An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (preachers, atheist, quote)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I think you've misunderstood me. As I see it, #2 has nothing to do with debate; it's about knowledge of alternative views. It is exactly, as you say, "exploring more deeply topics of interest." But you can't explore a topic deeply if you won't even listen to the people who are most passionate and most knowledgeable about the alternatives. Sometimes the people who have the most insight are people who you don't like - or who have motives you don't approve of. But despite their questionable motives, etc., this doesn't mean that their position is not worth hearing.

For example: I've read entire books by people who are convinced that evolution is just BS. Yes, I probably enjoy debate more than you do, and yes a part of my mind is seeking counterarguments, but first and foremost I am simply trying to understand their position. E.g., Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I went into that book with a lot of skepticism about Behe's objectivity as a scientist, but I didn't go into that book thinking "I know he's wrong and I'm going to prove him wrong." No, after reading the book I found myself seriously wondering if his issues with "irreducible complexity" might be a genuine problem. A few months later, after more investigation, I felt comfortable saying that irreducible complexity is not a devastating problem for the theory of evolution. But it would have been virtually impossible to get to that point if I had not set aside my skepticism about Behe long enough to listen carefully to his views. THAT is what criteria #2 is all about. Skepticism is an essential aspect of critical thinking, but you have to also be able to set it aside for some periods of time so that you can actually hear what other people are saying.

Thank you. Yes, the basis of being able to argue honestly (I won't say effectively, because there are many tactics that enable an argument to be won without making a fair case (1) is understanding the other argument. I remember Behe was probably the nearest ID came to making a case. There was an element of insisting that it be accepted as True NOW (rather as they are trying to do with NDE's) and while preparing for the possibility of agnostic -god being validated rather than just undisprovable, I waited to see what science would say.

I recall the first dent was the 'mousetrap' analogy. It was really no more than a quip (a part of a mousetrap works as a tie-clip ) but it did at least show that there are two sides to the argument.

Of course then the argument from Bacteria flagellum was shown first not the unquestionable evidence of Irreducible complexity that was claimed, and it was then shown to be false. Irreducible complexity was not only unscientific but wrong. That was the start of the slide of Behe from a possible Nobel Prize to the order of the laughing -stock.

On other hand, even if the Other side understands evolution, they talk like people who don't and don't want to.

There is a real difference (though it's not always easy to spot) between those who understand the Other argument and critique it and those who try to debunk it any way they can so they don't have to risk understanding it, in case it should convince them.

(1) in fact I was wondering whether to do a post on the Gish -gallop, because I heard an example of it (or the same method) on a Matt Dillahunty phone -in. After some exchanges, caller slapped down some assertion about God then rushed on gabbling, determinedly ignoring calls to halt and consider the claim.

That's why I prefer Internet exchanges to debate though, I might be able to note each point in the gallop and dispute each one.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Mind. You are a muslim. There may be a reason why Tzaph went for your throat.

.

Yeah I know. And that's why I purposely mentioned Ariel Sharon and Netanyahoo to run a quick "Respect test" on Tzap.
And as you saw, it worked pretty nicely.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Yeah I know. And that's why I purposely mentioned Ariel Sharon and Netanyahoo to run a quick "Respect test" on Tzap.
And as you saw, it worked pretty nicely.

Yes. Of course we all know the elephant in the room here and I was thinking last night of going into it but decided not to, anyone with a bit of nous can think it through the 'no real muslims' and 'why can't you look at the positive side' as are so often fielded to excuse Christian wrongdoings without my help, and of course while maybe having some point in how the religion makes people behave, is really nothing to do with whether it's true or not.

So that's all I'm going to say on that matter,

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

In the case of skepticism, the definition refers to doubt as to the truth of something. But you twist it to doubt about telling the truth about something. They are NOT the same thing. The first one is concerned with the factual basis of something. Your version is concerned about the honesty of the one presenting the fact. Do you even see what you did there?

Thank you! You saved me some typing. And it's funny that Trans was nailing the same point, in his own way, at exactly the same time. What I find amazing is that she can do this sort of thing so consistently. I try to polish every word and address every possible source of ambiguity so that there can be no misunderstanding (which is a major reason that my posts often end up a lot longer than I'd like), but she always finds a way to spin things into a form that I hardly recognize. Sometimes this can be straight-up enlightening and I come to recognize a way in which I should have said something better, but most of the time (as in this case) I just feel like WTF? Where did that even come from? I guess it is still enlightening, in certain way, because although it is a bit quirky, I'm sure she is not the only one. With her I have an on-going dialogue so I can see what's happening and correct misinterpretations or I can ask for more clarification, etc., but my experiences with her have made me wonder: How many people are out there reading my stuff and walking away with impressions "Gaylen said X" where X is something that isn't even in the ballpark of anything that I consciously intended to say? So, as frustrating as it is sometimes, I'm grateful for her responses.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Abandon any hope that you will actually understand a point of view you fundamentally disagree with. This is NOT a problem of your intellect or abilities but one of emotional openness to ideas that are in stark opposition to what you believe. I try to highlight what I mean in response to your post below.
First your expressed concerns about skepticism (underlined in the bold above) reveals that my concerns about the emotional importance of your reticence to expose your mind to opposing viewpoints seems valid. But the real problem with your responses to presentations of viewpoints you do not agree with or understand is to personalize your understanding of them and attach unwarranted emotional baggage to them. In the case of skepticism, the definition refers to doubt as to the truth of something. But you twist it to doubt about telling the truth about something. They are NOT the same thing. The first one is concerned with the factual basis of something. Your version is concerned about the honesty of the one presenting the fact. Do you even see what you did there? I suspect you do not and that is why I see efforts to enlighten your understanding as futile.

Mystic you have beliefs.
You have religious beliefs.
You are describing your religious beliefs.

Other people also have religious beliefs.

Disagreement with your religious beliefs is not a problem. That you can't simply admit you are in the same category as everyone else who holds religious beliefs is the problem.


Regarding truth about something and telling the truth about something glad you pointed that out.

When you use the phrase "the truth about something" the implication is truth and falsehood. True or false. Fact or fiction. Real or imagined. Imagined or reality. Science or superstition. Journal article or fable.

(In fact you often use those very words as pejoratives. You can't see in using them to describe and deride religious beliefs that they also apply to your own religious beliefs.)

The problem is that in the realm of religious beliefs, all those implications you set up around "truth falsehood" do not apply because as the atheist mindset points out "we don't know."

I believe you are telling the truth about what your own religious beliefs are.

I believe you deliberately use science words to give a veneer of science and credibility to your religious beliefs. I believe you desperately seek to associate your religious beliefs with science because you believe science is superior to religion.

And I believe you just as desperately seek to distance yourself from religious people and religious organizations and religious books and religious thought and religious beliefs even though you yourself have a whole slew of religious beliefs because of your deep seated feelings of superiority.

I believe you deperately insist upon the "factual basis of something" so desperately even in the realm of religious beliefs because you don't give credence or value to anything except that which has the science label on it.

Those are my views and observations. You are not presenting facts. You are presenting your religious beliefs. You dress up your religious beliefs in words that make them sound like facts but they are not facts. They are your religious beliefs.

[nateswift]

"where in the WORLD did THAT come from?" is a question I often ask with some people.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Wrong on all three counts and showing both your inability to think clearly or even honestly or even take a second to step back and see how you look to others.

What sense does the god -argument make without the creator meme? You said yourself (in response to Tzaph's point that otherwise, you are just taking the stuff that humans make up and calling it God) that it something apart from humans. As soon as you have a cosmic mind that's independent of that, 'atheist mode' (your deprecating term for skepticism of such a claim) applies, and creator thinking (without which evolution of consciousness along with life is the better explanation) really being the usual meaning of God. If it's not what you mean, the right thing to do is say so, not use it to try to wave away the opposition without addressing any of the problems.

Your latching onto Arach's obsessive hatred of Liberal atheism as a handy stick to bash anyone with who is not 'flexible' (read "Gullible") enough to accept your claims without question, says more to the trashing of your already minimal credibility than mine.

Finally your backhanded compliment and reluctant recognition that you have been beaten yet again, despite your persistent denial, is most appreciated.

If any here have any remaining doubts that your theory is Faith -based, crackpot and without any real coherence, or that you have been made by Faith (because other than that you are a wise and caring person, I know) into a irrational, deluded and intellectually dishonest bit of work, you just keep right on trying to bash me in this way and any remaining doubts anyone may have will be laid to rest.

The bolded belies the initial assertion. You simply can't evaluate a unified field theory using assumptions (as opposed to facts) that are not shared BY that theory. It's like discussing line xy in geometry and asking "what about z that is not ON line xy?"

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

...
How many people are out there reading my stuff and walking away with impressions "Gaylen said X" where X is something that isn't even in the ballpark of anything that I consciously intended to say? So, as frustrating as it is sometimes, I'm grateful for her responses.

