DBT02 Update: JT Eberhard Withdraws His Challenge
Posted in (A)Theist Debate League, DBT02, Debate on | 1 minute | 96 Comments →
What would JT do? Well, suppress intelligent dissent just like the others who couldn’t hang. I don’t get it. Here we have a self-touted “freethinker” who feels the need to resort to censoring rational inquiry. I tried to leave a comment on JT’s blog, to no avail. So, I guess I’m banned.
“Free speech,” they cry at the top of their lungs any other day.
“Unless of course it comes from an intelligent dissenter,” reads the subtext.
Eh, oh well. I’m going to follow through on my end of the engagement anyways. Meaning, I’m going to publish a systematic dismantling of JT’s arguments just as I would have had he not scurried off with his tail between his legs. I guess in their world it’s only acceptable to be “confrontational” or “annoying” if you’re an atheist, eh?
Daniel
says...It’s one thing to withdraw from a debate, but to ban you from his site too? Sounds like his only justification for the ban is based on some exchange you had with someone else on another website nearly three years ago!
cl
says...That’s the thing. From reading his post, it sounds like he was just threatening to ban me, but then when I went to comment, it wouldn’t work. So I don’t know what’s up.
And frankly, I don’t care. I had him pegged as the type who couldn’t hang, and I’m not going to impose. I’ll just move on to the next, you know? Then again, the way atheists keep chickening, it’s gettin’ slim pickin’s!
All this just makes me want to give Peter Hurford a big ol’ hug. Only 20, and he’s already more mature, competent and courageous than the “professional atheists.”
Yet, unfortunately, the “professional atheists” are the ones filling the lecture halls.
…sigh…
joseph
says...Due to this comment:
I would, at first, make the assumption that there has been a human error, or that your comments are being censored, before publication.
Passion sells. I admit I find Antony Flew much harder to listen to than Hitchens.
cl
says...joseph,
Or, that the comment simply got caught up in the spam filter.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...1. Banning cl (or even its threat) based on an e-mail was a despicable act of blacklisting.
2. The Daylight Atheism’s blogger’s criticism of cl consisted of worthless pre-cached cliches that don’t apply (polysyllabic, likes to hear himself talk)
3. CL’s claim that “intelligent” dissent is involved is conceited and treacherous in its implication that “unintelligent” dissent doesn’t deserve protection.
4. At least one comment on the generally worthless “BanHammer” thread gets CL correct. – http://tinyurl.com/7cy4qhn
5. CL is somewhat inclined to so-called trolling, but he doesn’t disrupt a blog enough that he can’t be ignored, the preferred solution. An example of pure trolling activity is CL’s posting on my blog at http://tinyurl.com/7tdyedd
6. Censorship for “over-participation,” the most common charge against CL, is destructive to free discussion and is usually motivated by a drive of the “owner” to assert status. The most important reason to avoid bans, as I say here http://tinyurl.com/7c78aex, is: “It creates a destructive dependence on the moderator. It fuels any community’s primitive cultist urges by creating a subtle fear of the moderator and vesting unnecessary authority in that position. In short, it infantilizes participants and makes the forum insipid.”
7. The owner of the JT blog is a power-greedy asshole as he found it necessary to libel a former poster, thus:
“I’ve only banned one person in my life (Bryan Goodrich). I tend to not mind insipid commenters. They serve as a reminder that religion makes nobody better (or, in Bryan’s case, that atheism is no guarantee that someone will be kind and/or reasonable). Kind of ironic that the only person I’ve ever banned was an atheist.”
This gratuitous personal denunciation of Goodrich is spiteful and petty.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I went to post this on the other subject blog. It appears I’ve been put on moderation. This after at least one confident reader assured me that I’d be allowed to answer the arguments without threat of ban.
This blog owner is just a creep. CL might justly be criticized even for seeking a debate with this creature.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...But, now I get the message from CL’s blog that my comment awaits moderation. Identification with the aggressor? CL has learned to use projection lavishly; why not other pathologies?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I see that 2 urls subject a post to moderation. Hypocritical rule, as cl often quotes extensively. But here’s my posting with a link removed, as I’m impatient.
1. Banning cl (or even its threat) based on an e-mail was a despicable act of blacklisting.
2. The Daylight Atheism’s blogger’s criticism of cl consisted of worthless pre-cached cliches that don’t apply (polysyllabic, likes to hear himself talk)
3. CL’s claim that “intelligent” dissent is involved is conceited and treacherous in its implication that “unintelligent” dissent doesn’t deserve protection.
4. At least one comment on the generally worthless “BanHammer” thread gets CL correct. – http://tinyurl.com/7cy4qhn
5. CL is somewhat inclined to so-called trolling, but he doesn’t disrupt a blog enough that he can’t be ignored, the preferred solution. An example of pure trolling activity is CL’s posting on my blog at http://tinyurl.com/7tdyedd
6. Censorship for “over-participation,” the most common charge against CL, is destructive to free discussion and is usually motivated by a drive of the “owner” to assert status. The most important reason to avoid bans is: “It creates a destructive dependence on the moderator. It fuels any community’s primitive cultist urges by creating a subtle fear of the moderator and vesting unnecessary authority in that position. In short, it infantilizes participants and makes the forum insipid.”
7. The owner of the JT blog is a power-greedy asshole as he found it necessary to libel a former poster, thus:
“I’ve only banned one person in my life (Bryan Goodrich). I tend to not mind insipid commenters. They serve as a reminder that religion makes nobody better (or, in Bryan’s case, that atheism is no guarantee that someone will be kind and/or reasonable). Kind of ironic that the only person I’ve ever banned was an atheist.”
This gratuitous personal denunciation of Goodrich is spiteful and petty.
cl
says...Take a chill pill, Diamond! There’s no hypocrisy in trying to prevent spam.
That said, I agree with almost everything else you wrote. I’m very interested in learning whether or not JT also banned you. Would you mind testing the theory by submitting a few more comments? You didn’t post a comment with several links there, did you?
Here’s where you’re wrong:
“Trolling” is commonly defined as leaving provocative comments solely for the purpose of inflaming or disrupting a thread. My sole purpose in leaving that comment was to test your own claims that you 1) pay intellectual honesty the highest regard; and, 2) that you will readily admit error. You made testable claims, I put you to the test, and you failed. Instead of chasing the truth, you chose to insult and unfairly label me as a “creationist” and “right wing” type of believer, and I saw that you persisted in unfairly implying I’m a “right wing” type of believer in JT’s thread. So, that’s all I needed. I have no further interest in discourse. Although, you do have a brain, I enjoy your writing (both content and stylistically), I admire your fire and passion… I just wish you weren’t such a jerk. We could learn from each other, have a good time, stuff like that.
Believe me, our tit-for-tats are annoying. I don’t want to provoke you, to be quite honest I really don’t even want to talk to you… UNLESS, of course, you can put the petty stuff behind and just talk, without juvenile insults and false accusations sans evidence.
All that said, I appreciate you speaking your mind at JT’s despite the fact you think I’m the scum of the earth.
joseph
says...It appears if you’re generally passively insipid, which is my great weakness, the standards of over participation are applied differently.
Probably my general lack of vocabulary also makes me less threatening. Seriously “word salad”? Hitchens is equally as verbiose, and I bet these guys aren’t reading his books thinking “pass me the dressing”.
Also I joke about wobbly bits and viagra (Sildenafil is actually quite an interesting drug, we use it in management of right sided congestive heart failure at times).
