Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:21 am Post subject: Re: Contaminating & Redundant Apologetics Endlessly
Declension wrote:
TM wrote:
An example of this is found in any debate on religion featuring William Lane-Craig, a professional Christian apologist who in the course of one round can go from evangelical to theist to deist and then back to evangelical in his arguments.
That isn't my experience of William Lane Craig. From what I've seen of him, he is actually the most clear and honest debater anyone could hope for. He makes nice presentations where he explains exactly how his arguments work, and exactly what the argument is supposed to show, and he challenges his opponent to explain which of the premises is wrong.
It's true that he is personally much more than a theist. But I have never seen him fudge the distinction; in fact he seems to respect the distinction much more than his opponents sometimes do. Whenever he is arguing for Christianity, he talks about Jesus and tries to convince the audience that Jesus rose from the dead. Whenever he's simply arguing for God's existence, he gives arguments which attempt to establish God's existence, and he might throw in Jesus since Christianity is logically stronger than God's existence.
Hi Declension,
The quote from , summarizres some of WLC from sources:
mean, to be quite frank, for large parts of the 20th century, I'd actually guess that the proper conclusion was that Communism/communist friendly theories was/were more likely to be right on the grounds of the evidence we had.
I think I will save this quote from you up for a later date.
Quote:
Are you seriously this foolish? The "theistic revolution" is simply that theism is no longer just dismissed as literal nonsense, so philosophy of religion has a place at departments again. That's not much of a revolution. Even if we look at the current population statistics, the numbers aren't pretty.
Christian philosophy has experienced a renaissance, and has contributed to genuine progress in philosophy. The first half of 20th century philosophy was dominated by Russell and Ayer. Religion was considered nonsense, and had almost no intellectual defense. By 1966, Time asked “Is God Dead?” The very next year, Plantinga published God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. Since then, Swinburne, Alston, Craig, MacIntyre, and others joined Plantinga in leading a renaissance of serious Christian thought. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith says naturalists have been resting on their laurels in the face of so many “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.” Moreover, these philosophers have not just revived dead arguments, but actually contributed to the progress of philosophy.
91 wrote:
A morality based on social interaction makes the person who goes against it objectively unpopular but not objectively wrong. I don't think there can be good without God.
A "one star" review of William Lane Craig's book "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" at amazon-dot-com includes the nearly identical "opposite" quote from Craig's website:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
So let me deal a bit with what you are claiming. Theistic morality in the sense I am talking about deals with moral ontology (where it comes from) not moral epistemology (what is right and wrong). The first sign that someone either does not know what they are talking about or just wants to muddy the water is that they discuss moral epistemology in a discussion of moral ontology. If you want to investigate OT ethics go buy a copy of 'Is God a Moral Monster' by Paul Copan, it deals sufficiently with your objections.
Hi Craig91,
So you claim two Craig quotes can't go together without conflict because of departmental policy.
That's a crock of balderdash and then some.
"Where it came from" is distinct from "what is right and wrong" (unless you're on a one-way street, going the wrong way, or maybe into a scatology fetish). That explains "Don't Do As I Do, Do As I Say", but how does it fit with your "I don't think there can be good without God", since the "God" origin is to be distinctly cut? Don't worry, it happened to the Titanic too. And, "wrong departure" means "heavenly bliss" in La-La Land.
Wait!!! Darn, Double Darn, there are "ontology" sections and all my sectioned "epistemology" and "philosophy" books. Those idiots must not know Craig's Mandatory Golden Rules of Thinking Thoughts. Then,: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45085
Well, "consciousness" is a good example, because it has no valid, nor objective, definition. Such nonsense is best avoided in science, and nonsense should be minimized in everything else: See Wolff, Kant, Heidegger, Quine, and hundreds of others. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1986.tb05737.x/abstract
"Did you get the count of the bubbles in your beer?" also has both ontological and epistemological aspects, and all three taken to excess endanger sobriety.
I put Paul Copan with the stack of "WatchTower's" and "Awake's" with his "When God Goes to Starbucks" apologetics (2008), out of the way.
In the real world, Ted Bundy & Hitler couldn't make the "few-thousand-years" wait list, though at the Pearly Gates, I doubt the argument involving distinctions between ontological aspects and epistemological aspects of crimes against humanity worked as any "Get Out of Hell For Free" Card.
Meanwhile, cow manure makes a smelly, but still better, compost ingredient than recycled paper.
