless you are a Christian (or some sort of similar theist), this is a thoroughly unsatisfying explanation either way.

Mr. Walmsley, unfortunately, did not fare better from my perspective. He spoke of tolerance, and how its lack thereof in the world was the cause of great disharmony and conflict in the world. He felt that everyone needed to be tolerant in order to promote peace and understanding in the world. In fact, this is his primary critique of religion - he feels it's too intolerant. It needs to have more dialogue and discuss things more together and with disparate groups.

Somehow I doubt that Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler fall into the category of church-going religious people. I doubt that organized religion with presuppositions relating to the supernatural is to blame for the world's problems. Rationally speaking, people do evil to others from all walks of life, and blaming it on religion is old and silly. Much like burning non-conformists at the stake, it is evident that it accomplishes nothing and distracts from real world problems.

Accepting Mr. Walmsley's argument requires same level of acceptance in terms of presuppositions as Mr. Emmrich's argument, but it is more annoying because while Mr. Emmrich admitted his viewpoint depended on presuppositions, Mr. Walmsley argued about the meaning of words. He stated so many times that he was unsure of the meaning of certain words that I began to think that Mr. Walmsley possessed a poor command of the English language.

To clarify, the problem to me is that both perspectives rely on presuppositions. There are certain important points to consider when evaluating these topics. First, only strict implementation of the scientific method yields relatively robust results. Science, by virtue of its methodology, excludes metaphysics. Only logic combined with rational conclusions, such as provable and repeatable examples, like democracy and capitalism in terms of free market economies and their impact on the creation of wealth, can provide evidence in discussions that rely on anecdotal or experiential frameworks for validity.

Philosophical evidence is just as valid as religious evidence, because they both rely on presuppositions. All in all, if evidence is not introduced, or if it is not factually persuasive, then any discussion on those grounds is basically a wash, or "pie in the sky."

The most interesting part of the debate was that the audience could ask questions that challenged the speakers. When I asked the two gentlemen what the real difference was between the two viewpoints, since science excludes metaphysics, there was an awkward silence followed by a jocular moment to break the tension.

This told me two things: first, I was correct in my observation that from an evidence perspective, they both relied on presuppositions that lacked external evidence as they presented their topics, and second, that the real winner here was the audience, because they got the chance to watch two very different people argue between themselves on stage.

It's not often you get a chance to watch academics get subjected to rigorous questioning, and even less common in a way that can not only be illuminating, but clarifying as well. Thus, despite the flaws of presupposition that both sides depended upon, if you like philosophy, religion or just the chance to be inquisitive with an academic figure, then perhaps the Socratic Club is worth your while.

Scott Conover is a senior in business administration and history. The opinions expressed in his column do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Barometer staff. Scott Conover can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.