Words carry and express meaning and nuance. Part of critical thinking is our awareness and attention to the words we use and what our language conveys.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

you bring up a good point. "seek to convince someone to change their mind" is something done by someone who tries to convert others. it is often called "proselytizing."

I assume that the quotation marks around the bolded phrase are scare quotes, and are not intended to be quoting anything I said because, as far as know, I never said those words. But I'm going to try to defend them anyway. I will avoid using the term "proselytizing" because it comes with a lot of emotional baggage that muddies the waters unnecessarily. I believe that you believe that you are telling the truth when you say that you never seek to convince someone to change their mind, but I think you are either speaking loosely, or you don't fully comprehend the implications if that were literally true. I suspect that, upon more careful reflection, what you might rather say is something like "I don't like getting into situations where I need to try to convince someone to change there minds" or "I don't like to appear (even to myself) as though I am attempting to change someone's mind" or - perhaps most on target: "My primary goal is to simply speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may with the hope that sometimes my words will inspire people to gain a better perspective."

In order to get to the underlying principles, it is often helpful to explore extreme examples. Such examples can help everyone in the conversation to realize that we are dealing with spectrums, not with absolutes.

Suppose you meet someone who you somehow come to realize is planning an act of terrorism that could result in the deaths of many people. He is absolutely convinced that God wants him to strap on this bomb and trigger it in a crowded subway. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that for various reasons your only realistic option if you want to try to prevent the explosion is to convince the terrorist-to-be that this a very bad idea. In other words, people's lives literally depend on your ability to change the terrorist's mind before he triggers the bomb. I can see a few possible approaches:

(1) I will simply speak my mind and let the chips (and possibly body parts?) fall where they may. I don't really care, one way or the other, if he actually changes his mind on account of my words. For all I know, he might be right. Maybe God really does want him to kill a bunch of people.

(2) I will simply speak my mind and let the chips (and possibly body parts?) fall where they may, but I am hoping and praying with all my heart that my words really will convince him to change his mind because I feel, with a high degree of confidence, that God does not really want him to kill a bunch of people. He is making a serious mistake.

(3) I will tirelessly rack my brain and try to think of every conceivable thing I can possibly say that might convince him to change his mind because I feel, with a high degree of confidence, that God does not really want him to kill a bunch of people. He is making a serious mistake.

In light of this extreme example, would you admit that there are some circumstance in which you would, indeed, try to change someone's mind about some belief that they have? If so, then the question becomes: In what types of situations, or with regard to which types of beliefs might you try to change someone's mind?

BTW: Emotionally you might feel a difference between "Trying to change someone's mind" and "Simply expressing your opinion and hoping they change their mind" but, from an external perspective I'm not sure that it really makes much difference - except to your own peace of mind and self image. I am, however, open to suggestions about how it might make an objective difference.

If you grant that there may be cases in which you might want to try to change someone's mind, then the question is: Why? You can tone down the edges with euphemisms that help you feel better about the situation, but I think the bottom line amounts to this: You think their belief is wrong. (E.g., "I believe that anyone who thinks God wants them to kill people is wrong." You could replace the word 'wrong' with such things as "misguided" or "falling short of their full potential" or "emotionally damaged" etc., to avoid some negative baggage connected to the word 'wrong' but I don't personally see much point in that. I'm fine with saying that some beliefs are wrong. At which point the conversation can shift to "wrong in what way?" or "Wrong in what sense?" etc. - immoral? factually false? impractical? dangerous to self or others? etc. along with discussions of any grey areas that need to be considered.)

Bottom line: Yes, sometimes I will try to change someone's mind if I believe that they have a significantly wrong belief. But, in accordance with my #1 criteria for critical thinking, I will try to identify assumptions (mine and theirs) and seriously consider the possibility that it might be my own belief that needs to be changed. And, in accordance with criteria #2, if there are reference materials that might help me to more clearly and deeply understand their perspective, I will seek out the best arguments I can find in support of their position, even if I "don't like" the people who are offering this alternative viewpoint.

(Of course, if confronted by an actual terrorist and the clock is ticking, I probably wouldn't spend hours googling in order to identify the best arguments for his position so that I could make sure I wasn't the one who was wrong. But in calm philosophical, self-reflective moments, I might tackle the possibility.)

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

Words carry and express meaning and nuance. Part of critical thinking is our awareness and attention to the words we use and what our language conveys.

Gosh. I never even remotely considered that before. Thanks for the moment of enlightenment.