Stephen R. Diamond
says...“It appears if you’re generally passively insipid, which is my great weakness, the standards of over participation are applied differently.”
You’re subtle rather than insipid. But the admitted unwillingness to apply any standards to genuinely insipid posts shows the hypocrisy in claims that bans serve thread quality.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I guess they’re real down-to-earth atheists. The maligned Goodrich sums JT up: http://tinyurl.com/84xok7r
(Although I find the title obnoxious, but it’s attempted wit.)
But in truth, I anticipated I’d probably be incomprehensible. I made tacit assumptions about what garden-variety “secular humanists” believe, but the climate has changed since I last calibrated. CL is more anti-authoritarian than they are!
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Reading Goodrich and JT, I find Goodrich more credible: at least he’s capable of considering alternatives. Given what information Goodrich supplied, I conclude JT bolted because he feared he would lose — to cl.
Sad, that is. Who does JT want to “debate”? That nincompoop Vox Day?
joseph
says...“I anticipated I’d probably be incomprehensible”
You know, I don’t always understand every single word you use (“quotiens” stands out), but if I spend 5 seconds typing the odd word into google I come out better educated myself. Why someone would choose to attack you over this, rather than accept the opportunity it provides for self-improvement puzzles me.
I would imagine he’d get on with Vox Day even less than he did with CL.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...An inerrantist must be a creationist. If you believe Adam and Eve literally existed at the dawn of humanity, you cannot believe the account offered by evolutionary biology. I don’t know how you manage to accept Adam and Eve yet reject creationism (and New Earth), but if I think your position binds you to creationism but you don’t like the characterization, that hardly amounts to a lie on my part. In fact, calling that a “lie” and elevating it to a level where I’m obliged to respond to your objections constitutes something of a libel (don’t worry; I won’t sue you).
What about Christian Right? How can anyone who’s a Biblical inerrantist not be a Christian Rightist? If you think Adam and Even was real, how can you object to this “truth” being taught in the schools. If you think the Bible is inerrant, how can you reject the various retrograde Biblical pronouncements.
Characterizations are opinions, not facts. If you were on record as denouncing the Christian Right or creationism, that would be something else. You would have grounds for saying that you have clearly distinguished yourself from the ordinary implications of your beliefs. But the fact that (at least to my knowledge) you have never spoken against these “excesses,” credence to the claim that you are of their ilk: if you don’t reject what most people think follows from your views, it is usually reasonable to think you accept those views. If have every interest in making the distinction, when it is so hard to see how you could possibly not be a creationist and rightist.
You see my responses to you as juvenile; I see your posting style as generally juvenile, and I don’t hesitate to respond to such provocation in kind.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...“I guess in their world it’s only acceptable to be “confrontational” or “annoying” if you’re an atheist, eh?”
No, it’s more tribal than religious or ideological. Your only predecessor in banning, recall, was an atheist.
(But the low numbers are probably deceptive. My guess is that JT frequently puts posters on moderation, as he did me. That would help explain why his followers are so sheeplike.)
Stephen R. Diamond
says...So, cl, do you decline to clarify how you can be an inerrantist and not be a creationist? How the fairy tale of Adam and Eve comports with the science of evolutionary biology?
Yet, you refuse to withdraw your libel that I lied in referring to you as a creationist, despite the fact that everyone who has addressed the subject–including two debate judges whom you had approved–concluded, as I did, that you are a creationist, after you heedlessly submitted the Adam & Eve fairy tale as factual.
Do you also deny that you–in Christian Rightist fashion–would necessarily insist that the Adam and Eve fairy tale should be taught as truth or possible truth in the schools?
cl
says...Do you accept that definition? Yes or no.
joseph
says...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA
joseph
says...Sorry CL, didn’t mean to jam up the blog, my explorer displays this as a huge black square, just wanted Admiral Ackbar’s classic quote linked to…
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I’ll withdraw my accusation of libel, because that’s not the point. I don’t care for an argument about whether you libeled me. What I want to know is:
1. Do you decline to clarify how you can be an inerrantist and not be a creationist? How the fairy tale of Adam and Eve comports with the science of evolutionary biology?
2. Do you also deny that you–in Christian Rightist fashion–would necessarily insist that the Adam and Eve fairy tale should be taught as truth or possible truth in the schools?
I no longer demand that you withdraw anything. So, the definition of libel is beside the point.
Why won’t you clarify your stance on creationism? It’s absurd that you expect people to take you seriously when you play stupid games. Like the one correct poster pointed out, you pretend to have some substance to convey, but in the end, you have almost nothing to say. It’s an act, a fraud, as I’ve said repeatedly. You won’t even come clean with what you really believe about the most fundamental questions related to the issues your blog raises because most of all, you fear being trapped and exposed. When I try to clarify the most obvious lacuna in what you’ve revealed, you ask me a basically irrelevant question. It’s tiresome, and you’re dishonest.
MS Quixote
says...Stephen,
Come on, man. Those two questions really aren’t that difficult to answer. I’m an inerrantist, and I teach that the church should not be involved in politics at all. Nor ought it to involve itself in state schools. I don’t even vote. :)
And, yeah…an inerrantist must be a creationist. That part’s true, but it doesn’t deliver much information further than “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” There are all sorts of sub-theories and creationist genera under the main heading. Now, please, get back to the worthwhile conversations I enjoy reading here. Thank you…thank you very much.
joseph
says...CL,
JT Eberhard has confirmed that currently you aren’t banned, but are under threat of being banned.
cl
says...joseph,
He’s either lying, or he’s changed his mind. I’m putting the finishing touches on a post explaining my claim. Sit tight, it’ll go live in a few minutes, thanks for your persistence…
joseph
says...Errrr…I thought you were reasonable in that final statment actually, oh well their loss.
cl
says...It’s fine, joseph, the real critical thinkers can see what’s going on here. I’ll have my say either way, and I’m certain that a subset of his readership share your reaction. This has actually motivated me to get myself in their arena somehow, to actually debate these people in person, in front of the very people who hold them in such high esteem.
Oh, as for the post I promised in a “few minutes,” well… so much has changed in the last few minutes that the post is now outdated. So, it will be more than a “few minutes” before I post it.
Cheers. I appreciate your efforts, your honesty, your humor… pretty much everything.
joseph
says...Thanks, shame a few more people didn’t see the self empowerment involved in assessing things for themselves, I am a little disappointed in them. But hey.
No worries about that other post.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Mso Quixote:
Neither do I vote. So we have common ground! So, with you as a counter-example, you can demonstrate the falsity of ‘All creationists are Christian Rightists.’ Would you grant that you’re an exceptional case?
Down to specifics, what do you make of someone who says he’s a Biblical inerrantist but also that he’s “not necessarily” a creationist? And will say no more.
Some people have an allergy to creationists. I’m one of them. If there are others, it may “pay” for cl to be obscure on the subject. But is it honest to hide his commitments? Knowing that–perhaps because of–this allergy others have to creationism.
Now, you say there are shades of creationism. I believe you–you seem credible–but I doubt the differences amount to a hill of beans. Maybe I’m wrong. Why not set me straight with an example. Genesis does not strike me as vague. That there are many “literal” interpretations surprises me (and doesn’t strongly recommend the interpretations).
