Where Vox, Spacebunny, et al. Were Right
Posted in Blogosphere, Debate, PZ Myers Memorial Debate, Thinking Critically on | 2 minutes | 11 Comments →
I’ve realized something in this latest fiasco with the judges in DBT01. I now understand why Vox, Spacebunny, et al. accused me of “entering into” the PZ Myers Memorial Debate. Technically, I did interact with the arguments more than simple judging required. Although there was no conscious intent to do so, that doesn’t change the fact. This became apparent when Matt DeStefano did the same thing in his writeup of my opening statement. He interacted with my arguments from Leviticus:
Of course, Levicitus is ripe for the picking when it comes to dangerously absurd rules, laws, and customs. Should humans also take heed that eating shellfish is an abomination? (Lev 11:10) Should we also avoid planting two of the same crops in a field? (Lev 19:19) It seems to me cl needs to make a case as to why we should take the entirety of these laws seriously.
Now, as an aside, why on Earth would I need to make a case for accepting the entirety of those laws when the question at hand was whether God provided something like “germ theory” in Leviticus? Matt was irrational at least twice. Once, because it is a complete non-sequitur. Twice, because just like Peter’s central argument, Matt also appeals to incredulity: why are these laws absurd, if not simply because Matt DeStefano can’t conceive of any rational reason for them?
But, like I said, those are beside the point. It took somebody else “entering into” my debate for me to understand why other people said I “entered into” Vox’s debate. So, I apologize. Sorry, Vox. Sorry, Spacebunny. Sorry, “dread ilk.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think an innocent inability to recognize this error justifies the vitriol, obscenity, censorship and venomous accusations from the “Christians” over there at Vox Popoli. After all, other judges committed this same mistake and they weren’t slandered to high hell. Neither do I think that Vox will ever issue a statement saying I was right to accuse him of imposing his own judging criteria.
Nonetheless, that’s on Vox, Spacebunny, et al. I just wanted to let readers know where I stand.
Matt
says...A participant in an internet (A)theism debate who admits when he’s wrong? Wow! If that doesn’t prove there is a God I don’t know what does :)
joseph
says...I am a little confused over this, as the atheist judge I’d expect Matt de Stefano to object to arguments from Scripture, and especially the Old Testament. I would also expect him to give some reasons.
Similarly I’d expect the theist judge to do the same to Peter Hurford’s arguments. As I am probably a strong enough agnostic to be considered an atheist I am glad of this, because I am less critical of atheistic arguments, it helps me check my blindspots. That’s one reason I come here, and in general stick to the softer, or at least more philosophical atheist blogs. I’ve religiously avoided Dawkins, Loftus etc, I like PZ Myer’s explanation of changes in chromosome numbers and the evolution of multicellular lufe I admit.
I don’t expect the judges to produce a commentary that is detached from the debate, I expect their biases to show, if they didn’t you wouldn’t need an atheist, an agnostic and a theist judge.
joseph
says...If Peter Hurford had taken up Matt de Stefano’s argument, you could have addressed it within the scope of the debate. If not, you could have written a critique of the judges, I am sure neither Peter Hurford nor Matt de Stefano would have objected.
Perhaps one problem is the emotions that theists and atheists feel over these matters. It’s very hard for yourself, Vox, Peter Hurford (?), to see criticisms and yet feel constrained from making a rebuttal?
joseph
says...Sorry final finnicky point for now, when you say:
“TECHNICALLY, I did interact with the arguments more than simple judging required. Although there was no conscious intent to do so, that doesn’t change the fact.”
When you say “technically” I get this impression:
tech·ni·cal·ly/ˈteknik(ə)lē/Adverb:
1.According to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly: “technically, a nut is a single-seeded fruit”.
As if you’re saying, if the rules are strictly interpreted. Personally, if I were to use the word “technically” in this context I would be implying that a strict interpretation of the rules isn’t necessarily the most useful. Actually that’s what I meant when I said Peter Hurford had technically won the debate.
