How to Engage in Argumentum ad Gannitum

_{Barry Arrington

November 13, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today I coin a new Latin phrase in honor of our frequent interlocutor daveS. Here it is: Argumentum ad Gannitum – the argument from whining. (“Gannitum” being Latin for “whining”).

The argument from whining takes this form:

Person A makes an argument supported by logic and evidence that he believes compels a conclusion.

Person B, instead of making a counter argument based on logic and evidence, says something like “Admit that you may be wrong” or “It’s not my job to show you how you are wrong.”

Here is an example from a recent combox discussion with daveS:

Barry makes the following argument:

Either there is a God or there is not. If there is a God, meaning is possible. If there is no God, meaning is not possible. Let us, therefore, assume for the sake of argument that an atheist such as yourself is correct. There is no God. Therefore, meaning is not possible.

daveS responds:

Barry, Is it possible that you are wrong?

No, really, that is his response. Check it out here.

Uh, yeah dave, it is certainly possible that I am wrong. But no one will ever know that I am wrong if all you do is whine about my argument instead of attempt to rebut it.

In fairness, dave later made a run at trying to show meaning in a meaningless universe. It amounted to “I know there is no meaning, but I feel like there is, so there is.”

Comments

What is amazing is that our interlocutors can’t tolerate even the idea there is some transcendent meaning and purpose to human existence but they can’t logically refute it either. Let me restate the argument I gave @ #10.
If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. The universe is all that exists. Therefore, there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence.
The argument stands or falls on whether or not the second premise is true. If it’s true then prove it to me. If you can, then I accept that there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to our existence and that the only purpose and meaning that we can have is what we invent for ourselves. However, I don’t see how you can argue the other way. It doesn’t logically follow that if you don’t believe there is any ultimate purpose and meaning to life (or you can get along fine just believing that) that there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to life. If that’s what you think then what you are really saying is: ‘this is what I believe, therefore, it is true for everyone else.’ Does that justify you showing up here so you can be intentionally obtuse and so you can obstruct and obfuscate.john_a_designer_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Dave
I spoke above about whether my actions could have purpose or meaning. Are these part of the universe? It’s not clear to me that they are, since they would seem to be non-material. What do you think?
You have crowded several ideas in one sentence. [a] Your actions proceed from your existence. If your existence has no meaning, then neither do your actions. [b] However, your instincts are sound insofar as you recognize the existence of non-material realities. That alone shows that you do not believe that the physical universe is all there is. [c] While your actions are neither material nor immaterial (actions are not things), the intentions behind those actions are, indeed, immaterial. In other words, you are a composite of spirit and matter (you have both a mind [an immaterial faculty] and a brain [a material organ]. Your intentions do have meaning because you exist in a meaningful universe that was designed in such a way that you could have immaterial thoughts, made possible by your immaterial faculties of mind and will. Matter (body, brain) cannot produce non-matter (thoughts).StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
CR, you will never have a good reason to reject frirst principles of reason as to object you must appeal to same. They are where reasoning starts, recognition of distinct identity. Game over. KF
KF - Precisely. It begins with the recognition of distinct identities (recognizing the "whatness" of a thing.) That is why I asked JDK, of happy memory, if he knew that a dog is a dog (and nothing else), if a cat is a cat (and nothing else), and it is, therefore, false to say that a dog is a cat. He could not answer the question.StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I spoke above about whether my actions could have purpose or meaning. Are these part of the universe? It's not clear to me that they are, since they would seem to be non-material. What do you think?daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

DaveS
Suppose we alter your statement a bit by deleting the word “ultimate” and focusing it on the actions of a particular individual (me, for example)
Let's try it another way, Dave. Would you agree that when Barry refers to "the" universe, he means the whole universe, and not just most of it or parts of it? Would you agree that if the whole universe is without meaning, then all of its parts are also without meaning? Would you agree that as an atheist, you are a part of that same meaningless universe? Would you agree, then, that as a part of a meaningless universe, your life must also be without meaning? ------------------------------------------------------------ The good news is that the universe is not without meaning, so your life can have meaning if you choose to accept it.StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Barry, Not to be flip, but would you balance that by getting out in the world from time to time? Hike in the woods, go to a concert, have a plate of pad thai, for example?daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

dave
Can you describe how I should feel about this apparent lack of transcendent meaning and purpose?
If I truly believed what you say you believe, I would constantly think about Camus, who observed that the only interesting question in philosophy is whether to kill yourself in the face of the patent absurdity of life without meaning.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