So, here you have CL, in all earnestness invoking Adam and Eve in a debate with an atheist–talk about no pretense of common ground. And then, asserting the literal existence of the Garden of Eden and the Fall (and one must suppose, no? the manner of their creation) readers are asked to doubt that someone who endorses the facticity of the Garden of Eden might still be an evolutionary in biology.
cl
says...Diamond,
Seriously man, you have got to learn to shut your mouth and seek answers for yourself. Let’s take this from the top (or middle, actually):
Nope. Doesn’t work like that. You don’t get to come around here and make backhanded threats then just get off the hook easy. I’ll go ahead and assume you approve of that definition, and I’ll say with confidence that you’re the libelous, hateful accuser. Of course, I’m not a weenie, so I would never sue anybody over blog comments, nor would I threaten them, but just so others might know the truth, here’s just a small sampling of some of the things you’ve said about me in public forums:
You know you said all that, and I’ve already linked to it elsewhere, so don’t accuse me of not providing evidence. Now, in your defense, you also say,
You’re damn right it wasn’t warranted, because I’m not a liar. However, I *AM* warranted in calling you a liar because you’re still out there spreading lies that I reflect the “Christian Right” when I’ve told you the truth and it’s been on my blog for years.
Really? REALLY? Are you serious? Okay, you’re either mentally deficient, or you’re just fishing for a reaction. I denounced the Christian Right and clarified my stance on creationism on *YOUR BLOG* just a few weeks ago, and you responded, which suggests that you’ve read this already:
Five years ago I denounced irresponsible creationists:
Beyond that, I’ve also denounced specific Christian Rightists such as Jack Waldvogel, and not that it matters to me, but you might be interested to know that Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote me a response saying:
This is all easily accessible information in the header of this blog. Did you ever think to read the “about” page? If you did, you would have found that I denounced mainstream Christianity for its treatment of gay people, and I made a clear statement about my political leanings:
Seriously Diamond, you just got your ass handed to you so hard that you should be ashamed of yourself. Stop your lies. Repent of your pride, learn to treat people with civility and most importantly, ask and/or seek the truth before you go shooting your mouth off.
It’s not libel. You did lie. I told you the truth about where I stood on these things, and you disregarded it, choosing to defame and libel all around the internet instead. Go ahead and try to sue me. The judge will laugh you out of court. By the way, three people is not “everyone.” It’s not my fault the three of you were too polarized to avoid a knee jerk reaction. Did Daniel or *ANYBODY ELSE* have a problem? No. It’s only the three of you who overreacted. Two college kids and a “legal writer” who can’t read his way out of a paper bag.
It’s absurd that you expect people to take you seriously when you stick your foot so far in your mouth your toes are poking out your backside. Look before you leap.
Well, I’m not surprised you didn’t read the “feedback” page, after all you failed to read the “about” page, too. Go check it out. I challenge you to find one theist blogger with more compliments (and insults) from atheists.
So now what? Are you finally ready to apologize for your behavior over the past three months, drop it, and act like a decent human being?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
Here’s CL’s final response:
Here’s JT Blowhard’s order banning CL (supposedly precipitated by CL’s response):
To what extent do JT’s criticisms apply?
Chest-beating: A good description that hadn’t occurred to me of one of CL’s mannerisms. Here: “I’ve already got a whopper of an opening piece demonstrating several false and/or inaccurate claims JT has made, and I want to hold his feet to the fire.”
Poisoning the well: This actually centers on dishonesty and can’t be judged until the e-mails both parties said would be posted are. No one seems in a great rush to post these e-mails. Let’s see how this discussion really went down.
Chest-beating is no reason to ban someone. But it’s probably a sufficient reason to dismiss him. You, Joseph, are remarkably even-tempered about theory-of-world disputes, but most people must struggle with remaining objective. Such chest-beating is almost unheard of among people involved in philosophical debates because, if you value objective discussion, you don’t indulge in provocations. To the contrary, you avoid anything smacking of provocation, such as declaring victory or promising to expose “untruths and/or inaccuracies” [sic].
Even when seeming to try to ingratiate himself with this forum, cl finds it necessary to antagonize with conceited personal claims.
joseph
says...Thankyou Stephen, I agree with you that emotionally charged statements, colourful language, hyperbole and rhetoric detract from objectivity. I think they do provide some emotional engagement though, as much as I don’t consider him a philosopher, I must admit I’ve always found Christopher Hitchens most entertaining. I found Common Sense Atheism, and Great Play, in general to be less vitriolic than Dawkins.net and JT Eberhard’s blog, and of greater value. As JT Eberhard’s tagline is something like “fighting religion tooth and claw” it seems he should expect, or is aiming for, confrontation with theists (of course this blog is entitled “the warfare is mental”, indicating that CL has similar expectations). Given so, I find it strange that JT Eberhard would react to a bit of fighting talk at the end of CL’s post.
The following ideas spring forth:
1/ As you’ve pointed out, there is information we are unaware of.
2/ An aspect of JT Eberhard’s personality.
3/ He was looking for any excuse.
4/ Given that JT Eberhard wants to become a mentor of some sort a desire to assert authority.
Thankyou for directing me to your posts on free will, now I’ve finished my night shifts/ emergency work I will give them the consideration they deserve.
cl
says...Diamond,
I’ll just tell you right now, if you don’t make the necessary concessions WRT #29, I’m going to start screwing with your ability to post your drivel freely here. Note, that does not mean censor you, because that’s for wimps. But, like anywhere else, commenting here is a privilege, and should you continue to abuse it, there will be consequences. I won’t tolerate your lies and libel for much longer.
It’s not chest-beating, it’s the truth, but then again I don’t expect you to understand the concept of “truth” because you’re a liar, and a wimp to boot (I’ll retract that last comment if and when you acknowledge the full force of #29.
Cool, so we’re in agreement that you don’t value objective discussion then, right? After all, all you do is run your mouth and duck every opportunity you have to prove your honesty, you weasel-y little atheist you. Grow a set of balls then come back.
Nobody poisoned the well, either, you silly atheist. Neither JT nor I. He’s an overreacting type, much like yourself.
joseph,
In an actual debate setting, yeah, I’d agree with you. However, if one is trying to goad their opponent into manning up and following through with something the opponent started, then those types of statements make sense. I thought I could appeal to his pride, but apparently his cowardice is the stronger pull.
Also, joseph… I’m going to ask you to please stop responding to Stephen on my blog. I have a feeling that if we all ignore him, he might go away, then maybe conversations around here can get back to what they were before he came and stunk it all up. Thanks.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Let’s see what you’ve got, you overblown fraud.
ANATOMY OF A HYPOCRITE
You’ve already described me as a “hater” (although you’re the one who declares theoretical debate is a “mental war”). So, it looks like you want to “subject” me to “harsh rebuttal and mockery.” I’m terribly frightened.
You accused me of threatening you, when I said expressly no threat was involved in my use of the term “libel.” But is there any question that you are trying to threaten me? After all, “harsh rebuttal and mockery” do not limit my posting liberties, so it must be something else you are entertaining. Why you won’t say is of a piece with your refusal to disclose how you could possibly not be a creationist. (Agnosticism–about whether the earth is new or old!–doesn’t, I’m afraid, make you anything more than a reactionary who must oppose the public teaching of evolution as truth–or else abandon public education for “home schooling.)
I’m disturbed by your reference to privileges. Posting to blogs shouldn’t be considered a privilege, as I argued to J.T. Blowhard, on your behalf. But one thing’s for sure, posting to your blog is no privilege. It’s a dreary civic duty. Otherwise, people might think you an intellectual, instead of the rabid Christian mental jihadist you are.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Not me. Hitchens shows how the most virulent moralism can flourish in an atheist. I think Hitchens became a public atheist to pursue his reactionary Islamophobic program.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...“or else abandon public education for “home schooling.)” Or other forms of privatized or churchified education.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
But are there any theist blogs that parallel CSA and Great Play in their relative objectivity? Cl’s mental war mongering may be the best game in town on the theist side. Please tell me I’m wrong.
