Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New UD Policy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dear readers,

We have just added the following to our “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design” in the “Resources” section linked on our home page:

41] What About the Canaanites?

Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

A frequent example of whataboutism employed by materialists:

ID Proponent: “The Holocaust was objectively evil. Therefore, objective moral standards exist.”

Materialist: “What about God’s command to kill the Canaanites? If the Holocaust was evil, wasn’t that evil too?”

Notice what the materialist did not do: He did not even address the ID proponent’s argument, far less refute it. Instead, the materialist tried to discredit the argument by charging the ID proponent with hypocrisy.

Materialists employee whataboutism frequently because it works. It puts the ID proponent on the defensive, and time after time arguments about whether objective moral standards exist get bogged down in attempts to justify God’s commands concerning the Canaanites 3,400 years ago.

From a strictly logical point of view, there is no reason this should ever happen. The proper response is to decline the invitation to change the subject: “I don’t believe it, but let’s assume for the sake of argument you are right. Getting back to the argument before you tried to change the subject . . .”

Strictly speaking, whataboutism is not a “weak argument.”  It is, rather, an attempt to derail an argument, and many times it has been used very effectively by the materialists that frequent these pages.  Arguments about whether objective moral truth exists go nowhere, because they are bogged down by theists’ apologies for God’s commands to the Israelites 3,400 years ago.

No more.  UD’s purpose is to serve the intelligent design community, and while there is a great deal of overlap between that community and various stripes of theists, they are not the same thing.  UD is not a platform for apologetics.  Therefore, henceforth, materialists’ whataboutism tactics designed to derail arguments similar to “what about the Canaanites?” AND apologies from theists who fall for the tactic will be discouraged.  We hope warnings will be sufficient, but reserve the option of deleting comments and/or putting commenters in moderation if the warnings are ignored.

To the materialists who are disappointed this particular tactic for derailing arguments will no longer be available at UD, don’t worry.  We are sure you will find other ways to try to deflect from a reasoned examination of your views.

To the theists who are disappointed they will not be able to post apologies for God’s commands concerning Canaan, you too should not worry.  There is a time and place for apologetic concerning this matter.  UD is not the place.