Tadzio
This states part of a few of my concerns also:
"Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They’ll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar’s argument and run away with it, without any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven’t been persuaded by it. They don’t often make arguments for what’s plausible, preferring to argue for what’s “possible,” if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn’t there, indeed, what’s often contradicted by the very passages they cite."
From "Is God a Moral Compromiser? A Critical Review of Paul Copan’s 'Is God a Moral Monster?'" by Thom Stark (2011), page 1.
While Stark says to buy Copan's book (since Copan's "publisher" prohibits even moderate quotations) to follow his (Stark's) critiques, I am not going to purchase any more Copan's/WLC's books, as WLC, et al. WLC's clones & groupies, have played way too many Mutt & Jeff games with the same old rehashed noxious balderdash with numerous others, back-and-forth, and even at nominal prices, prices add up to too much money for so little worth, and then, the vast amounts of such commingled & toxic trash.
The concepts of "Renaissance" and the "Christian Thought" of, and threatened violence from, fanatical apologists, are not compatible, except for "Bible-Thumping" propaganda purposes for the fascist apologists.
Tadzio
WLC's selective careless stupidity with Bayesian Probability fallacies is also reflected in the video:
I have tried to explain this exact thing, with mixed results. I may simply refer people to this video in the future should I fail in delivering the message properly. _________________ I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Replying to a lack of reason with reason
TM wrote:
I’ve discussed and debated religion, faith, spirituality and atheism for quite a few years now and I’ve come to one conclusion; do not approach a lack of reason with reason. If a believer in the supernatural was a rationalist vis-à-vis religion, the mentioned believer would not be a believer. I love discussing religion and I especially love being faced with a skilled debater on the topic, however if mutual agreement on certain does not exist, the discussion is pointless.
The position of each debater:
A believer of any religion will switch his or her position without notifying the audience. An example of this is found in any debate on religion featuring William Lane-Craig, a professional Christian apologist who in the course of one round can go from evangelical to theist to deist and then back to evangelical in his arguments.
This constitutes a challenge in any debate, due to the fact that one is supposed to present arguments for or against a proposition. If a person is rapidly changing positions it becomes excessively hard to counter arguments since one will not know for sure which position a person is arguing from at any given time. The tendency of certain believers (Lane-Craig especially) to treat the Theistic and the Deistic position as interchangeable further complicates the issue.
For instance, the difference between a creating force that does not interact with human life (Deism) is widely different from a creating force that also gets directly involved in human life (Theism). In a debate where the proposition is “The Christian God exists” using an argument from Deism is not relevant to the discussion at hand. However, many believers will “force” the atheist to concede that the existence of a “Deistic god” is possible, and treat that as proof that the Christian god is possible.
Furthermore, the believer is likely to exclude large amounts of material that is clearly relevant to the discussion. For instance, if one is arguing against the proposition “Christianity is a force for good in the world”, one will face the argument that the Old Testament is no longer relevant after Jesus and thus every example one can draw from it is irrelevant to modern Christianity. When one then points out that the values from the Old Testament are still widely being used among Christians, one is faced with the counter-argument that is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, in that “Those are not real believers”.
Introduction of scripture as fact
Another issue you will face is the argument “The Bible says the Bible is true” or other variations of introducing scripture. Since scripture is often open to interpretation, this means that one is not arguing against the literal word of the scripture, nor against the common interpretations of the scripture, nor against the effect of the scripture, but against the believers personal interpretation of the scripture, which usually isn’t stated.
This is a big problem, because it opens the door for a fallacy commonly known as “moving the goalposts”, which means that you might as well not argue against the person because as long as they move the goalposts, they will always claim “he didn’t refute my argument” because just like a personal god who loves you, it’s impossible.
The other element that makes this the ultimate “shadow boxing” move is that it traps you in your own bias. For instance, I know perfectly well that if someone brings up the Bible and Christianity, I’m going for the throat with the Old Testament material right away, rather than delivering bodyblow after bodyblow about the immorality of Jesus. I also know that I’ll go for that throat without setting up the clear connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament, something that puts me in a problematic position, since the Theist is likely to argue that the Old Testament is invalid or that I interpreted it wrong.
Debating around scriptural arguments made by your opponent is like debating which ice-cream flavor is the best; you cannot win because they can always change their interpretation without telling you. `
Argument from anecdote
This is probably the one I end up facing in most debates about the supernatural. Whether its Allah, Poltergeists or Zombies, the argument from anecdote is present. A family member of mine has this as her favorite and I think that’s because it is the easiest “argument” to come up with on the spot. “Well, Bill told me about his cousins, brother’s friend who couldn’t walk and then stood up after a priest laid his hands on him” (This is not a good point to make an altar boy joke in a formal debate btw).
