Austin Farrer Quotes

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

Yes, I have a philosophy, and you have to come with good arguments to change that philosophy, but, if someone has a better argument than me, then I will change.

Philosophy may describe unreasoning, as it may describe force; it cannot hope to refute them.

Reason argues the case, but fact may determine the judgment.

Convincing yourself doesn't win an argument.

You know, I've taught philosophy for years and one argues in the hypothetical all the time.

If this work seems so threatening, this is because it isn't simply eccentric or strange, but competent, rigorously argued, and carrying conviction.

What convinces is conviction. Believe in the argument you're advancing. If you don't you're as good as dead. The other person will sense that something isn't there, and no chain of reasoning, no matter how logical or elegant or brilliant, will win your case for you.

Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.

You will never convince anyone to do anything unless you believe it should be done.

Let one persuade many, and he becomes confirmed and convinced, and cares for no better evidence.

Use your logick, and then your rhetorick. Rhetorick without logick, is like a tree with leaves and blossoms, but no root; yet I confess more are taken with rhetorick than logick, because they are catched with a free expression, when they understand not reason. Logick must be natural, or it is worth nothing at all: Your rhetorick figures may be learned.

Nothing is so difficult to believe that oratory cannot make it acceptable …

Scientists want to know the evidence behind a statement; they want reproducible tests and verifiable facts. There is a big difference in the thought process of a trial lawyer who is interested not in what's true but what he can convince a jury is true.

Skepticism may undermine beliefs, but never belief.

Logic is the art of convincing us some truth.

But facts always convince, and another man's opinion rarely convinces.

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.

Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason.

Nothing is so convenient as a decisive argument ... which must at least silence the most arrogant bigotry and superstition, and free us from their impertinent solicitations. I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument ... which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures. For so long, I presume, will the accounts of miracles and prodigies be found in all history, sacred and profane.

However good an argument in philosophy may happen to be, it is generally not good enough.

I believe science has a wonderful ability, in an unbiased way, to offer hope to many people who are confused, but it's not the only way to find hope.

Scepticism is always a back road leading to some credo or other.