CR, you will never have a good reason to reject frirst principles of reason as to object you must appeal to same. They are where reasoning starts, recognition of distinct identity. Game over. KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

BA
Cats on the other hand . . .
I think that it is self-evidently true that cats have purpose and meaning. It is to keep their pet humans on their toes and to get them to perform silly tricks. :)Ed George_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

In #6 Seversky: "What is intriguing about this debate is how Christians believe their lives have meaning only if they were created to serve the inscrutable purposes of another being, in this case their God. Why is it that only God’s purpose counts?" The mind of God is not inscrutable. And who told you only God's purpose counts? Humans can come to an understanding of what God has in mind. And humans do have purpose in this world that is meaningful in every sense of the word. Nobody can hand this knowledge to you. Every person has to come to their own discovery and sometimes this is not easy. In general life is not easy when it comes to many things. Get used to it. If you want to rely on memes from science fiction movies to build some argument to try and convince someone else you know the truth of our existence -- good luck. (I used a little “t” on purpose there :). Many people have detailed knowledge of modern fictional movies and books they believe might apply to life and little real knowledge of things that do. #31 j_a_d There are no stupid questions but there are willfully stupid people who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.LoneCycler_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

@KF You're still assuming a dichotomy between beliefs and basic-beliefs. However, you still haven't actually presented an example of a "self-evident" truth that doesn't also meet the definition of an idea that we currently lack good criticism of. Why do you think that is?critical rationalist_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Barry,
What about it lantog, are you one of those like daveS who who can stare contentedly into the abyss, because he feels OK so long as he doesn’t think about it too much?
Heh. Can you describe how I should feel about this apparent lack of transcendent meaning and purpose? Please put yourself in my shoes and tell me what would go through your mind.daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

lantog,
I disagree that our lives only have meaning if its transcendent meaning- meaning that comes from God’s purpose for our lives.
Same straw man Seversky tried to erect. I will repeat what I said to him, because you apparently did not read it, or if you did, it did not sink in:
Everyone, including atheists, believe there can be transcendent meaning only if there is transcendence. It is very simple logic. I don’t know why it is so hard for you Sev.
lantog, if you insist transcendent meaning can exist in the absence of transcendence, I invite you to lay your case out. BTW, nonsense such as "what if God wants to kill my children" does not even address the question, much less answer it. To your point, you say we can have "meaning" even in the absence of transcendent meaning. Here you seem not to have read my response to daveS. I will repeat it:
Proposition: If particles in motion are all that exist, there is no transcendent meaning to life. dave’s response: That is true, but mindless, purposeless evolutionary forces compel me to feel a sense of satisfaction on account of X. Therefore, X gives my life meaning. Well OK dave. Let’s fill in X with “eating chocolate ice cream.” Mindless, purposeless evolutionary forces compel dave to feel a sense of satisfaction when he eats chocolate ice cream. Therefore, eating chocolate ice cream gives dave’s life meaning. No dave. Eating chocolate ice cream does not give your life transcendent meaning. And neither does anything else you substitute for X. Nothing that mindless, purposeless evolutionary forces compel you to feel a sense of satisfaction on account of is meaningful in the sense under discussion.
What about it lantog, are you one of those like daveS who who can stare contentedly into the abyss, because he feels OK so long as he doesn't think about it too much? Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

CR @ 29. I actually posted a response to your comment. Then I slapped my forehead and realized that you reject rationality itself. Therefore, attempting to have a rational discussion with you is pointless. So I deleted it.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

News @ 11 (that sounds like my local news station) Yes, it appears that western civilization is about to go off the rails. Things appear to me to be a lot worse than they were 30 to 40 years ago. The intellectual dysfunction of the internet is exhibit A of that fact but maybe I need to get out more. Of course, it may be that the internet is the bottom of the drain where all the dregs collect. I actually find myself hoping that is true but I fear that is really just a rationalization. Back in the mid 1980’s (now I am dating myself) I was working as a campus minister on a large secular university campus. From time to time I would give lectures in the lounges some of the dormitories. Ironically, I had several lectures that were separately based the published works of Michael Denton, William Lane Craig and philosopher Alvin Plantinga, all of whom were relatively unknown at the time. (William Dembski, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyer weren’t even on the scene back then.) Like a lot of people who give talks in a less than friendly environments I would open my lectures afterwards for questions. I would usually preface the Q and A session with the statement, “There are no stupid questions.” Of course, there were still a few stupid questions but for the most part I could trust the good will of even much younger people who disagreed with me. The internet has changed my view that there are no stupid questions. For example, most of the questions that I come across from our interlocutors on this site are not only inane and stupid, they are also intellectually dishonest. A “gotcha” question is not an honest question. All of this undermines my faith in the belief that most people (even very secular people) are people of goodwill. Unfortunately, it appears that society’s intellectual bankruptcy is not limited to the internet. (“Shout downs” of controversial lecturers on university campuses is not a good sign.) But again, I hope I am wrong.john_a_designer_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

lantog,
The thing is, despite what you say, our idea is also coherent and internally consistent.
What idea is that lantog? The idea that everything came from nothing or else is the product of an infinite regress? Or the idea that only particles in motion governed by mechanical laws exist, and we therefore have no free will nor any reason to believe that the chemical reactions in our brain cause us to arrive at true conclusions? Or the idea that natural selection selects for survival not truth, and if believing an error increases fitness, natural selection will select for belief in the error? Or the idea that consciousness is an illusion fobbed off on us by evolution? Yeah, I can see how you would think all of those are coherent and internally consistent.
The next question is which world-view lead to a better life.
There you go again acting as if the word "better" has objective meaning when your premises preclude that conclusion. Is that another one of those coherent and internally consistent ideas you were going on about?Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Is the universe in which your thought experiment occurs one in which nothing exists but particles bumping into each other? If so, there can be no transcendent meaning, no matter what other facts you give.
Ohh.. I see. So the headline of the original post is misleading? Your entire argument hinges on the implied assumption that, in the universe in which your though experiment occurs, the only kind of meaning is "transcendent". How does that work, exactly? Why should I care about what a supernatural being's intentions were for me or anything it created? I'd also point out that evolution isn't random in the sense you're implying. Genes contain the non-explanatory knowledge of how to solve a problem. That's not random as in the toss of a coin. The entire field of probability originally came about in the context of games of chance where you know all the possible outcome. We don't know all the possible ways non-explanatory knowledge could have evolved to solve the same problem. So, the whole random atoms bumping into each is yet another though experiment that isn't a universes that I recognize. Furthermore, the idea that meaning requests an ultimate foundation is another example of foundationalism, of which I've presented multiple criticisms of at length. Responses to this are basically argument by definition. One well known criticism of the foundationalist argument that "you have to stop somewhere" is that where you stop is arbitrary. Why does God's meaning matter, if it has no foundation because he "just was"? How would this any better of an explanation that your thought experiment in which meaning "just appears"? (and no that's not what I'm suggesting) I'd also ask, how have you separated your supposedly logical conclusion from a personal idea that the universe that has meaning to you is one created by God?critical rationalist_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

BA @16 and @8 I disagree that our lives only have meaning if its transcendent meaning- meaning that comes from God's purpose for our lives. Imagine if God's ultimate purpose involved the deaths of my 3 children. Thats not something I'd sign off on. You might say that if I could only see God's purpose I'd see its for the greater good. But I cant see that; if I could I'd be God. As long as I am who I am I'd never think its a good idea. Its like saying that ants would be happy to have their colony bulldozed if they could only see the ultimate purpose of building a shopping mall. Well if they could see that purpose they wouldnt be ants, they'd be people. As long as they're ants they should never be happy with that. Having said all this and despite the arguments of myself, Seversky, daves etc I think it is possible to have a coherent, internally consistent world-view based on the purpose-give-by-God idea. I've never seen it all laid out in one place by anyone but I think it could be done. The thing is, despite what you say, our idea is also coherent and internally consistent. The next question is which world-view lead to a better life. I think that varies from person to person but I'd grant you that yours probably has the edge. The final question is which one is most likely true. I think ours wins hand down. Yours is a set of ideas that clearly evolved over the last 3000 years.lantog_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Barry,
Of course dave. If you change what we are talking about, then we are no longer talking about the thing we are talking about. That is obvious. What is not obvious is why you think it matters.
I think it matters because what's important to me is the issue of (not necessarily ultimate) meaning and purpose of the actions I take in my own life. For example, holding a door for an elderly person. I don't really care at all about "ultimate" meaning and purpose of human life in general. At least the issue doesn't worry me in the slightest. Therefore I ask the question to clarify in my own mind what JAD (and others) are saying. I wasn't sure at first exactly what he meant, and probably won't be unless he answers directly. One reason I wasn't sure at first is because you seemed to suggest in the original thread that this issue should be troubling to atheists. But I don't find it troubling at all, which led me to suspect I didn't understand JAD's (and your) point completely.daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

BA, gotta go pay de billz just now, but perhaps we should view this as pointing out to others in a day and age where soundness is at a steep discount. KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

KF
[CR's] attempt to cast a fog of doubt fails through patent self-referential absurdity.
CR has proven many times that he is OK with that and utterly impervious to correction. I commend you in your patient efforts to continue to engage in a rational exchange with one who rejects rationality itself. Me, I just call BS on him and move on.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

BA, ever heard of living to eat rather than eating to live? Chocolate ice cream and cheesecake fill that bill nicely. KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

lantog @ 16: I notice that you did not engage with the counterarguments to Sev's comment. Telling that.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

BA, ah, cats . . . love 'em, but boy are they something different. Reminds me of women! KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

CR, I could not but notice:
Is it possible that the field of logic as a whole is incomplete or contains mistakes, so that even if you applied it flawlessly, your conclusion regarding the question at hand could be mistaken?
Let's be specific. The world, Broad sense, W is such that a distinct entity A is, so that: W = {A|~A} This is self-evident, we hold distinct identity and so do the symbols that make up the text of our comments. Now, let us examine: L1: A is itself, i/l/o its core characteristics that mark it out, e.g. a bright red ball on a table. LOI L2: No x in W is such that x can be both A and ~A; given distinct identity of A, thus the sharp dichotomy of distinction. LNC L3: Likewise, any x in W will be A or else [= X-OR] not A, not neither (or both as already seen). LEM These are an exposition, not a proof, attempted proofs must use these same first principles of right reason and frankly of the logic of being, too. Your attempt to cast doubt on same ends in the absurdity of building on what it would undermine. In short, self evident and undeniable, even doubters must implicitly rely on what they would undermine. Your attempt to cast a fog of doubt fails through patent self-referential absurdity. KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Wow CR. You've been in the moderation sandbox for months. And the next day after we let you out, you jump right back into a combox and start spewing your "we can't really know anything" drivel. No, you are not whining. You are just irrational.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

KF, Cats on the other hand . . .Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

dave
Suppose we alter your statement a bit by deleting the word “ultimate” and focusing it on the actions of a particular individual (me, for example)
Of course dave. If you change what we are talking about, then we are no longer talking about the thing we are talking about. That is obvious. What is not obvious is why you think it matters. Proposition: If particles in motion are all that exist, there is no transcendent meaning to life. dave's response: That is true, but mindless, purposeless evolutionary forces compel me to feel a sense of satisfaction on account of X. Therefore, X gives my life meaning. Well OK dave. Let's fill in X with "eating chocolate ice cream." Mindless, purposeless evolutionary forces compel dave to feel a sense of satisfaction when he eats chocolate ice cream. Therefore, eating chocolate ice cream gives dave's life meaning. No dave. Eating chocolate ice cream does not give your life transcendent meaning. And neither does anything else you substitute for X. Nothing that mindless, purposeless evolutionary forces compel you to feel a sense of satisfaction on account of is meaningful in the sense under discussion. But as you have said many times, you FEEL like your life has meaning, and that is good enough for you. See News' comment at 11.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

News, I'd swear some dogs are Christians or maybe angels in disguise. What lessons they have for us! KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Seversky @6 I've had a similar idea: that the people who have the most meaningful lives are slaves because not only do they have meaning and purpose from God but from their masters as well. The counterargument to that is that Gods purpose and the masters purpose will likely contradict each other. The counter-counterargument to that is Pauls advice to slaves in Ephesians.lantog_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply