Of all the arguments against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the ‘slippery slope’: once we allow doctors to kill patients, we will not be able to limit the killing to those who want to die.
I think what I and most other sociologists of religion wrote in the 1960s about secularization was a mistake. Our underlying argument was that secularization and modernity go hand in hand. With more modernization comes more secularization.
As set forth by theologians, the idea of ‘God’ is an argument that assumes its own conclusions, and proves nothing.
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.
There are clear cases in which ‘understanding’ literally applies and clear cases in which it does not apply; and these two sorts of cases are all I need for this argument.
I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.
Sound principles and eternal truths need to be frequently repeated so that we do not forget their application nor become dissuaded by other arguments.
The mark, to me, of a constructive argument is one that looks at a specific problem and says, ‘What shall we do about this?’ And a nonconstructive one is one that tries to label people.
You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it.