Sometimes, one of UD’s frequent objectors makes an inadvertently telling objection that deserves highlighting in order to publicly document what we are up against. In this case, AK has provided us with TWO, as headlined. Accordingly, over the past several days, I responded in the Skeptical Review thread. This morning, on seeing doubling down, I have further responded and I now highlight for all to see:
KF, 125: >> . . . let us go back to your context from 64 above: “the ID technique [–> that’s already a Big Lie agit prop tactic and slander] that you excel at called the Gish Gallop [–> diagnostic, terrible sign], made famous by Duane Gish and others [–> root-slander]” and again at 100 above: “evil is a concept fabricated by religion.”
Before anything else, I note this is an attempt to relativise and dismiss the reality of evil and to side-step two significant developments. First, that while up to the 50’s – 70’s the appeal to the problem of evils was a favourite tactic of atheists to try to dismiss the reality of God. But after Plantinga’s highly successful free will defense [–> cf. PS below] was put on the table the deductive form collapsed and the inductive one was broken in its impact. But of course, some of us are old enough to remember and to bear witness.
The second matter turns on recognising what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon:
EVIL: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc.
As WmAD famously highlighted from Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, that issue is the problem of good:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
I doubt that you would as cavalierly assert through the confident manner fallacy: evil [–> GOOD] is a concept fabricated by religion . . .
But the two are inextricably intertwined, indeed evil parasites off the good and much of its repugnance when its destructive effects are manifest for all to see comes from its patent violation and frustration of what is a manifest proper end.
And so, we can hardly but observe that you are forced to appeal to our sense of duty to truth, justice and more, even as you work as a saw-tooth cutting away at our connexion to the root of such things.
Now, Rational Wiki (and no I will not link the source, do your own search):
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.” [U/D May 16: Subsequently RW updated their definition to speak of “weak arguments.” This is itself problematic (as, in inductive contexts arguments may mutually reinforce as a cumulative case and “weakness” is often a matter of opinion, especially when tendentious charges of “half truth” and out of context or distorted quotes or the notion that you cannot use an expert’s admission against interest are in play) and it turns out that Ms Scott suggested misleading citation and used “half truth” — a half truth being a whole lie — right from the beginning. As at May 15, 2018, Wikipedia used: “During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.” The term is clearly tainted with invidious insinuations and attacks to the man. It should not be used, especially as it is already a case of attacking a man, by its very name.]
Each tooth of a saw cuts a tiny curlicue of sawdust, but with many teeth going zip-zip-zip, soon a pile of sawdust tells how much of a cut has been given. (That is how mass-mobilisation agit prop activism cumulatively wreaks havoc.)
Now, too, before I speak more specifically, remember my metaphor just above on the cumulative impact of corrosive polarising slander and cutting off the roots of our civilisation — noting, the dismissive genetic fallacy on evil also made by you, AK: one tooth of a zipping saw does not do much, it seems, from how tiny a sawdust shaving is. But once we see many teeth in action, the cumulative effect is huge as the sawdust pile grows and grows and grows zip-zip-zip, especially if the branch we are sitting on is under strain and has to bear all of us.
Then, beyond a certain unpredictable point, a critical threshold is hit and CRAACK, SNAP, COLLAPSE.
Too late, bitterly too late.
Where, we are dealing with a civilisation that — having nukes — is far too dangerous to fail safely.
In that light, AK’s strawman tactic of twisting my words into:
Civilization is going to come crashing down because I used the term “Gish gallop” . . .
. . . only manages to show the sort of destructive blindness caused by evil and in accumulation, the zipping saw at suicidal work in our civilisation may well precipitate the unthinkable.
FYI, AK, you sheared off one little curlicue of sawdust from the branch on which we are all sitting. You did this by a doubly slanderous reference. Which, I called you on, and which you show no signs of due responsiveness and responsibility over. And indeed, making that particular reference is a serious sign of how far the rot has progressed in a particular case.
I don’t know if we can wake up from the stupor of a Plato’s Cave suicidal horror show already in progress, but that will take a miracle of mass repentance.
This I do know, our civilisation is in self-induced mortal peril, and the saws are busily zipping away with destructive agit prop cutting us off from the root and support that are vital for our civilisation to thrive.
Not that the blinded, benumbed and polarised will be particularly inclined to wake up to, face and do something about our common peril.
