April 1, 2009
So, A Huge And Hitherto Undiscovered Cretacious Beast, Part I turned into a total thread derailment. I'm really upset at Arthur and John Evo, and although I'm not going to ban them, I'm limiting the amount of comments they can make on TWIM. I don't usually punish atheists just for being atheists, but this has become intolerable…
March 27, 2009
Enough with the whining about lack of full disclosure in (a)theist discussion. There are very logical reasons for not painting oneself into some silly little mental category that is both culturally fabricated and deduced via subjective experience. I believe it is ultimately foolish and non-productive for a group of people to assign themselves emotionally-charged and socially-conflated labels while attempting to have anything even remotely close to a rational discussion. FAR too often it's more of the same in the blogosphere: Consider your average internet (a)theist discussion: Believer A shows up on atheist website B and leaves some comment C that falls anywhere between Cro-magnon man and Einstein on the intelligence scale. Atheist commenters D – Z then proceed to accost believer A anywhere from Bill Cosby to Christopher Hitchens on the respect scale, each according to their own ideas of what A believes.
March 25, 2009
Today I overheard somebody make a statement that really caught my attention and got me thinking. The topic of discussion was Oscar Wilde's book De Profundis, in which Wilde talks about his views on many things, including art, Christ, and art and Christ, which was particularly interesting but a different story altogether. In response, a person whom we'll call J, said, "I was brought up Catholic so I have developed this instinctive off-switch that flips as soon as I feel God is unnecessarily being drilled into my head."
I didn’t get the impression that Wilde was unnecessarily drilling God in anyone’s head. Rather, he seemed to be speculating on alternative interpretations of God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wilde hints in the book that he gives little credence to the God of Catholics and Christians. It seemed to me that the instinctive off-switch flipped in error, at the mere recognition of language that provided cerebral cues as to the subject matter. These cues may or may not have been interpreted correctly, and I couldn't help but wonder how often logic gets obscured by this psychological tendency.
It cuts both ways. Many believers have an instinctive off-switch which flips as soon as anybody presents an objection to their beliefs. Evolution is perhaps the penultimate example. At the end of the day, whether in the head of an atheist, a believer, you, me or the guy at the 7-11 down the street, instinctive off-switches always hinder critical thinking to some degree. We would do well to identify and uproot them.
How about you? Do you have any instinctive off-switches?
March 20, 2009
First let me be clear: I consider myself a rational person, and the point of this post is not to denigrate rationalism or rationalists. The value of rationalism as a truth-filter and its tremendous impact on modern society cannot be overstated. When appropriately applied, the philosophy of rationalism leads to or complies with all sorts of tried-and-true concepts: The presumption of innocence sans proof of guilt, the scientific method, the burden of proof, etc. All of these things are sound derivatives of an evidence-based epistemology and by no means do I intend to challenge them.
Yet, any idea can descend into dogma, and no philosophy is good when our application of it encourages rigidity. Consequently, I've noticed I don't always agree with the scope and popular interpretations of rationalism that have ascended to the apex of today's epistemological food chain. In my opinion, they lend themselves all too well to dogmatic thinking and provide the perfect cover for those who unconsciously make the converse mistake of the gullible.
Going further, I often wonder if contemporary interpretations of rationalism entail an irrecoverable contradiction, and therein lies the topic of the post: Contemporary rationalism tells us to assume all claims without evidence are false, yet there's no evidence to support the claim that all claims without evidence are false, so on what evidence might we rest?
**Note: This is not an argument, conclusion or suggestion that all claims are equally credible, either, so don't start flanking me from that direction.
March 17, 2009
So it appears Deacon Duncan has accused me of post hoc reasoning regarding an objection I made to his elaboration on my re-capitation example. I'd like to take a moment to discuss why I feel his complaints are based on an overly-charitable interpretation of my objection, and I'm curious to hear what you think. The linked post is part of a lengthy ongoing discussion, so a little backstory might be helpful.
For the past month or so at EvangelicalRealism, we've been discussing the amount of credibility we can reasonably assign to miracle stories. Now, everyone has different definitions of a miracle and different thresholds of skepticism through which they filter observed events. Phenomena like the Marian apparitions at Zeitoun are obviously sufficient to convince some people, yet others remain skeptical. So how might we define a miracle objectively, in a manner that anyone can apply to any observed event?
I entered the discussion attempting to establish a rigorous set of criteria one could apply to determine whether or not any event might be considered a miracle. That didn't work out very well, so in further attempts to determine the 'miracle switch' in everybody's brains, I introduced the re-capitated man as a hypothetical example, asking skeptics how they would parse such an event. That is, if we observed a man get decapitated, then an hour later we observe the man's head re-attach after which he goes into the bar for a drink, would we have grounds to say something "miraculous" had occurred?
March 12, 2009
I've been waiting for another opportunity to poke holes in the lavish presuppositions folks often bring to POE arguments and this recent banter was just what I needed to get motivated.
To review, the Omni^4 Claim is the idea that the God of the Bible simultaneously possesses the following four qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. IOW, that the God of the Bible is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and all-present. As an aside, many people disregard omnipresence as irrelevant to POE arguments, but I thought I'd throw it in there for historical accuracy if nothing else.
March 11, 2009
So I was about to hit "post" when I took a break, and found myself randomly staring at a TV that was on. It was that History Channel show called MonsterQuest and now you probably see the significance of the title. The show begins with narration on the nature of different sorts of monsters, you know, Big Foot, the New Jersey Devil, Werewolves, et cetera: "Monsters. Are they real? Or imaginary? Join us as science tries to find out."
That's exactly what's been going on at EvangelicalRealism for the past few weeks now: we've been on a MiracleQuest. Except that MonsterQuest can at least define exactly or near-exactly what it is they're looking for. Despite my stodginess on the issue and the naysayers, I think we'll soon solve these problems of definition and criteria. The more we talk about it, the more ideas get tossed out, the bigger the pile of potentially good ideas grows, and sooner or later we're there.
March 7, 2009
In Part One we left off with the idea that there are many illusions a writer might face throughout various stages of his or her career. I discussed a few areas in which I believe I achieved some introductory success as a writer, and not to embellish those achievements. The point was to establish a small amount of success to show that even a small amount of success can lead to all kinds of obfuscations and illusions for a writer.
So you got a book deal and you're in Barnes & Noble? Produced some television? Saw your name on the big screen, maybe? Perhaps the most painful illusion related to success is that success is guaranteed to recur. It's not. Another major illusion is the idea that success will never happen at all. Keep plugging away. Another illusion is that success is guaranteed to happen in a certain way, or in the way we expect, or the same way as before, and it's quite easy to get discouraged because what one defines as "success" comes too slowly or with too much effort. Think outside the box. Although hard work tends to pay off in general, success is not something the writer can always predictably control. Paradoxically, the only guarantee with success as a writer is that there are no guarantees with success in writing!
March 5, 2009
"How might we reasonably define a miracle?" asks cl.
"Regrow a limb on video, empty out a cancer ward, levitate a bunch of Christians out of a burning church and I'll be on the road to belief," says cl's opponent.
"I don't mean give me your own particular examples of a miracle," cl says.
"Oh, well what a disputationist and sophist you are!" quips cl's opponent only a little irrationally.
Just a quick log-on to vent about something momentarily. In my previous post about why I'd like to debate with a computer, we suggested that computers are effectively immune from errors of human pride. What's pissing me off at the moment is the amount of people that are perfectly willing to accuse others of all sorts of things that require some degree of clairvoyance, from arguing in bad faith to sophism to outright lying, usually all over some petty, related misunderstanding.
What's wrong with the idea of being cordial and extending the benefit of the doubt? I suppose the online world is just a reflection of reality, where far too many people are just impatient and all too willing to cast blame on the other person. Far too often, I feel like people are bumping directly into me, then telling me that I was in their way! They'll misunderstand some statement I made, then turn around and accuse me of sophism because my subsequent reasoning doesn't conform to their misunderstanding!! I mean this stuff would be hilarious were it not so maddeningly frustrating.