Why Don’t Atheists Criticize Things Like This?
Posted in Quickies on | 1 minute | 7 Comments →
Isn’t it funny how one-sided the average atheist meta-argument against Christianity usually is? By “meta-argument” I mean an overall case supported by other arguments, perhaps the POE, arguments from contradiction, stuff like that. In my experience, pop atheists limit themselves to a few failed arguments (ala Dawkins & Loftus) and the atheists who can’t muster that much intellectual fortitude just talk a bunch of crap (ala PZ Myers & Loftus). Notice how they never, ever, ever, you know… counterbalance their vitriol? For example, nobody will deny the damage that comes from bitterness and anger, and one could reasonably suppose a good God would have an interest in teaching us this. Get the drift? Here are some relevant Google search results. “But the Bible is a morally bankrupt book!”, they’ll try to convince whomever will listen. Point is, atheists shan’t just irresponsibly use a few cherrypicked proof-texts and mistake that as a commitment to reason. No, I mean really. The playing field is so much larger than what’s often played.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair
says...I’m not sure if this is just density on my part, but I have no clue what you’re getting at here, cl. Are you playing the “pop atheists are so bitter and angry” c(an)ard? What exactly aren’t atheists criticizing — bad arguments for their position? Of course that’s true, and I don’t defend it. Indeed, I could say a lot of nasty things about the “religion is determined by geography” line or the “once you see why you reject all other religions, you’ll see why I reject yours” tripe, or the “what created God?” retort that, while close to getting to the heart of theistic arguments’ hypocrisy, is just begging to be eviscerated by any Christian philosopher worth his weight.
At the same time, you must admit that Christians and other theists are as guilty of this bias. Scarcely any theist criticizes the abysmal Ontological Argument, Transcendental Argument, or Moral Argument — all of which I would reject even if I were a Christian.
cl
says...ThatGuy,
Hey there, I’ve been meaning to jump back in our other conversation, so I’m glad you’ve popped in again. I will get back to that talk, I promise, I’ve just been busy. Getting to today’s question…
I summarized it at the end of the post: “Point is, atheists shan’t just irresponsibly use a few cherrypicked proof-texts and mistake that as a commitment to reason.” That’s what I’m getting at. When it comes to those lame “God is a moral monster” claims, that’s what most atheists do: cherrypick and mistake it as a commitment to reason.
I guess I’m an exception then. I’ve criticized the Ontological and Craig’s variation of the Moral argument. I’m not sure if I’ve heard of the Transcendental Argument, perhaps I’ll have a looksee.
Crude
says...For one thing, atheists – particularly Cult of Gnu atheists – offer up atheism not as another reasonable belief, but the only reasonable belief, and the atheist community generally as a bastion of level-headed reason and correct thinking. The moment the situation is instead framed as ‘atheists are just like theists when it comes to a lot of arguments, reasons and bias in their beliefs’, the air comes out of that.
That doesn’t seem like an apt comparison. First, plenty of theists reject/criticize the ontological argument and have for centuries – but my impression is that even among a number of atheist philosophers, the OA isn’t regarded as obviously wrong. The same goes for the transcendental and moral arguments. I don’t think you could rightly put any of those arguments on the level of, say… Loftus’ crap. There’s going to be a difference between a bad argument and an argument whose conclusion I disagree with, and I think that holds generally.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair
says...Crude,
Gee, just like how religious people tend to paint their own religious persuasion as the only sound basis of human goodwill and meaning? I don’t think most “Gnu” atheists are nearly as condescending as you take them to be. They aren’t saying theists are stupid, they’re saying that theists are too smart to believe stupid ideas — of which religion tends to have more than its fair share. The “Brights” label was undoubtedly a dim move, but I think the point of the New Atheism movement was to say, “Come on, you know you don’t really believe this. You apply your skepticism to every other facet of your life, but not your religion.” Which is true for many theists, but not all, of course.
Basically, you’re going after rather low-hanging fruit.
I realize that, and I agree with them; it’s not “obviously wrong” in the sense that saying the moon is made of cheese is wrong, but it’s still dreadfully wrong because of its equivocation fallacies and treatment of concepts as if they are actual things with their own natures. If you could give an example of “Loftus’s crap,” I’d gladly throw my two cents in here, but even as someone well-versed in the God debate I’ve seen almost no criticisms of the ontological, moral, and transcendental arguments from theists. It’s inconsequential, really, as I think there are more productive things to do than play the “which side is generally (but not for me, of course) more biased?” game.
Depends on your definition of “bad,” I guess. Just how many flawed premises or non sequitir conclusions must an argument have to be “bad”? Frankly, I call any argument that doesn’t reach a valid conclusion from true premises a bad argument, not because I think anyone who believes Kalam or TAG or what have you is simply stupid, but because I think it’s important to call a spade a spade in this vicious cesspool of mostly bad ideas that we call human thought.
Nester
says...I don’t think most “Gnu” atheists are nearly as condescending as you take them to be.
Sentence right before that:
Gee, just like how religious people tend to paint their own religious persuasion as the only sound basis of human goodwill and meaning?
Priceless.
Ronin
says...Lol.
Crude
says...Since when?
They may think that their religious beliefs are the only ultimately true ones, but you’ll find an absolute abundance of religious people – including Popes and orthodox theologians – who believe that ‘human goodwill and meaning’ are at least partially validated in other religions, even if imperfect.
The Cult of Gnu distinctly lacks this.
Please. From PZ Myers to Jerry Coyne to Richard Dawkins to Harris to the rest, you’re going to have trouble finding a Cult of Gnu rep who is not, as a rule, condescending on top of perpetually outraged.
Yeah, right. Show me the New Atheist leader who argues that their problem is merely with theists who don’t think deeply about their beliefs, and not with theism wholesale. Ever hear of the “Courtier’s Reply” schtick with PZ Myers? Or see Coyne and others mocking the idea of theologians or philosophical argument, while expressly priding themselves on neither reading nor understanding such arguments because they think it’s all a joke?
Face the facts: the Cult of Gnu is pretty rotten. Don’t like it? Ditch the cult. I certainly attack the Westboro Baptists at any appropriate point, and disown them entirely. The Cult of Gnu is atheism’s WBC.
Then you simply haven’t been looking, with regards to the ontological argument. The moral and transcendental arguments are more popular, and none of them are obviously false or even obviously “dreadfully wrong because of its equivocation fallacies and treatment of concepts as if they are actual things with their own natures.”
It sounds like you simply don’t like the arguments and find them unpersuasive, but really, even Bertrand Russell for a time thought the Ontological Argument was sound – and that’s the most questionable argument of the three. I can find plenty of examples of historical theists who object the OA – Aquinas and company being one.
Congratulations – all arguments you think don’t work are bad. So what?
There is no shortage of people ‘callin’ a spade a spade!’ thinking they’re contributing. Usually they just don’t understand what they’re talking about, and they show their repugnance for human thought by engaging in it as little as they can manage.
I’ll call a spade a spade too – see the Cult of Gnu – but then I’m going to be prepared to justify my position on the spot.