Now, here is my longstanding response to the Gish-smear slander, here at UD (and no it is not a threat to ban, in answer to yet another twister of facts and issues out there):
In short, this term [= Gish gallop] is an accusation of lying, distorting and the like on a wholesale basis, further allegedly in order to overwhelm an opponent and thus prevent answering the flood of falsehoods.
Something is very wrong here, however, even after taking the questionable list of sources cited at face value for the moment, for the sake of discussion.
For, it is well known that to select several examples of actual falsehood or gross error and to expose them normally suffices to ground the conclusion that the party who has actually indulged such a flood of false assertions, is not responsible or credible and should be dismissed.
One slice of such a spoiled cake has in it all the ingredients, and all that.
In short, if the accusation were TRUE, it would be quite easy to overturn such an argument.
It would fail so spectacularly, that it would be rhetorically suicidal.
Provided, the other side of the debate or discussion were in command of the actual facts, not mere ideological talking points and disputable opinions.
So, it is quite plain that there is no real need for such a named fallacy.
And, in the case of Mr Gish, it is well known that he consistently won debates on origins science by focussing on the problem that the fossil record is full of gaps that lead to a want of on-the-ground evidence for body-plan level macroevolution. [Kindly, see the linked discussion of the real facts, — let me now use the unlimited number of links capacity of an OP: “here is Ken Ham’s summary of the relevant history, and here and here we may see John Morris of ICR on debates. It is to be noted that Creationist spokesmen, for forty years, have actively sought debates, and have had such a long-running pattern of success, that it is the advocates of body-plan level Macro-Evolution by blind chance and necessity who have counselled their colleagues not to participate in debates. As a result, while Gish seems to have taken part in some 300 – 400 debates and Henry Morris some 100, such are reportedly rare today.”]
Nobody wins 300+:0 public debates, inducing opponents to find excuses to dodge further debates and to smear the debater unless he stands on solid facts and cogent reasoning. In this case, were [neo-] darwinist evolutionary theory even roughly true, 250+k fossil species in museums and the billions of further readily seen fossils in the field [e.g. Barbados, where I have lived, is literally built out of layers of fossil limestone, often in the form of corals] would overwhelm us with gradualism of body form transformation as a dominant, obvious pattern. Instead, as Gould et al inadvertently highlighted by championing Punctuated Equilibria, the actual pattern is one of systematic gaps and persistent absence of the roots of the tree of life icon — OoL by blind watchmaker mechanisms. That’s why we see so many evolutionary just so stories in the textbooks, the museums, the documentaries and the literature.
By utter contrast, we may answer the slanders against ID simply and directly.
On a trillion directly observed cases [including your objecting comments above, which are meaningful text strings], functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information — FSCO/I for handy short — is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration [= design] as relevant cause. This is backed up by the search challenge posed by blind chance and mechanical necessity driven needle in haystack search for configuration spaces that start at the 500 to 1,000 bit threshold of complexity. That is, such a search challenge overwhelms sol system or observed cosmos scale resources, given 3.27*10-150 to 1.07*10^301 and sharply up possibilities, overwhemingly non-functional gibberish.
The only empirically warranted, analytically plausible cause of FSCO/I is design.
PS: Let me excerpt here a short summary [scroll down here] of Plantinga’s reply to the problem of evil:
>>Leading design theorist and philosopher-theologian William Dembski helps us put the intellectual forms of the problem of evil in context, by citing the sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . .
The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” [“Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate,” Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
In short, when we come to core worldview problems, we should address the comparative difficulties of the main alternatives, and make our choice on which difficulties it is better to live with.
Plantinga’s free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction:
1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent – all powerful
3. God is omniscient – all-knowing
4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good
5. God created the world
6. The world contains evil
To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of — but obviously does not eliminate — evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1.
Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist.
However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:
2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos.
Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ?
In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.
Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense — was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6.
The essence of that defense is:
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.]
Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul:
Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV]
Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Gordon, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.)
Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible.
At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table.
It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs.
However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making.
Where then does the problem of evil stand today?
On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. >>
PPS: For reference, the seven mountains model:
. . . also, the window of change/change challenge model:
. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:
H’mm, I feel prompted to add this, on the SWOT-BAU vs. ALT solution strategy (which ideally works by bringing a cross-section of stakeholders . . . including hitherto marginalised ones . . . to the table to ponder together a wall-sized version of the chart and use ZOPP-style contributions to collaboratively synthesise a solution-strategy):
PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):
KF, 151:>>I took time out to track down the essay where the ideas are introduced by Ms Scott. The taint [of slander] I pointed out is there from the outset. Ms Scott complains on citing Gould on the trade secret of paleontology, then says:
Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time.
[–> she later contradicts herself on this point, arguing for a tight time debate format that locks out substantiating the big picture problem that is at stake; surely, 45 minutes and what a 20 – 30 minute rebuttal is a lot of time, especially after hundreds of debates have been done and books have been published so the substance is no surprise. BTW, Creation Scientists Answer their critics is a key part of that literature, as well as Gish’s Fossils say no series]
And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, your audience is left with the , “Yeah, but…” syndrome: well, maybe there are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric dating, YEAH, BUT why didn’t that evolutionist answer the question about polonium halos?” (or some other argument.)
[–> Thin gruel. If one has solidly broken several key cases AND has laid out the positive evidence that actually shows by clear observed case the pattern of body-plan level macroevo that surely is there all across the fossil record, the other side should be shattered. Oh, maybe, the point is, that from molecular machines in the cell to major body plans, there is a systematic pattern of gaps and islands of function isolated by gaps without functional forms . . . in which case Gish and co clearly have a point, one the public has a RIGHT to hear.]
The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what . . . .
[–> suspicion that a case has not been made on the empirical merits, substantiating the arguments by icon?]
Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a narrowly-focused exchange in which the debaters deal with a limited number of topics. Instead of the “Gish Gallop” format of most debates where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error
[–> see the contradiction? What about the cross-complaint that YEARS of schooling, hundreds of hours of TV time, acres of museum space and more are used to indoctrinate and it is complained that there should never be a forum where both sides can make the case they have in summary at feature article length or book chapter length?]
that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time.
There is much that is utterly wrong with this essay, for reasons already highlighted and in part noted in-quote.
In particular, a torrent of half-truths is a thinly veiled way of saying reams of lies. For, a half-truth is a whole lie.Including twisted quotation — as I was accused of above. I here substantiate that my concern was there from the beginning, though Ms Scott is a bit more genteel than the raw statement in Rational Wiki which I found years ago on first encountering this pseudo-fallacy.
Where spewing reams of half-truths, lies, distorted dishonest quotes etc is an actual problem, any half-decent lawyer knows that if you pick out several points of error, and properly expose falsity and deceit or even just incompetence, the credibility of the other side is shattered.
So, the rhetorical premise Scott offers is fundamentally false.
Her claims about Creationists dodging narrow formats is also misleading, as in fact the claimed gradualism is a matter of a wide array of evidence relative to 150 years of fossils, with a broad pattern that should be there but is not. That’s Gould’s famous trade secret. And no it’s not just rates, the rates issue [as is suggested in Punctuated Equilibria] was put up to explain the gaps. The systematic gaps.
So, the core point is there, right from the beginning. The term is tainted, it insinuates deceitful insincerity and manipulation of the public. Even, going so far as to suggest that a format that gives time to make the case is calculated to get away with in effect public education fraud.
I am reminded of the what, six year old offer here at UD that we would publish an up to 6,000 word or so (the limit is generous and flexible, where at 120 WPM that is 50 minutes of speech, about the times in question) essay that would outline and substantiate the core blind watchmaker thesis case for ooL and tree of life. Links can go elsewhere but the case as a summary must be made in the essay. After a year of pursuing it, no satisfactory submission was received from the penumbra of objector sites.
That is relevant to the credibility of the argument Ms Scott made. No, I do not buy the claim, for cause.
Coming back to the core point, it is clear that “Gish gallop” is loaded to the point of slander and should not be used. it boils down to saying that if one puts up a sustained, lecture length or magazine feature article length argument with many sources, using expert testimony against interest one is a liar and misquoter, pretty automatically.
That is patently false and unjustifiably accusatory.
It is time this was set aside.
And, web searches show the term is now being migrated into making even more loaded political points in what is in effect a policy opinion verbal war that is deeply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion.
Something is wrong here, seriously wrong.
Something connected to the obvious ongoing suicide of our civilisation.
It is time to turn back before the crumbling cliff’s edge collapses underfoot.>>
Comments
Allan Keith:
I just state that nobody has provided evidence that I find compelling enough to toss out evolution as the best explanation.
Your shameless and cowardly equivocation is duly noted. As is your inability to assess the evidence.