Peter Hurford
says...Thanks for the compliments! While I understand the motivation behind the popular atheist vitriol, it really isn’t my thing. I agree it is definitely not optimized for truth finding.
~
While TWIM is my personal favorite, Dangerous Idea and Edward Feser are also pretty good. I also like Vexing Questions, but it doesn’t update very often.
I also enjoy William Lane Craig’s Q&A, Alexander Pruss, and Lydia McGrew from time to time.
joseph
says...CL
While I do sincerely wish the tone between yourself and Stephen were more civil, judging exactly where the blame lays would take a considerable amount of effort. As far as I know, your conversations span 4 blogs. Attempting to maintain neutrality seems prudent. Stephen has not been offensive to me personally, though I appreciate, rightly or wrongly, he has offended you. When I spoke for the ideal of freedom of speech in JT Eberhard’s blog I genuinely meant it. I cannot commend you enough for your attitude here:
Not merely tolerated, but welcomed.
Any request to ostracise Stephen concerns me a great deal, I would be grateful if you would withdraw the request, I think you may have made it hastily. Besides, even if I were to stop addressing him here I think you yourself would still address him on other blogs, as far as I’ve come to know you, you certainly aren’t a timid character. For this, and your general support of dialogue, I heartily commend you.
I would also request that you both tone down the emoptional fervour with which you address each other, as you are both missing the opportunity to engage with a keen mind neutrally.
In amongst all the rest, I would like to know your position on a literal interpretation of “the fall” and any conflicts it may have with evolution. It may be you don’t have a position yet, maybe you were presenting a possible position for the sake of the debate. Maybe you regard it in a probabilistic fashion, which I fully understand, I think I lack the conviction to host a blog myself as I find it even harder to commit myself to any views.
Stephen
As you’ve just read I’ve requested CL attempt to keep any conversation with you more neutral in tone. I’ll request that you do the same when corresponding with CL. I know that you see some value in objectivity.
Hitchen’s contempt for religion may have more to do with his mother. I believe she abandoned the family home for some sort of charlatan.
The blogs Peter Hurford suggested seem good, Glenn Peoples seems to want to be a sort of friendlier version of William Lane Craig, his blog is called something like “say hello to my little friend”. I’ve listened to his debate with Arif Ahmed (probably my favourite Atheist debater).
I do find CL is fairly unique in not shying away from philosophical points of contention, being very good at finding flaws in atheistic arguments (a personal blind, or fuzzy spot), and not being frequented by fundamentalists telling me that Carbon dating proves a young earth.
I am also surprised that CL has pointed me towards some research (into Ganzfeld phenomena), that although I have many questions about (and ideas on variation and control groups within the procedure), has be unable to simply dismiss. I remain a sceptic, but I still consider this a gift.
CL & Stephen
I appreciate I am somewhat a milquetoast, the world is all the more interesting for passionate people, but please let your conviction drive the dialogue, rather than produce so much ill will that the conversation ends. So, neither condoning nor condemning either of you, please continue talking.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
Thank you for your objective comments.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Yet, one of the “disputes” concerns the meaning of one of your utterances? CL’s third post when he trolled my blog at http://tinyurl.com/6pt9eq5 stated in entirety:
This–and my refusal to rectify it–was the substance of one of my major “lies.”
Now, the unfortunate fact is that only you could settle whether I was lying–or at best was a pedant. For his grievance about my interpretation of your position, he pursued me to my blog and posted repeatedly without the least claim of relevance his challenges and breast beating.
I can’t see how a mind so occupied could possibly be “keen.” I suppose he compares favorably with other fundamentalists in his intelligence and ostensible open-mindedness.
joseph
says...Yes, I wondered if attempting to clarify further would make things better or worse.
On one hand naturally, I only have my own account of things. I cannot be sure of your, or CL’s imagination.
On the other hand, how can a change occur without time and be said to be a change?
I can neither imagine such a thing myself, nor can I imagine anybidy else being able to imagine such a thing.
Unfortunately that leaves us with neither of you being 100% wrong.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
The question, I think, is whether an act can occur without change, not whether a change can occur except in time. But I take your argument to be a challenge to produce an intelligible definition of “act” that doesn’t involve change (hence can exist outside time). (And “intelligible” today means non-Aristotelian, since Aristotelian *physical* concepts are incoherent in light of modern knowledge.)
What it clearly is NOT is an argument that an act must occur in time because only things you or others can conceive of can occur. And this much was clear in your comment, when you said expressly “it is inconceivable,” not that you personally can’t conceive it or that other persons can’t.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...And if that wasn’t enough, the square-circle analogy clinches it in establishing your meaning.
joseph
says...I think an act could be performed to maintain a state in spite of some other factor that would cause a change. The act of holding a sheet of paper to a desk to prevent it being blown away by a draft. An act is performed to prevent change in terms of the paper’s position. Though, in terms of chemical reactions occuring in the muscles, and force being put through the arm a change is occuring. In the example we were discussing the act was the creation of time, the change (based on WLC’s thoughts) was God changing from a timeless being to a being existing in time.
The only counter example to a change not occuring in time I can think of is across another dimension. Something like “the eainbow changed in colour from purple to red across it’s width. So change requires a dimension. Weirdly it seems many theists have pre-empted me, by staying God before the act of creation was not only timeless but dimensionless.
I’m thinking it would have behoved me to have said “logical incoherent” rather than “inconceivable”.
joseph
says...I thought it would establish what category a “timeless-act” falls into, I was expecting a counter argument along the lines of “you’ve got your definition wrong joe / an example is x” etc.
cl
says...Man, you guys are still talking about acts and change and timelessness? Actually, that’s cool. I like coming back to discussions after weeks have passed. It gives you a chance to relook afresh. At any rate, I still feel the same: We’re not talking about change per se. We’re talking about the logical difference between two Boolean states. God didn’t “change” from timeless to temporal, i.e., it wasn’t a transition from potency to act. So there’s no need to try conceiving of that which can’t be conceived.
Stephen,
No, that was just an example of your dishonesty. It’s not necessarily the same as lying. Lying involves conscious intent and I suspect this is related to that huge chip on your shoulder. And, that was only the minor issue. But, whatever. It’s clear you merely present yourself as a paragon of intellectual honesty. No big deal. We still accept you here.
Perfect example of an imprecise claim that needs to be clarified.
joseph,
What’s it matter now? It’s not like you respected the request anyways. The guy just really annoys me and he derails practically every thread with his own personal vendettas and chest-beating. I can’t stand it. But, whatever. I can ignore him when it gets to be too much. I just hate it because he does occasionally contribute intellectually, which means I actually have to read his comments. Catch-22.
Ah, I see… I’m supposed to honor *YOUR* requests but not the other way around eh? :) I can play that game: I request that you call his BS when you see it. You can start with #29 on this thread. That comment is a real gem exposing Stephen’s libel, impatience and departures from genuine critical thinking. Undeniable.
joseph
says...I will honour it if you insist, I’m not sure you’ve considered the implications.
It’s entirely at your discretion, no “supposed to”, no “ought”, no “should”. If you want me to word it more gently maybe a “suggestion”.