A common technique here is to combine the anecdote with emotion and a respectable source in order for it to have a greater impact with the audience. If you do it really well you can even create a situation where trying to refute the anecdote leads to the “refuter” alienating the audience.
“Argumentum Luciferus”
I made this one up because I couldn’t quite find any logical fallacy that fits. This takes place when someone argues that Satan is the source of everything evil and god is the source of everything good. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.
If “god” is the creator of everything, then he is also the creator of Satan.
If “god” is has no capacity for evil, then he cannot create anything evil.
Therefore, if god is good, there can be no Satan. However, if god can create evil, then he has a capacity for evil and therefore could be the source of evil in the world.
Furthermore, if one has the power to prevent evil but chooses not what does that say about morals? Well, according to the categorical imperative, if everyone chose not to prevent evil in every situation where an omnipotent god does not, IE every situation where there is evil.
It’s pretty much textbook ad hoc.
Non causa pro causa (non-cause for cause)
These are some non-formal fallacies related to wrongful identification of cause. B.F Skinner did an experiment where pigeons would be fed every time they hit a button. Then he changed it to every random time and the birds turned superstitious all of a sudden and started redoing the actions they’d done prior to the previous successful feeding.
This brings me to..
Miracles
In the case of all miracles, there is a psychological bias at work where a believer attributes something to a wrongful cause. There is of course confirmation bias and subjective bias, but more importantly the Forer effect plays a part.
If I hear that a friend of mine died, then the next time I take a walk I run into my friend alive and well, is it then likely that my friend died and was resurrected or that I misheard something?
In the case where no natural cause can be found, it does not mean it doesn't exist and it does not mean god did it, in fact if you argue that he did, its a "god of the gaps" and a non sequitur.
The “challenge”
The challenge that is the sum of the parts above is that in order to hold a belief in the supernatural, one has to commit fallacies in ones reasoning if one even engages reason. Francis Collins a brilliant scientist and a born-again Christian, tells the story of his conversion as him walking out in nature, watching how beautiful it was “and just feeling” like there was something more.
Others elect to pick the “god of the gaps” and then add the characteristics of their deity of choice to this “god of the gaps”. This is how we end up with the following exchange:
“So what created man”
“We evolved from a common ancestor we share with other primates, which itself evolved from a prior organism, which itself evolved from a prior organism”
“What came before the organism?”
“I don’t know”
“Hah! Then it’s god!”
I think Christopher Hitchens approached it in a way that works, which is not to try to convince his adversary or refute his or her ambiguous arguments, but to address the audience when an ambiguous argument is presented.
Feel free to add your own.
Hi TM,
For sure, reason & rationality quickly become gummed-up when the stickiness of "True Belief" in most anything is encountered internally or externally ("Reason" magazine is often anything but reason, too!!). All the sound and the fury is mainly polemics & PR Evangelicalisms, with the understanding of science an early casuality, but science still rules, as everybody is painfully encountering the Second Law first-hand despite any wistful insobriety.
I try to stick with Skinnerian Radical Behaviourism as much as possible ("Beyond Freedom & Dignity" stances), while I like Science with a strong dose of early Popper (Karl Popper, 1902-1994). A very brief "Brief Lives" of Popper with a terse "demarcating science from pseudo-science" is in "Philosophy Now", issue 88, January/February 2012, pages 28-29, sometimes with views available at Zinio-dot-com under magazines, Art, Literary, then the listings for "Philosophy Now" issues "inside" samples for Jan/Feb 2012, pages 28-29. The article is still restricted (Feb 24, 2012) to subscribers at: http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/88/Sir_Karl_Popper_1902-1994
"I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, or My praise to idols."
Seems to be in direct conflict to revering Jesus....I always thought that was humorous.
You seem to be assuming a specific interpretation most convenient to your argument. _________________ "A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
"I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, or My praise to idols."
Seems to be in direct conflict to revering Jesus....I always thought that was humorous.
You seem to be assuming a specific interpretation most convenient to your argument.
Hmm, didn't realize I was making an argument.....
Oh, come to think of it, I wasn't! How weird.
Clues to it not being an argument; Words like "side note" "and oddly" "seems to" "I thought" "humorous", asking of questions and such.
Funny thing is, it's almost like I was making inquiries! Maybe a little bit of curiosity seeped out into print there for a moment...it's so weird how that can look EXACTLY like I'm making an argument.
And if you simply HAD to reply to this, couldn't you have been bothered to give an alternate interpretation at least? Or do you just like being a _____ about it? _________________ I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:40 am Post subject: Re: Replying to a lack of reason with reason
@OP
Very well said, especially this
TM wrote:
I think Christopher Hitchens approached it in a way that works, which is not to try to convince his adversary or refute his or her ambiguous arguments, but to address the audience when an ambiguous argument is presented.
Though I am not sure how well it works in the popular atheists circle.
Sometimes people sneak in an argument with snide humor.
Quote:
Clues to it not being an argument; Words like "side note" "and oddly" "seems to" "I thought" "humorous", asking of questions and such.
This seems a bit of an overreaction to something being taken slightly differently than you meant it to be taken.
As a side note, I thought I said "seem to" somewhere in my reply. Oh, wait, I did.
Quote:
Funny thing is, it's almost like I was making inquiries!
You called God "it" and "the thing" and then expected your question to be taken seriously?
Quote:
Maybe a little bit of curiosity seeped out
If you're actually curious, you're going to have to explain what the problem is exactly. Looking at what you quoted, I can't see a reasonable way to interpret it the way you did.
Quote:
couldn't you have been bothered to give an alternate interpretation at least?
Unless I'm mistaken, you're assuming an extremely literalistic interpretation in order to make your criticism work at all. If this is the case, any other interpretation would work. _________________ "A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Sometimes people sneak in an argument with snide humor.
Quote:
Clues to it not being an argument; Words like "side note" "and oddly" "seems to" "I thought" "humorous", asking of questions and such.
This seems a bit of an overreaction to something being taken slightly differently than you meant it to be taken.
As a side note, I thought I said "seem to" somewhere in my reply. Oh, wait, I did.
Quote:
Funny thing is, it's almost like I was making inquiries!
You called God "it" and "the thing" and then expected your question to be taken seriously?
Quote:
Maybe a little bit of curiosity seeped out
If you're actually curious, you're going to have to explain what the problem is exactly. Looking at what you quoted, I can't see a reasonable way to interpret it the way you did.
Quote:
couldn't you have been bothered to give an alternate interpretation at least?
Unless I'm mistaken, you're assuming an extremely literalistic interpretation in order to make your criticism work at all. If this is the case, any other interpretation would work.
Wow. You still didn't provide an alternate interpretation...after all that? Obviously I didn't overreact! I did not explain clearly enough. I failed to drive the point home....how? I don't know. But you didn’t get it. Clearly.
"It" and "thing" are both suitable words! I don't understand how using them precludes receiving an explanation.
Why would someone voluntarily interpret something in a non literal manner that is written literally? I don't see any non literal interpretation in there that makes any sense. Obviously. If I did, maybe I wouldn't be asking about it.
Calm yourself, answer me, or I'm going to ignore your responses, as I suspect you are just trolling, but am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. _________________ I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
The statement is made to the effect of «Do not try to refute with reason that which is outside the realm of reason» As the list of «challenges» I listed demonstrates, much like playing Texas Hold ‘em with 52 decks hidden on your person a religion offers unlimited “outs”. I react simply by stating that “This argument was heard, judged and found unsound” in the case where there is an audience, I’ll pick apart the argument while I cater to the audience.
The assertion doesn’t really need support, since:
Believe is defined as “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof” hence a “believer” is someone who believes in something which is not rational. Rational is defined as “3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. Reason is defined as “the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.”
Deism and Theism
The problem is that it constitutes a non sequitur in most cases. If you start your argument as a Deist, then use your Deistic argument as proof for your theistic position, you have drawn a conclusion that your premises do not support.
However, if you word it correctly it sounds as if it’s a legitimate argument. Let’s say I argue “god created the Universe, a house is a structure, the universe is a structure therefore, it is logical that they both have creators, therefore God exists. Since God created the Universe, it’s logical that he is the utmost source of morality since he invented morality.” It’s not the best example, but can you see where I switched from Deist to Theist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot is a great example of why Deism cannot be refuted.
Validity of scripture and interpretation
Given that interpretations and credence given to different parts of scripture have changed throughout history, it creates a possibility that at some time that can happen again and this time not towards the good. Assuming the worst possible interpretation is plausible considering that history has proven again and again that such interpretations are lent credence among enough of believers to have an effect on society is thus valid.
In essence it serves to create “outs” for the believer in that by saying “I don’t believe that” the believer tricks the audience into thinking the Atheists argument was refuted when in truth it was not. It’s not possible to make an objective argument from it, therefore it does not add to a debate, it removes the possibility of a debate.
Fallacies, Atheists and my hatred for shadowboxing:
By all means, Atheists commit logical fallacies too; I don’t think I said that they do not. The reason I mentioned it along with the second is because the two combined, believer moving the goalpost and the atheist being trapped in his or her own bias is because they are both equally to blame. The argument isn't flawed, however it is too easy to sidestep it through one of multiple outs a believer has up his or her sleeve.
The “greater good” also known as “god works in mysterious ways” is one of the universal outs offered by most religions. It’s of course beyond my capabilities to figure out why god kills of millions of children each year, it just doesn’t seem like it’s for the greater good.
I’m not sure if I’m able to understand your analogy, it seems to be that where there is light there is shadow, or rather where there is good there must be evil. However, my argument asserts that an omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient god could not be the indirect cause of suffering.
The greater good argument is fine and all, but my argument is a version of the refutation for the “greater good” argument originally made by Epicurus in 300 BC, so in other words your argument was refuted about 2300 years ago.
On the existence of miracles and the supernatural
A reasonable assumption will do in this case, but then if you can scientifically prove that a miracle took place I’m open to changing my stance on this.
In any case, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic, as Russell says in his Teapot.
I didn’t say that Atheist = Rational, I said that belief requires faulty reasoning. This could be while collecting arguments for and against the belief; it could be in weighing them, in examining them or any other part of the process. If Dr Francis Collins, a brilliant Christian scientist was to require the same standards in his faith as in his work on the human genome, it would not be possible for him to conclude that there is a theistic god.
Sometimes people sneak in an argument with snide humor.
Quote:
Clues to it not being an argument; Words like "side note" "and oddly" "seems to" "I thought" "humorous", asking of questions and such.
This seems a bit of an overreaction to something being taken slightly differently than you meant it to be taken.
As a side note, I thought I said "seem to" somewhere in my reply. Oh, wait, I did.
Quote:
Funny thing is, it's almost like I was making inquiries!
You called God "it" and "the thing" and then expected your question to be taken seriously?
Quote:
Maybe a little bit of curiosity seeped out
If you're actually curious, you're going to have to explain what the problem is exactly. Looking at what you quoted, I can't see a reasonable way to interpret it the way you did.
Quote:
couldn't you have been bothered to give an alternate interpretation at least?
Unless I'm mistaken, you're assuming an extremely literalistic interpretation in order to make your criticism work at all. If this is the case, any other interpretation would work.
Wow. You still didn't provide an alternate interpretation...after all that? Obviously I didn't overreact! I did not explain clearly enough. I failed to drive the point home....how? I don't know. But you didn’t get it. Clearly.
"It" and "thing" are both suitable words! I don't understand how using them precludes receiving an explanation.
Why would someone voluntarily interpret something in a non literal manner that is written literally? I don't see any non literal interpretation in there that makes any sense. Obviously. If I did, maybe I wouldn't be asking about it.
Calm yourself, answer me, or I'm going to ignore your responses, as I suspect you are just trolling, but am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You aren't even saying anything rational any more. You're just accusing ancalagon of being a troll without any evidence just because he challenged the snark you made.
And you're trying to push across this false belief that he should obviously believe what you believe when you say 'you didn't get it clearly'.
Your words amount to savage narcissism. That's a pun, but that doesn't make you funny. In fact this is just a long tract of sarcastic bile and conceit. I'd hate to think about how ancalagon feels when you think you're entitled to say he is somehow not calm when your words suggest that you're boiling under your collar. It's probably deeply offensive and to ancalagon it'd also sound amazingly arrogant. Which it does.
I advise against responding with humour from the get go. I have managed to change people around by convincing them when others didn't even try. It has worked.
Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 17859 Location: Stendec
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject:
A splined cube conceals the concept behind the starving rectangle. Reason proceeds outside Humor. Humor stresses its rhythm. Reason scarfs the photograph. Reason riots after a pure subway.
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12092 Location: La belle province
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject:
Ancalagon wrote:
You called God "it" and "the thing" and then expected your question to be taken seriously?
Should everybody *have* to say "Him" and "His"? What if, since a person does not know for certain about the existence of God/s, they don't apply this Abrahamaic categorization, instead preferring non specific, open statements like "God/s", or "It/They"? They are not worth taking seriously because they treat all theistic positions equal? _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