There isn't any evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce anything but genetic diseases and deformities.ET
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
blip,
Allan, no, you are not hyper-skeptical because you don’t blindly accept God did it. You are so because you do not want to accept, eyes wide open and seeing clearly, that God may have done it, let alone actually did it.
I have never denied that god, or some other designer, may have been responsible for life. I just state that nobody has provided evidence that I find compelling enough to toss out evolution as the best explanation.Allan Keith
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
blip at 64;
"You will spill yet more ink like a squid trying to vanish before you admit this applies to you but it clearly does, "
What an apt metaphor!bornagain77
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims.
All evidence to the contrary, of course. Atheistic materialism makes extraordinary claims- claims that cannot be tested. And it reliance of sheer dumb luck pushes it outside the realm of science.
Allan is either deluded or a pathological liar.ET
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
For any claim, extraordinary or otherwise, all I am looking for is compelling evidence to support them.
All evidence to the contrary, of course. Evolutionism and materialism make untestable claims and don't have any evidentiary support.ET
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
jdk @ 62:
Do I qualify as a skeptic? ????
That would depend on how you came to your your beliefs, but you aren't disqualified on the basis of materialism ;)LocalMinimum
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
Kairosfocus@58&59, I honestly don’t understand what you are on about.
That's ok, the rest of us get it.Mung
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
AK, you would do well to note Blip's observations. I point out that it is not just a matter of your having made a rhetorical opening by a slip of pen. The remark I cited and corrected above unfortunately rings true as a summary of general approach. I therefore draw out a further point: selective hyperskepticism implies that one rejects improperly what s/he sould at minimum consider fairly and responsibly AND it also means that one is hyper-credulous towards things one is inclined to accept. Accordingly, it is wise to ask, why am I exerting an evidentiary double-standard. That is a hard question, but an important one. And BTW, the elevatorgate scandal of some years ago at an atheists conference is a capital example of how that practice tends to spread through becoming a habit. The difference is, women were complaining of sexual advances and that issue is one that is not so easily brushed aside. On the table is a matter of a gross error on defining evil involving the genetic fallacy and obvious contempt towards the Christian Faith. It is significant that you have been largely unresponsive to a form of a longstanding, time-tested definition that is powerful i/l/o say Kant's Categorical Imperative. Likewise, you are clearly guilty of prejudicial projections and slander including to people who have put not just career but quite literally life on the line on matters of truth. I don't know if that point will wake you up to the magnitude of the slander you indulged, but it should. The accusatory, slanderous term Gish Gallop is utterly illegitimate, was set up by Ms Scott of NCSE et al as a stereotyping, scapegoating smear, has been used to unjustifiably marginalise and dismiss without fair consideration, and worse. It should be set aside with due expression of regret for uncivil behaviour and should never be used again. That is the sort of thing that has to be done to rebuild a basis for serious conversation, resort to such dismissive slander is a breach of civility of the first magnitude. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Blip, your comment is well within the reasonable, responsible comment standard. It is strong, but we expect strong commentary at UD. Our request and insistence is that such be civil. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2018
May
05
May
15
15
2018
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
Allan, no, you are not hyper-skeptical because you don't blindly accept God did it. You are so because you do not want to accept, eyes wide open and seeing clearly, that God may have done it, let alone actually did it. On the other hand, you will swallow hook, line, and sinker, the poof-the-big-bang-did-the-evolution-that-did-it! dogma because it's expedient for you to do so, to justify your craven desires.
People here have given you many things to consider carefully, from science, philosophy, logic, mathematics, humanities, politics,... But you refuse to bother to even consider any evidence, discarding it instead with the mocking disdain or the shallow jest that is your signature.
I know well where you come from. I am well acquainted with atheists like you. I was a different kind of atheist, one who also assumed any form of theism was a crutch, a lie, a manipulation (that word you like to twist). But I was willing to listen, learn, discuss, disagree, re-engage. Because truth and understanding were my desire and my guide.
Not so with you. To you, truth is true if it gets you your way, or gets you ahead by whatever metric you may be using at the moment that convinces you that you are getting ahead.
And when the winds change, it's time to make the truth false.
In your sick little world, the metric must forever be changing, at your service. Because you must be Master of the Metric, at all cost. You must be god. It's Babel all over again, fist raised in the air, middle finger, or the trusty old phallus, depending on the victim you have in mind.