I try to tell him, or request clarification when I fail to understand him, or think he is wrong or mistaken. If you recall I defended you on Peter’s blog over your conversation at Vox day’s blog (though I had to withdraw/soften my defense when I found a lack of evidence, though this was understandable as Vox Day’s spouse was censoring you). However, the more this affair becomes to resemble a personal vendetta, on either or both sides, the less inclined I am to involve myself.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...That’s utterly unprincipled. I’m out of this cesspool.
joseph
says...Stephen, only if you were to assume it’s utterly unconditional.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...You’re right. There is a way (and only one) you could comply in a principled fashion. We’ll see.
cl
says...I was just teasing you, joseph. I think you may have taken me too literally. Stephen was just being particularly annoying that day.
Yes, I remember the fiasco about Vox’s… thanks again… but I’m talking about a dozen or so things since then. For example, WRT #29, wouldn’t you say Stephen was both rude and mistaken to continually accuse me of being a “Christian Rightist” when the “about” page clearly explains my disdain for political affiliations and ideologies?
joseph
says...Oddly I was hoping for something like that, or a misunderstanding. Even with smileys it’s sometimes hard to catch intent, and I’ve often wrongly misread things as being meant ironically.
As for the claim about you being Christian Right, my gut instinct is if you showed up at a Christian Right convention you’d be being burnt at the stake as a heretic in less time than it takes to strike a match. Never the less, you adopted an inerrantist position on “the Fall”, and I can certainly understand why Stephen identifies this as a Christian Right stance (inerrantism seems more common among the Christian Right), and as of the two of us, it is you who is a practising Christian (rather than a lapsed member of a Christian Cult) and it is your views being questioned, it seemed more appropriate to let you answer.
Also to repeat, I dislike my interpretation of the tone of the discussion, it does not seem peacable.
If you ask, as you have done here, a fairly neutrally worded question, such as “Joseph, what is your opinion on claims that I, CL, am a Christian Rightist”, I will attempt to answer. I cannot promise I won’t eventually tire of doing so, because I do find it somewhat tiresome, it detracts somewhat from my task of figuring out if I should believe more, or less, in a God.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I don’t see how a fundamentalist intellectual can avoid Christian Rightism, defined as allowing Christian religious doctrine to exert a sharp rightist influence on one’s political positions. I mistakenly concluded that another poster avoided rightism by withdrawing from politics completely. But letting the public schools go to hell while kids are schooled in religion privately is just as rightist as advocating that creationism be taught in the schools.
You, cl, are milder in your rightism than, say, Vox Day (but when you had your falling out, it wasn’t over politics. And Joseph, Vox Day is a *noted* Christian Rightist, and it took a good while before he decided to burn cl at the stake.) To my knowledge, cl has taken an explicit political stance only once, but it was a rightist position opposing the prerogative of atheists to display anti-religious propaganda to counter-balance the Christmas ornamentation at a public location.
My basic claim is that a Biblical inerrantist must believe that the Bible’s truth should be taught as truth in the schools, which is a key rightist position. (At the least, he must believe that the schools must abstain from presenting any conclusions as truth that conflict with the Bible, and abstaining from teaching something is an educational decision–and a political decision).
When you claim that the Bible is literally true, you are, of course, making a claim about ordinary, materialistic facts and holding this claim with religious tenacity. Whatever varied effects purely “spiritual” claims have on earthly behavior, claims about ordinary material facts that figure importantly in one’s thinking must bias one’s practical thinking, and this comes out most clearly when it comes to education issues.
joseph
says...Stephen my view, which I’m guessing CL will contest, is that many passages of scripture are open to multiple interpretations. The following biblical passages are all used by the Christian Left in support of their beliefs:
As for Vox Day, yes stung by my own hyperbole, it didn’t take to long before the roasting began though.
The translation used was Yoing’s Literal Translation, which raises another point, if you can’t read Ancient Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew or koine Greek for yourself, you have to pick a translation, all of which have some bias. For example Jehovah’s Witnesses decided to publish their own translation, which among other things, emphasises a Unitarian doctrine.
joseph
says...Of course, whether CL opposes the teaching of evolution in schools, is something I cannot answer.
joseph
says...An interesting article on inerrantism, for you perusification (definitly a word):
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_inerrancy_newcathol.htm
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I haven’t yet checked out the article you mentioned, but let me give you my understanding, which may be shaky. There seem to be broadly three Christian approaches to the Bible: literal word of God, symbolic word of God, and not the word of God at all. I assume inerrantism = literalism. It occurs to me that’s actually wrong if you go by the ordinary meaning of words, as the Bible could be inerrant if it’s symbolic. In fact, anyone who believes the Bible is the word of God must be an inerrantist, as long as God is presumed omniscient and honest. [I wonder why God can be presumed honest. Granting that honesty is a virtue, might in not as easily as benevolence be manifested in way’s we don’t understand, seemingly dishonest presentations representing a deeper truth?]
But I think that’s not the way the term’s used. Perhaps the only thing I base that on is that when cl claimed Adam and Eve really existed in a literal Garden of Eden, this belief was termed inerrantist; only a more limited meaning would have been explanatory.
Regarding the quotations that can be interpreted favorably to the political left: these have to do with teachings. They don’t rely on the literal truth of what’s recited. When it concerns _teachings_, there’s no difference between literal and symbolic interpretation. What Jesus is said to have meant ethically is said to be what’s important, and this is _necessarily_ subject to interpretation. What I call inerrantism, literalism, fundamentalism, or creationism involves beliefs that _depend_ on the literal truth of descriptions of events recited in the Bible.
I don’t know what cl says about teaching evolution, but I know what he should say logically, given his views, and I think I know what most people who agree with him theologically think politically. Think of this analogy. If someone is an atheist and is for that reason called a Communist, it would be a misrepresentation if he isn’t. Nothing in atheism compels Communism, and most atheists aren’t Communists. But if I’m introduced to a Communist, I’ll assume he’s an atheist because Communism logically requires it and most Communists are atheists. Also, someone who says the Garden of Eden is literally true is propagandizing for creationism and if he doesn’t want to be considered a creationist needs to state how the Garden of Eden can be made consistent with evolution or at least state a program in that direction. And if he’s a creationist who thinks evolution ought nevertheless to be taught in the schools, he needs to address the obvious contradiction between believing something false and believing it should be taught in the schools.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
A quote from the referenced essay re different interpretations of the Bible:
Stephen R. Diamond
says...By the way, what of what species was Adam and Eve? My wife, raised liberal Catholic, was taught that what distinguished man from beast was walking erect. (But that’s not inerrantist–it assumed evolution and asked when man acquired a soul.)
Perhaps Adam and Eve were homo erectus.
joseph
says...I tend to think that inerrantism does not get along well with literalism. Literalism is just not possible, the bible packs in too much metaphor, allegory and cultural references for a 21st Century European (well, kind of European, but that’s another issue) man just to pick up and read literally. I think very few people are literalists, this leads me back to my choice of translation, as Young attempted to be fairly literal the onus is on the reader to educate him/herself as to the cultural background of the bible, in doing such it is less helpful to the casual reader, but a fairly neutral translation, in my mind.
As such, there is some variance in want constitutes an inerrantist as it is entirely possible to put up a reasonable defence for a certain passage being translated as a metaphor, or symbolic, or literal. For example the “days of creation” mentioned in genesis, are they literal days, or not, as we have many other biblical passages supporting the use of days in a metaphorical sense and some of the days mentioned are before the earth is created (and rotating).
As you’ve picked up from the article, many an inerrantist will defend an “apparent contradiction” with complex logical processes which deny many a passage there “literal”/”stand alone” meaning.
Yes I assume honesty is seen as a virtue as many scriptures condemn lying, the devil is “the father of the lie”.
I have met Christians who assume that the Word of God was instantly tainted through the minds and pens of the authors and scribes. That God did not exert the necessary effort to prevent his/her/it’s word from degenerating, that the basics only, there is a loving God, who came to earth in human form and died for our sins, are all that can be considered sancrosanct. I have not been particularly tempted by this form of Christianity, though it seems more probable than Evangelical Christianity.
I think that inerrantism can live with left wing or right wing political views, it just happens in the U.S.A. it is more commonly associated with the right wing. Of course that Marx rejected Christianity means that many of the so called Marxist Communist revolutions rejected Christianity. In my homeland, Britain, the Church of England is a bit more fuzzy liberal than Churchs in the U.S.A. and there is an established Christian Socialist movement, Tony Blair, George Bush’s grinning poodle, was I believe, associated with this group. It would seem very literal to say that the community described in Acts of the Apostles had more in common with a socialist outlook on society than a hard right Capitalist outlook, and in the bible greed is often viewed as negative, whereas Capitalism seems to at most view greed neutrally.
Yes, I would like to know where CL stands on the fall, evolution, education etc. Whether his/her economic outlook is right or left wing seems to have little direct connection with this issue. Yes, if CL believes in a literal “fall” then it would seem consistent to oppose teaching children evolution in school.
As I was raised an inerrantist, I was taught evolution didn’t happen, so there was no question of what species Adam and Eve were. I understand the Catholic Church debates this often, I think the current Pope has back pedalled a little on evolution, and sent some feelers out to the intelligent design camp. The Catholic Church seems pre-eminently concerned with the survival of the Catholic Church, it seems what is “true” is more a case of “what we can currently get away with on the basis of public knowledge and opinion”. Of course, one could be less cynical.
joseph
says...Doing a quick background check it would seem the terminology is something like this:
Most inerrantist would claim to use the historical-grammatical method, but they would not claim to be adherents of letterism (which is what I equated with literalism in my last few comments).
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
A summary (http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible):
Which denomination, if I can ask?
I wouldn’t say that. Here’s why. “The community described in Acts of the Apostles had more in common with a socialist outlook…” doesn’t even assert that the Apostles existed.
I don’t question you can interpret the Bible to disfavor capitalism. But I’d be very suprised–and would concede this whole point–were it shown that (even) a “Labour lieutenant of capitalism” like Tony Blair were an inerrantist.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...One church (Canada) said to be “leftist”:
iow, not inerrantist.
joseph
says...Sure no problem I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, which some may not consider to be a Christian, I’d say at worst a Christian cult/heretic.
Yep, I doubt Tony Blair is an inerrantist or a socialist, but I see no prohibition on being both. The Plymouth Colony is perhaps a historical example, maybe the Eastern Orthodox Church too, unless you hold it was bullied into that position. I think it likely that you could dig up a Scandinavian Inerrantist group. Actually I set myself that challenge.
I am confused about your comment on the book “Acts of the Apostles” as the book is about, well, Acts of the Apostles (implying the existence of apostles, or at least if it’s meant to be allegorical I’ve missed it).
joseph
says...Harder than I’d imagined Pentecostalism and Evangelical Lutherans seem prominent in Norway, and at least some of those seem to adhere to historical-grammatical style biblical inerrancy, but I can’t rule out that all of them aren’t right wing politically. I’d hazard a guess that they are right wing by scandinavian standards, but Left wing relative to the USA. Of course I am a bit biased here as I think Britain, for example, isn’t really that Socialist, but many Americans are horrified by the idea of nationalised healthcare.
joseph
says...I really can’t decide if Tony Campolo, author of this article:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/11/Stages-Of-Creation.aspx
Supports my case or yours.
cl
says...joseph,
Your gut instinct is correct.
Where? More importantly, what, exactly, do you mean by “inerrantist?”
cl
says...Diamond,
Isn’t that a bit of a circular definition? You define a “Christian rightist” as one with a “rightist” influence—but you never define “rightist” so I don’t really know what you mean. What do you mean by “fundamentalist?” What do you mean by “sharp rightist influence?”
Would you say somebody who condemns the church’s treatment of gay people has succumbed to “rightism?” I’d say no. Would you say those who oppose abortion necessarily qualify as rightist? I’d say no, unless they also supported, say, 70% or more of the “contemporary Rightist positions.”
I did take an explicit political stance there, but it is definitely NOT rightist, unless by “rightist” you mean somebody interested in protecting the religious liberties of ALL people. In the past I said I supported the right of the FFRF to create a holiday display but opposed allowing them to insult religious people while ostensibly struggling for equality. These days, I’m questioning whether the FFRF should have a legitimate right to post a holiday display at all. They aren’t a religious group. Should Larry Flynt be allowed to post holiday displays with scantily-clothed women? Every other day of the week, atheists generally deny that atheism is a religion. Well, okay, if they say so… but then they shouldn’t turn around and demand the same rights as a religion.
I oppose that type of theocracy. I also oppose those who say that no religious position should be mentioned in school. I believe the schools should educate people ABOUT the world’s religions, their histories, where they agree or disagree… things of that nature. For example, I think it’d be fine for a teacher to say, “Christians believe people should repent of their sins,” but I would object to a teacher telling kids to repent of their sins. When it comes to school, I say teach don’t preach. There’s much more I could say about this, but for now I’ll leave it at that.
Not really, and abstaining from teaching something is not necessarily a political decision. Primarily, I believe schools should equip children with the skills they need to become productive members of society, as well as good, courteous people. When it comes to teaching science, I oppose the overly-dogmatic approach I often see. I think the approach should be more like, “Scientists believe theory X on account of evidence Y and Z,” as opposed to, “On account of Y and Z scientists have determined that X is a fact.”
This depends on the situation, too. If we’re talking about things that which can be observed, repeated and confirmed in the laboratory, that’s a little different. For example, I don’t mind a statement like, “water freezes at 0 degrees” because it is entirely factual and no new discoveries could overturn it (we could change our langauge, but that still wouldn’t change the fact that a particular molecular arrangement undergoes a particular chemical reaction at a certain temperature). On the other hand, take the statement, “Complex life arose millions of years ago.” This is not of the same caliber as “water freezes at 0 degrees” and ignores what is perhaps the central tenet of science: that findings are provisional.
So there’s a little to chew on for now.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
I think the relevant distinction is that whether the Acts of the Apostles is allegorical or not makes no difference to the message. It’s a story about apostles, but it’s what they are portrayed as saying and doing that important. But it makes all the difference whether the Fall is literal or symbolic.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...CL,
You ask me to define “rightist,” but you then proceed to use the term without definition, confidently concluding that your position on the XMAS ornamentation was not rightist. The the definition depends partly on one’s perspective. Joseph and I had enough practical agreement on what’s right and left that we could discuss the question, assuming at least tentatively we were talking about the same thing. Political taxonomy depends partly on political philosophy. For instance, many libertarians reject a spectrum that places them on the right; they think they’re above left and right. But others, with much the same ideas, call themselves right. So, one can even have the same politics and differ on classification. Which is not to say classification is unimportant; but which is to say it’s a matter of opinion.