However, this impression conflicts with the general tone of this article, so I think one way or the other I am wrong, but would rather have your input than make guesses.
On a side note, again I am impressed by a public acknowledgement of a change of heart.
Matt DeStefano
says...I’m fine with admitting that I “interacted” with the arguments, and I wasn’t aware that we had excluded doing so from our debate parameters. FWIW, I think a debate in which the judges simply say “valid” and “invalid” and call attention to fallacious arguments is both a waste of the judges’ time and subjects the participants to needless rigidity. I would have happily retracted my statements if we had continued the debate, but of course that’s futile now that you’ve posted them anyway.
As for my “irrational” non-sequitur, it comes from a much larger doubt about the viability and timelessness of Leviticus’s laws. It seems to me that even if we assume an Almighty God actually gave these laws, they were meant for a very specific time and very specific region.
Peter Hurford
says...I agree with Matt. I think future debates could feature judges stating their frank opinions on the arguments, and even mentioning their counterarguments should they so choose. I was initially worried about judges singling what they want to see, but now I’m not so sure if that’s (1) a legitimate worry or (2) actually avoidable.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Because even a stopped clock, although right twice a day, doesn’t merit attention. Rational people can’t be faulted for failing to obey the laws when they’re beneficial if they’re, in general, arbitrary.
Your argument should have been marked down for substituting a label—”argument from incredulity”—for refutation. We’re not here talking about a logical fallacy in the manner of, say, affirming the consequent. When someone says “I conclude the laws are absurd because no convincing reason for them has been offered,” he isn’t making a deductive argument. The inference to the best explanation is well respected in the philosophy of science, and “best explanation” is necessarily relative to the explanations offered.
Ordinarily, this form of argument, which I think Pierce called abduction, is a potentially sound inference. What makes it potentially suspect in a God debate is that, arguably, one might suppose that God’s purposes are inherently incomprehensible to mortals. But that’s a specific substantive counter-argument that must be made and judged on its specific terms; automatically dismissing an abduction as an argument from incredulity isn’t the same as making it.
JohnN
says...STEPHEN R. DIAMOND
Because even a stopped clock, although right twice a day, doesn’t merit attention. Rational people can’t be faulted for failing to obey the laws when they’re beneficial if they’re, in general, arbitrary.
You r so rational you missed the point!
Stephen R. Diamond
says...JOHNN,
You’re so bloody stupid you wouldn’t know a point if it bit your ass.
joseph
says...Americans use “bloody” as an expletive? I blame Guy Ritchie films and Harry Potter.
cl
says...joseph,
That’s also what I intended regarding the debate at Vox’s. However, it’s not quite the same for the debate with Peter. It’s not that Peter won according to a strict interpretation of the rules. Peter won because there was confusion over the scope of the debate and I just forfeited. Rather than belabor that and open myself to charges like Mr. Diamond’s, I figured it would be best to just say he won (even though I don’t really think he won anything). Thing is, that backfired, too. I’ve now realized that expecting Mr. Diamond to refrain from venomous insults and accusations might be unrealistic.
Matt DeStefano,
It was clearly expressed in our emails, but then again, an agreed-upon definition of “interact” was never established. Personally, I don’t think it’s that big a deal. I just wanted to say something along the lines of, “Well, now I see why they were accusing me of entering into the debate.” It’s all really silly.
I agree that rigidity should be avoided, but at the same time, I don’t think judges should give counterarguments (as Peter suggested).
Stephen R. Diamond,
Atheist logic at it’s finest?
JohnN is correct: you’ve missed the point, and getting all ad hominem on him isn’t going to change that fact. Since I’m convinced you’ve already made up your mind about me, I won’t even bother trying to explain it to you, either. Unless of course you ask. Nicely, that is. Or, at least without spite.
I didn’t substitute a label for refutation. I first noted the inherently fallacious nature of Peter’s argument, then proceeded to refute it.
I appreciate your remarks on abduction, Pierce, etc. I will look into them.