You will spill yet more ink like a squid trying to vanish before you admit this applies to you but it clearly does, as can easily be seen in your earlier comments when manipulation was used by you, initially with the correct, negative, meaning. It was made very obvious how you meant it by your reference to pastors being manipulative. So you let the cat out of the bag. Then when I challenged you on it, rather than admitting you were being manipulative in the normal, negative, sense of the word, suddenly manipulation took on a positive meaning. But the cat was already out of the bag. You were not speaking positively about pastors, as is obvious to everyone, but you thought it expedient to lie to get your way. And rather than admit it or have the common sense to sweep it under the carpet and hope no one would bring it up again, you doubled down. The only problem is, no one here is stupid, although you are beginning to make a very credible candidate yourself.
Sometimes you might take on a false magnanimous aura, "Oh, the Americans did the right thing by being considerate to their vanquished enemies, but I don't see that requiring God." All the while brushing under the carpet the fact that the materialist-socialist-atheist fascists (Nazis, and allies) and the materialist-socialist-atheist communists (Soviets), felt no such compulsion to be considerate, since their stomach was their god. Like you. May you never hold another's lunch bag in your hands.
Eventually, the deceit wears thin. Invariably, the approach leads to tyranny. Over others first, whomever happens to be within your reach. But ultimately, over yourself. Yet you will lose the most. You aren't aware yet how much you are about to lose.
Frankly, had I experienced a discussion like this during my years as an atheist, and someone had called me out for being the liar that you are, I would have been so ashamed of myself, my conscience would have gotten the better of me. And I would have had to accept correction, painful as it would have been. But it's ultimately more painful to be a self-serving fraud like you. Thankfully, it was not necessary, because the desire for truth and understanding were stronger in me than my own will to get my own way.
That is the difference between former atheists like me and you. Not that I was better than you back then nor am I better than you now. But I am willing to face the truth, to be corrected, to learn, to listen, to do the hard work necessary to understand. I'm also willing to be truthful, which is why I don't mince words and call you a liar. Unlike you, I get no pleasure out of calling people out. But you will hear the truth, that you may have the opportunity to receive hope. For there is hope.
But as of now, you won't give a moment's thought to the need to engage in honesty, to provide evidence based on reason outside of yourself, to consider another's perspective, to engage in a serious discussion. Your approach generally ends in your opinion as fact, in facts another brings up as opinion, and in your signature snarky remark. You don't even have sufficient respect for yourself. Which is why it's so easy for you to show no respect for anyone else.
Because ultimately, that is all atheists like you have to offer. Your self-absorbed, self-inflated, all-important, pathetic little will. You think you offer anyone here a challenge to their "thinking outside the box". Your ego betrays you. Your evidence non-existent, your arguments childish, irrational, boring, mocking. One big ZERO all around. There's your future.
Your problem is not just banal ignorance. It is heart disease.
It does not have to be so.
But as God hardened pharaoh's heart by telling him what would happen and pharoah fell for it by setting his will against God, so you harden your heart by hearing the truth spoken to you and you setting your will against it. Rather than reflecting for your own sake.
But the day will come when you will know the truth so well that you will be completely helpless to twist it. You won't even be able to deceive yourself any longer into believing that you are right. You will not be able to plead ignorance for the choices you make. The day approaches quickly.
The only question remaining is whether it will be too late.
[To anyone who has read this message and feels upset in any way, I offer no apology. If canceling my access to commenting is considered prudent, I understand and will continue to thank you for your many good articles, excellent comments, discussions, links, and the great effort expended in providing a wealth of information, citations, resources from so many different fields, in a unified world view. Well done! I will continue to read and learn.]blip
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
LM,
Materialism is inherently incompatible with genuine skepticism.
No more so than theists, or deists, or Republicans.
The principle refers to current enemies, even those that become future enemies. “Purely self-serving” was not offered as a prerequisite.
No, I offered it as an observation.
Oh, no. You’re not going to pick fights then hide behind me.
Who’s picking fights? I just like a good discussion. If others perceive it as a fight then that is their problem. I am a lover, not a fighter.
I just wanted to give credit where it’s due, in our own discussion.
I get so little praise here, I take all I can get. :)Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
LM writes,
Atheistic skeptics tend to identify as agnostic, or at least not as materialists.
I'm agnostic about materialism (but lean toward that not being the case), and agnostic about the existence of some type of cosmic something that is not material, but atheistic in that I think that all gods that humans believe in, no matter what the religion, don't exist.
Do I qualify as a skeptic? :-)jdk
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
I can’t recall any proper skeptics who’ve identified as atheistic materialist.
Look closer.
Materialism is inherently incompatible with genuine skepticism.
It develops limits for reality on the basis of human cognition, while offering "just is but nothing more" handwaves of that which is and is likely to remain outside human understanding. All this anthropocentric nonsense while demanding human understanding is nothing special.
No proper skeptic would be satisfied with this.
Atheistic skeptics tend to identify as agnostic, or at least not as materialists.
If I communicate with and provide support to my past enemies, they are less likely to be future enemies. A purely self-serving and manipulative strategy, a strategy that I happen to support.
The principle refers to current enemies, even those that become future enemies. "Purely self-serving" was not offered as a prerequisite.
Thank you. I’m obviously not the complete {SNIP — language, thread owner] that some here would project.
Oh, no. You're not going to pick fights then hide behind me. I just wanted to give credit where it's due, in our own discussion.LocalMinimum
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus@58&59, I honestly don’t understand what you are on about. All I said is that I am skeptical of extraordinary claims. I am skeptical of Bigfoot, alien abductions, and the existance of god. At no point did I say that I needed extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise. Those are words that you put in my mouth, took offence to, and then berated me for. And you talk about others raising strawmen.
For any claim, extraordinary or otherwise, all I am looking for is compelling evidence to support them. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence for the existance of god, or the evils of sex education, contraceptives, homosexuality or same sex marriage. Or for the existance of objective morality, or for the decline of morality and civilization. Maybe compelling evidence exists for all of this, but you certainly have not presented any. When you do, I will reassess my opinions.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
PS: Let me continue from where you so cleverly cut off citation:
>>Which seems to be a compressed form of a common
epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism.
To see why it is a gross error, simply reflect on the correction:
In short, the selectively hyperskeptical assertion is a
clever-sounding way to announce selective closed-mindedness. What “I”
am inclined to agree with is of course not “extraordinary.” But,
equally of course, what “I” am disinclined to believe must meet
extra-stringent standards, usually calibrated to be beyond the evidence
that is available on the question, which is usually a pressing issue.
>>kairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
AK, I already took time to explain the error and to correct it. If you had even bothered to look at the specific one line correction to Sagan's form of Cliffordian evidentialism [yes, that is a technical name] -- which is the popular one nowadays, you would have seen the corrections in a nutshell by use of strike and insert. I amplified and took time to cite a longstanding corrective from Greenleaf's Treatise on Evidence. I have done my job, now it is time for you to do yours. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
Which seems to be a compressed form of a common epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism.
Those are big words that appear to preclude an illuminating prognostication that present a counter-argumentative rebuttal of... OK, as the youth say WTF? What are you trying to say?
Are you saying that I am being hyperskeptical because I don’t blindly accept your claim that god-did-it?Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
AK,
I see your:
A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims,
Which seems to be a compressed form of a common epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism. To see why it is a gross error, simply reflect on the correction:
In short, the selectively hyperskeptical assertion is a clever-sounding way to announce selective closed-mindedness. What "I" am inclined to agree with is of course not "extraordinary." But, equally of course, what "I" am disinclined to believe must meet extra-stringent standards, usually calibrated to be beyond the evidence that is available on the question, which is usually a pressing issue.
Such a self-serving double standard on warrant is patently fallacious.
Instead, what is needed is a reasonable, responsible standard, which duly and consistently weighs the sort of evidence and argument that are likely to be available and the near and far, immediate and cumulative consequences of rejecting truth or accepting error on relevant matters.
Greenleaf had something significant to say:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [--> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle uncertain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.]
Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [--> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.]
The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [--> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.]
The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [--> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.]
By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [--> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [--> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts -- explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. ] [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
I suggest, you need to take an inventory of how you have approached warrant on a list of significant issues that have come up here at UD, and on broader issues in general. Selective hyperskepticism tends to become a destructive, self-serving habit of mind.
KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
LocalMinimum,
I can’t recall any proper skeptics who’ve identified as atheistic materialist.
Look closer.
That’s in there, too. But it goes a step further, in actually considering and acting to further the welfare of folks you aren’t getting along with.
For who’s benefit? If I communicate with and provide support to my past enemies, they are less likely to be future enemies. A purely self-serving and manipulative strategy, a strategy that I happen to support. But the bigger question is, why aren’t we using this strategy more often before they become enemies? Rather than take this approach, we invoke sanctions.
I very much like your example for the principle, though.
Thank you. I’m obviously not the complete {SNIP -- language, thread owner] that some here would project. I’m looking at you Barry. :)Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
AK @ 49:
No. A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims.
I can't recall any proper skeptics who've identified as atheistic materialist. What I see is Epicureans who've surrendered skepticism, if they could even find it in the first place.
Materialism as a creed is generally a failure to come to terms with epistemology.
Personally, I think “Forgive thine enemies” would have been more appropriate.
That's in there, too. But it goes a step further, in actually considering and acting to further the welfare of folks you aren't getting along with.
I agree that it would require extraordinary wisdom, but I don’t see where the faith in a higher being is necessary.
Hence the junction "or".
For example, it would have been easy after WWII to severely punish the Germans and Japanese. But cooler (and smarter) heads prevailed. They realized that if you want to prevent recurrence, you don’t do something that will just ingender continued hatred from those who were your enemies. The US approach of providing aid and support to get its enemies back on their feet and prospering is something that took guts. But it was the smart thing to do if the goal was long term peace. And this did not require the faith in a higher being to realize this.
The conflict proceeding immediately in historical terms from the conclusion of "The Great War" and the punitive treaty with Germany, I don't even know if it could be properly called hindsight.
I very much like your example for the principle, though.LocalMinimum
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
AK
No. A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims.
Like the extraordinary claim . . .
Well, you get the picture. I could go on all day.
AK is typical of A/Mats who would impose super heavy evidentiary burdens on theists for what the A/Mats label "extraordinary claims" while at the same time swallowing their own extraordinary claims down with nary a thought for the fact that they lack even the slightest evidentiary support.Barry Arrington
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
AK
No. A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims.
Like the extraordinary claim that everything came from nothing? Or the universe created itself? Or "because we have something (e.g., gravity), the universe can and will create itself from nothing?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of those extraordinary claims. Can you point me to one?Barry Arrington
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
AK
No. A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims.
Like the extraordinary claim that non-living chemicals spontaneously combined in just the right way to become living things?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of that extraordinary claim. Can you point me to one?Barry Arrington
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
AK
No. A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims.
Like the extraordinary claim that a bag of chemicals configured in just the right way suddenly becomes subjectively self-aware?
Funny, I've never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of that extraordinary claim. Can you point me to one?Barry Arrington
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
LcalMinimum,
Denial of the extraordinary claims would be consistent with your position as an A/Mat.
No. A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims. And I don't apologize for that.
A fair admission. This command points to a higher road and a higher principle that improves lives and the world in general; but it requires extraordinary wisdom or faith in a higher Being to look past the immediate self-imposed deficits.
Personally, I think "Forgive thine enemies" would have been more appropriate. But I must have missed the public consultation process.
I agree that it would require extraordinary wisdom, but I don't see where the faith in a higher being is necessary. For example, it would have been easy after WWII to severely punish the Germans and Japanese. But cooler (and smarter) heads prevailed. They realized that if you want to prevent recurrence, you don't do something that will just ingender continued hatred from those who were your enemies. The US approach of providing aid and support to get its enemies back on their feet and prospering is something that took guts. But it was the smart thing to do if the goal was long term peace. And this did not require the faith in a higher being to realize this.Allan Keith
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
AK @ 39:
Denial of the extraordinary claims would be consistent with your position as an A/Mat.
“Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You”.
But maybe that is because I am not as forgiving as Jesus.
A fair admission. This command points to a higher road and a higher principle that improves lives and the world in general; but it requires extraordinary wisdom or faith in a higher Being to look past the immediate self-imposed deficits.LocalMinimum
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
“evil is a concept fabricated by religion”
Is that bad? If it is not bad, then why care?Mung
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
Who said that we are?
Observation.Mung
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
AK
It is merely my opinion based on my interpretation of the evidence available to me.
What evidence is that?bill cole
May 14, 2018
May
05
May
14
14
2018
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Why are atheists seeking a world of truth,…
Who said that we are?
This is kind where the rub is. You a/mats invariably misrepresent yourselves. You try to pass yourselves off as good people, when just below the surface you intend to compromise anything that might resemble an actual position re:the truth. Anything Might Go.
Andrewasauber
. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:
PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):