In ancient Greece there were sophists. They were in a sense the world’s first lawyers. They were masters of rhetoric, hired to teach it, argue some cause, or even entertain with it. Depending who was paying would depend what they would argue. Some Greeks at the time viewed them as immoral since they believed their form of rhetoric made a mockery of ethics . I don’t consider the original sophists immoral myself as they were among the first to demonstrate the power of rhetoric and in an honest way. And it greatly benefited later philosophy because a natural consequence of sophistry was the question… If something can be argued persuasively one way and the other way.. then what is the methodology for determining the truth?
Today the term sophistry is used in the English language with a negative connotation. It describes someone that is unprincipled or insincere in their arguments. One method is through framing. George Bush didn’t use state sponsored torture, he used”enhanced interrogation”… far right parties don’t have totalitarian tendencies, they are “freedom parties”…. North Korea isn’t a totalitarian state, it’s a “democratic republic”. And so on. It’s not necessarily always conscious deception. One can even trick one’s own mind like this by making improper use of words and analogy. i do myself by accidentally from time to time. In your case, an example of this how you choose to use the term “creation”… and thus arrive to the conclusion there was some creator.. You trick yourself into believing in there is a logical necessity of a deity despite that you have no evidence whatsoever.. In Grisha’s case, he’s so motivated by his identity he treats the term “Jewish and “Torah” as analogous despite that we have plenty of scientific evidence today it’s largely superstition. So whatever the truth needs to be to best suit Luba’s interpretations of the Torah will become the truth. This one simple proposition that Jewish=Torah is exactly why he doesn’t believe in evolution and exactly why he has the theocratic politics he has.
I’ve been reading, debating and thinking about philosophy obsessively for decades. Despite this I don’t claim to be some enlightened guru. Although I have my philosophical views I see my own views as at least
partially flawed and incomplete.. This in turn motivates to keep thinking about the subject. Find errors, Fix errors. Find errors Fix errors. Rinse and repeat probably until my dying days.. I know enough by now
to tell neither you or Grisha are even playing in the same league as me when it comes to philosophical outlook. It’s not that you are incapable of upping your game but your moral narratives are motivated by your egos more than substance. You both care more about winning an argument than winning the truth.