We may roughly agree which issues are Christian Rightist, but assign different weights. For me, opposition to teaching what I consider science in the schools as the best knowledge we have of the truth is a major rightist program. Opposition to free abortion on demand is rightist. To me, “gay rights” is a minor issue in the United States and Great Britain–I think gays basic rights are today well-protected, and I’m actually opposed to some of the “reforms” (e.g., gay marriage). Basically, I deny (of course) that homosexual acts are “immoral,” but I take the “traditional” view that homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder. (See my “Is same-sex marriage coherent” (http://tinyurl.com/yz3zhbw) and (for a more legalistic analysis) “The problem of nondiscrete suspect classes” (http://tinyurl.com/c6lw4tg)
I’ve been called rightist based on those positions alone. (Or based on another position I share with the right, the right to keep and bear arms.) I reject this classification, of course, but I don’t regard their calling me a rightist as a lie; rather, the result of their perverted way of analyzing the political world.
Political taxonomy is itself a highly contentious topic. And when I called you a Christian Rightist, it was when you posted to a Juridical Coherence essay which happened to focus on that very topic: political taxonomy.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...What gives a religious majority the right to use public property to display its symbols? I see that as a major dividing line–not between right and left but between the far right and everyone else. Atheists shouldn’t have to view religious symbols in public places any more than should Christians have to view insults. So my preference is for no displays, but if they’re to be, they should be governed by the principle of complete equality for religious and anti-religious propaganda.
Of course atheism isn’t a religion, but the question is, who says religionists exclusively get to display their wares? That prerogative has in fact become a key Christian Rightist position these days.
cl
says...Diamond,
False. I supplied enough information for you to understand what I mean by “rightist.” Like the other stuff, you just overlooked it.
joseph
says...Stephen,
I see what you mean, I think whether you take Acts to be literal or allegorical, it still makes odd bedfellows out of Christianity and free market capitalism.
Here is another interesting article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/from-jesus-socialism-to-capitalistic-christianity/2011/08/12/gIQAziaQBJ_blog.html
If you’re extremely literal in your translation, you can argue the New Testament doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but male temple prostitution.
Abortion I think will generally be a prolife issue for Christianity, though I understand some Conquistadors, shall we say misapplied certain doctrines and so thought that killing neonates, immediatly post-baptism, was kind (it prevented them even the possibility of going to hell). Which I think proves the perversity of the human mind rather than the falsity of christianity.
I’d agree that those who take the creation accounts of Genesis literally ought oppose the teaching of evolution, I’m not sure I’d classify that as right or left wing, merely fundamentalist.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...CL,
But I supplied you much more information about what I considered rightist, in a long discussion with Joseph. You tend to apply a double standard, as one fellow over at JT’s perceived.
Joseph,
Xianity and socialism aren’t necessarily odd bedfellows. (“Scientific socialism” (per Engels) is incompatible with Xianity, but “Utopian” or “reformist” socialism isn’t. My claim is that fundamentalist intellectuals are invariably rightists, not that all Christians are or even all fundamentalists are. (Invariably is slight hyperbole; nothing is literally impossible for humans to believe.) Not all fundamentalists, since poor, ignorant, oppressed people–the natural supporters of the left–are often fundamentalist, at least in the U.S. [One summer in college I worked as an unskilled laborer in a steel factor in Baltimore. My fellow workers, almost all black, were–based on a very small sample–often fundamentalist. Their questions in discussion, upon learning I’m an atheist, were, for example: “If there’s no God, how do the seasons change?”])
There’s a long association between populist rightism and opposing the teaching of science in the schools. Today, rightists are centering their campaign on the premises that cl has recently defended: that scientific conclusions be treated as optional (in the name of teaching students “critical thought”–which the fundamentalists suddenly claim to favor). With this, they hope to encourage teachers to teach “scientific creationism.”
You can make a case that fundamentalism isn’t necessarily rightist from the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. William Jennings Bryan opposed Clarence Darrow, and Bryan was at the time termed a liberal. So, if we differ on whether fundamentalism is rightist, we might need a definition at this point.
As I see it, right and left define where one stands in relation to the great revolutionary movements of the time. The “right” formally arose in response to the French Revolution. The left was the enemy of Christian religion at the time; the French revolutionaries hung clerics from the lamp posts. In relatively modern times, the Bolsheviks did the same. The right is on the side of stasis or reaction, even to the point of preserving official religious observance by the supposedly secular state, as manifested in the side argument about public XMAS ornamentation.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Definition of fundamentalist: One who believes that Genesis is literally true.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
The MacMillan dictionary, which I’m increasingly coming to like, gives an interesting couple of definitions of “fundamentalism”
This displays the connection between conservatism/reaction and inerrancy about the Bible.
My long-time favorite dictionary, Random House, defines fundamentalism in its first definition:
The first bolded phrase displays the opposition of fundamentalism to modernism, hence its inherently conservative (read rightist) nature. The second bolded phrase ratifies my distinction (which you accepted).
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Let it be noted: there’s supposedly a distinction between inerrancy and infallibility. Not that it amounts to a hill of beans.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Here’s what that perceptive fellow, one “Marshall,” posted (http://tinyurl.com/ce2wnul):
My unsolicited advice to cl: Stay out of debates. They aren’t searches for truth, and they bring out the worst in you–both short- and long-term.
joseph
says...Stephen
I saw your wonderful comedian, satirist Bill O’Reilly make a similar argument on his show. Something like “tides go in, tides go out, so I believe in God”. Sometimes I think Fox News exists because you Americans take irony to a much more profound level than us Brits.
I’d definity agree that fundamentalism, and biblical inerrancy, have quite a reactionary streak, and on issues such as science and abortion it’s got to be damn near impossible to be a Christian Fundamentalist and not be pro-life, encourage children to learn about evolution at school. On the other hand in terms of economics, and monetary matters, I am quite suprised my the fact that Christian organisations have thrown their weight behind free market capitalism. To my mind, the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament, seem distinctly leftist in such regards.
As for the comment about fundamentalism, we have the whole matter of translation, interpretation, and what is canon to get over. Should the Pastoral Epistles be canonical? Should the Gospel of John? What about the Gospel of Thomas? Are there parts of Daniel that should be removed, and the ending of the gospel of Mark? This makes even so called inerrantist fundamentalism a slippery beast, though I appreciate the point you are making about education and abortion. Even the atonement by the death of Jesus wasn’t crystal clear to early Christians, famously the Gnostics countered that the “secret knowledge” was what lead to salvation, and somewhat mocked what became the Orthodox Christians for making so much fuss over a death.
joseph
says...My brain sometimes fails to cope with the profound nature of such ideas, the alternative is they are nonsense.
Inerrant = no errors?
Infallible = no flaws?
The difference between “presume” and “assume” is easier to see…
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I agree that’s a contradiction, and it illustrates that people don’t automatically apply the “morals” they’re taught in childhood to politics. (Habit theory of Civic Morality, http://tinyurl.com/7t3zrrl) But I don’t think the form of socialism the New Testament (at least the translation I read) would seem to espouse is leftist: I would call it apolitical. A socialism which consists of the sharing of poverty has little in common with a socialism that seeks to redistribute the productive resources.
Interesting to me, a charitable sort of altruism is today espoused by secular moralists, some who take very seriously their miniscule contributions to charity. But charity tends to pose as an _alternative_ to socialistic measures (rather than an implementation of socialism of any sort), and some of the most avid charity advocates are in fact rightist free marketers. (Ron Paul wants to leave medical care to charities, and–at least not a hypocrite–was himself quite charitable in his medical practice.) Similarly, the socialistic elements of Christianity are seldom a threat to capitalism.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...To avoid misunderstanding, Ron Paul isn’t an example of a secular moralist; he’s a Christian, probably fundamentalist.
cl
says...Diamond,
That’s just your opinion. Remember, there’s no such thing as objective values. In my opinion, y’all just need to toughen up. Every day, I see things I disagree with all around me and I don’t go around crying about it.
If “naturalists” or “atheists” want to have a display, that’s one thing—I could be open-minded about that despite the double standard of wanting to be treated like a religion when it suits their agenda—but in my opinion, they can’t have a display hating on the religious. That’s tacky and immature, like the New Atheist movement in general (so very fitting, I suppose).
You assume I read all of your conversation.
See? That’s part of the problem. You just make up your own definitions. That’s why I ask. In most philosophy of religion circles, “fundamentalist” denotes a person who accepts: (I) the inspiration and what the writers call infallibility of Scripture, (2) the deity of Christ (including his virgin birth), (3) the substitutionary atonement of his death, (4) his literal resurrection from the dead, and (5) his literal return at the Second Coming. Regardless, whether by your definition or theirs, it would seem I’m a fundamentalist. If that makes me a “Rightist” in your world, then all you’re doing is conflating terms. Hardly useful for anything but annoyance.
Thanks Doc. How much do I owe you for this session?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Joseph,
My free-will series now includes Another refutation of compatibilism: Newcomb’s paradox shows that free will is entirely illusory:
joseph
says...Stephen,
Thankyou! Another interesting post.
I held back from replying for a little while as I’ve had an eventful few days and I only have a passing acquaintance with Ron Paul. As a non-american I never know how seriously you guys take him, the American elections are well covered by google news, but I’m never sure whether he’s a cranky outsider or whether he actually has a shot at power, my opinion is a mild version of the former so far.
I agree the Christians discussed in Acts were not sharing great wealth with each other, on the other hand the kind of wealthy philantropist model of charitable giving seems to be at odds with Jesus’s advice to abandon worldly goods and that it would be extremely hard for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of god, unless they abandon all wealth, in which case, why bother obtaining it?
Though I suppose you good argue the kind of “socialism” in Acts wasn’t run by the state, but the church. At that point in time I very much doubt the Christian community even dreamt they would gain control of state apparatus accross Europe and Asia minor.
It also interesting that some contribute the rise of the Bishop of Rome to the act of charitable giving to the neighbouring, less affluent, congregations.
CL
Whilst I think Stephen’s definition can be added to, and refined, I note that your definition is inclusive of Stephen’s.
Where? When you debated with Peter Hurford…
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but I take it you didn’t means this as an allegorical interpretation of the fall?
As I have said, I am unsure if you were trying this position for the sake of the debate, or whether it represents your actual position.
As for inerrancy, I mean the doctrine that the bible is free of error, and I would take that to mostly consist of people following a historical-grammatical school of interpretation, probably some letterists as well.
I am having trouble thinking of the difference between infallibility and inerrancy, if you can point me in the right direction, great.
cl
says...joseph,
No, I didn’t, but don’t you think it’s a bit risky on your part to assume I’m an inerrantist based on that single paragraph alone? It makes sense to me that the type of God described by the Bible wouldn’t deliver revelations with error. Now, I’m not sure that necessarily means God would never allow a scribe to err, or that God would prevent someone from translating the Bible to suit their own agenda, but my belief is that an all-knowing God would have given us an innerrant revelation. Quite frankly, of all the verses in the Bible and all the supposed “errors” and “contradictions” touted by atheists, I’d say over 98% can be easily resolved (and that’s just a gut evaluation based on experience).
Like anything else it depends on what’s meant by those words. Maybe some people take “infallible” to mean “trustworthy in delivering the essentials about God and salvation.” A definition like that would allow one to say that the Bible contained factual errors, but remains infallible. Generally, I try to stay away from labels.
cl
says...Your essay shows that free will is illusory? Hardly. You take the same approach as Luke Muehlhauser, but there’s a reason Marcel Brass cautioned people from reading too much into Libet. I suggest reading that episode of CPD (eighty-something, I think).
joseph
says...Absolutely! Should I assume you are assuming that i was assuming? ;)
Yes, that’s why I was waiting for you to clarify, and expressed doubt as to whether this was your actual position quite a few times.
It seems wise to make the allowance for scribes to err, or translators to express their own views through their choice of words.
I’d agree that many of the contradictions can be resolved, I think we’d make different judgements as to the “ease” with which this is done.
Your definition of infallible seems to be the popular one, it is perhaps a shame that we need agreed upon “labels” to some degree for mutual understanding, but at the same time they often carry a great many connotations.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...cl,
It doesn’t show free will is illusory. It has no bearing on libertarian free will. What it demonstrates is the incoherence of compatibilism. Libet has no relevance for a spiritualist.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Speak about annoyance–Luke Muehlhauser was a compatibilist, and undermining compatibilism is the sole purpose of the series. (http://tinyurl.com/6m7lrng) And ultimately, I don’t rely on Libet’s _empirical_ findings in the least:
(10.2. The what, how, and why of “free will”: A metaphysical digression—Part 2. How “free will”? http://tinyurl.com/2uy5oyg
Stephen R. Diamond
says...“Your essay shows that free will is illusory? Hardly.”
Yes, that is annoying: the smug expression of an opinion, when you obviously haven’t even read the subject essay.
As to calling you a rightist–well, are you? Nobody has been able to provide an example of a fundamentalist intellectual who isn’t a rightist, but the issue seems to be whether you’re one rather than whether fundamentalism so implies. So, let’s find out: who do you support for President in the next election?
10 to 1 it’s not Obama, and unless you’re a far leftist, anything else today is right.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Well, that’s not exactly right. It shows free will is illusory because it knocks out the only viable alternative to hard determinism, compatibilism. It doesn’t deal with libertarian free will because, frankly, neither I nor most of my readers think libertarian free will has any more plausibility than the existence of a deity.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Here’s why I gave that definition: in close to 100% of cases, it suffices. Anybody who takes the Garden of Eden literally takes Genesis literally, because the Garden is the most far-fetched of all of Genesis. And anybody who takes Genesis seriously has no trouble believing those other things. And Genesis is what most pits Christianity against science.
But let’s look at something else for a moment. What’s wrong with making up definitions for concepts like “fundamentalist.” Who decides what the correct definition is? Any label is inherently arbitrary; what’s important is to use it consistently and to supply others the knowledge necessary to interpret you. Fundamentalist as a term doesn’t denote a natural kind. The term’s reference is completely by arbitrary convention.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...OK, that’s damn irritating too. Here you write a post crying about the display of anti-religious arguments on public property and you accuse me of crying about it. What gives?
In the end, if you have power, you’ll continue to display Xian propaganda. If the left has power, we’ll completely secularize the state–including eradicating that damn “In God we trust” bullshit on the currency. It’s not a question of “objective values” but one of knowing which side you’re on.
Peter Hurford
says...Quite the cynical view of policy.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...I wouldn’t call it that, inasmuch as cynicism implies low motives by the actors described, and secularizing the state is a high ideal. (So is theocratizing it, for that matter.) I suppose if someone is committed to objective moral truths, this view of public policy falls short–hence, it might be considered cynical.
I call “cynical” a view like Robin Hanson’s (Overcoming Bias), with his reduction of all strivings to personal status seeking. [Hyperbole alert.]