Comments
DR, perhaps it would help to start from morality and self-evident moral truths that lead to understanding that we are under moral government. Then, we may address how that comes to be, on what world-order must we stand in order that the IS-OUGHT gap may be bridged. This is independent of debates on Bible texts and the heritage of the sins and blessings of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. (I explore those at 101 level in the just above linked.) I clip 36 in the previous thread:
Either our rational faculties are morally governed through duties to truth, right, justice and much more, or else they are little more than means of clever manipulation. Where, to follow that path is instantly absurd, utterly undermining reasoned discussion. Including, in this thr4ead. So, we face a challenge, that reason and right must be unified, the is and the ought must be unified. How? What Hume actually accomplishes is that moral government can only be unified with rationality and reality at world-root level. The IS-OUGHT gap is critical. The Euthyphro dilemma actually fails, also. ARBITRARY commands of a small-g god cannot ground morality, but what happens when we have a unification of all these things in the root of reality? As in, we cannot but be morally governed, starting with our reasoning. That has to be at world root level or we will find ungrounded ought. And it cannot be in a small-g god giving commands with no necessary connexion to the roots of reality. This is part of the context that leads to the only serious candidate root of reality: the inherently good and wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. This good wise Creator God is the framework for reality, so there is no root of reality independent of him. As he is inherently good, his commands will be right, good and wise, thus trustworthy and commending themselves to us as reasonable. As morality — governing ourselves according to sound principles of value, truth and conduct — will be inextricably fused into the root of what is, there is no ultimate gap. As a serious candidate maximally great and necessary being, the creator God will either be impossible (as a square circle is) or else will be actual. Now, this is not an arbitrary imposition, this is philosophy. If you have a serious alternative, simply put it up: ______ . I suspect it will be found far harder to do so than one may at the first imagine. For instance, remember, grounding of rationality and its credibility are also in the stakes.
67 adds:
a loaded question is not simple or straightforward. A loaded, toxic question needs to be answered in light of underlying agendas of issues and the likelihood of twisting of an answer that is naive. (Funny, I was dealing with that in a strategic change management context just yesterday [ --> now, last week]: a “simple” answer to a loaded question does little more than allow a trap to be sprung.) Meanwhile THIRTY comments later, objectors have shown no sign of examining a 101 on the subject of their question; cf. the linked from 36 above. In short, for coming on a day, a 101 level answer has been on the table, just that it has been studiously evaded. That tells us that we are not dealing with straightforwardness. That now patently goes to showing more interest in pushing what is commonly used as a “shut up” rhetorical talking point than a serious position. And, sadly, it reveals the force of the issue raised in 36, that the first point of contact for moral government is our rational faculty itself. As in, >>are we under objective moral government, starting with government of the rational faculties used to discuss issues. If not, those faculties are little more than clever tools of cynical manipulation; destroying reasoned discussion — something that all too aptly explains the patent approach of too many political, media and even academic voices today: might and/or manipulation make ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘knowledge’ ‘justice’ etc. If yes, then we do have to address the grounding of morality and the world root level solution of the IS-OUGHT gap as context for evaluating any particular moral issue or talking point. Which, makes all the difference in how we approach such issues. And no, I will not be drawn into debating perceptions and feelings in absence of a clear understanding of the underlying foundational matters at stake; e.g. that there are self-evident moral truths which thus are universal and cannot be effectively denied or dismissed without falling at once into patent absurdity.>>
In my considered opinion, these need to be straightened out first, setting a context for a more balanced discussion of the sort of loaded questions that BA has raised as a "whatabboutism" issue. Derailing serious discussion backed up by refusal to deal with serious discussion of morality AND refusal to discuss an actual serious response all speak. And the message is, shut up rhetoric driven by contempt or worse. KFkairosfocus
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
ME, one thing I found highly significant is that, quite early, I linked a discussion I developed several years ago as part of a "street-level" systematic theology 101 course, here -- and that is a proper place to deal with the matter. It links onward to several quite serious discussions from various perspectives. NONE of the objectors showed signs of having looked at it much less of having taken it seriously. That speaks volumes on motives, and BA77 nails the matter. In context, I also duly noted how the point that our rationality is itself under moral government, on pain of reducing mindedness to clever manipulation was also studiously ducked. KF PS: I would probably broaden slightly to deal with the wider habitual dirty rhetorical pattern, the trifecta: red herring distractors, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison, polarise thus frustrating serious discussion of the original problem AND of the red herring used to distract attention, or even the strawman tactic. In short, an expression of hostile contempt and prejudice manifesting utter disrespect.kairosfocus
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
I'm going to have to side with Bob O'H on this one. How do we say "no more" to arguments against the veracity/sensibility of God commanding a massacre in the Bible, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the arguments for/against ID, while in practically the same breath implying that Nazi death camps do have something to do with ID? ID claims to be a scientific, not religious, position, and I would have to say that the strong, scientific, evidence for ID and/or against neo-Darwinism (refer to the meat of Behe's two books and Axe's/Gauger's most well-known works) is at the very least compatible with, if not actually suggestive of, creator(s) who don't give rat's ass whether we murder each other every day -- and once in a blue moon by the millions -- as long as the overall project of human progress is not seriously threatened.DarelRex
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
"To the theists who are disappointed they will not be able to post apologies for God’s commands concerning Canaan, you too should not worry" this is one theist that isn't disappointed at all. I have felt a little uncomfortable having disscusions aobut biblical texts on an ID blog and engaged only when I saw the subject was allowed to be sniped on. It feeds into the false claim that ID is just creationism. What I would request is that it be more firm than "discouraged". Its difficult not to respond when one side is allowed to "snipe" on a topic. No one needs to defend anything if the attacks are not allowed. The only issue I have with the rule as worded is that you actually raise the issue of the canaanites in the rule so its somewhat self defeating if the issue is not relevant at all. Raising the issue in a rule and then not addressing it gives more the impression of a duck from answering it rather than just ignoring particualr references since they are irrelevant. Widening it to any tangential conversations of any religious texts in order to detract or duck from the the point being discussed is not allowed seems to me to be better and includes all such future attempts at distraction. Its also fair and balanced since ID is not religious text based. Anyway, regardless of wording,As you rightfully stated - There are many other places where attacks and subsequent apologetics are discussed. UD need not be another one and this theist would be glad to see it isn't.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
This is great news! The a/mat trolls need to find a new hobby. Also, BA @ 5: Brilliant!Truth Will Set You Free
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Barry: Puppy poop in the house will be removed! Bob: But pooping in the house is fun. Where is the exact line for pooping in the house? Barry: To clarify, all puppy poop in the house will be removed! Bob: The "alternative interpretation" is that you allow puppies in the house but will not allow me to personally poop in the house. Barry: Puppies are not poop. Puppies are not banned from the house. Puppy poop is banned from the house. Prediction,,, Bob will do his damnedest to find a way to continue to poop in the house. :)bornagain77
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Bob,
but that you will censor certain responses
Bob, seriously, read the post. I'm sure any reasonably intelligent child would know the answer to your question. No, we will not censor responses to arguments. We will warn against attempts to avoid responding to arguments by attempting to derail the discussion with whataboutism tactics. And if the warnings go unheeded, stronger measures will follow.Barry Arrington
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Barry, I was just asking for clarification. It reads to me like you are saying that you won't be putting up posts like your Becky's Lesson post (and sequels), but I might be reading more into this than I should. The alternative interpretation is that you are saying that you will still put up such posts, but that you will censor certain responses. The problem I foresee is that there are times when mentioning Cannanites will be relevant (and yes, times times when they are not), so how will you police the difference?Bob O'H
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Bob,
Does this mean that issues about whether morals are objective or not will also be off the table?
Bob, go back and read the post, this time for comprehension. The whole purpose of the policy is to avoid materialists' attempts to derail discussions about whether morals are objective or not. *sigh*Barry Arrington
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
No more. UD’s purpose is to serve the intelligent design community, and while there is a great deal of overlap between that community and various stripes of theists, they are not the same thing. UD is not a platform for apologetics.
Well, that's going to stop the fun. :-) Does this mean that issues about whether morals are objective or not will also be off the table? I'm asking just so I know where the line is being drawn.Bob O'H
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply