Why I Do What I DoEvery now and again it's helpful to ask oneself why one does the things they do. Recently, I found myself asking myself why I actually blog, and more particularly, why I comment on other blogs. I encourage you to skip this post, actually. It's not about epistemology or consciousness or potency or any of the more stimulating things we've been talking about these past weeks. I just needed to think some stuff out, and figured, why not do it in public? [weird little interview with myself follows]
A Chat With LifeguardOver at Evo's blog, you said:
I've regularly commented over at cl's blog and, from what I've observed, I think his position essentially boils down to this:
"Given the present state of the evidence, neither theism nor (positive) atheism are logically compulsory positions. Therefore, atheist arguments that characterize theist positions as irrational, illogical, or not supported by evidence are often false."
I suspect he feels that this makes theism as warranted as atheism, and I have disagreed with him on that. He has meticulously avoided making a positive statement about his beliefs, religious or otherwise, but my guess is he's an open-minded liberal theist of some sort.
Bottom line? Sometimes I think he's right about certain arguments, and I don't have a problem admitting that. Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that. But I have found he can be pretty reasonable if you (1) don't overstate your case, (2) make concessions when you have, and (3) insist he do the same.
To date, neither of us has convinced the other, but, if that's the point, then… what's the point? Methinks challenging someone and being challenged is a lot more satisfying (and productive) than chasing after the illusion that somehow someone's going to convince a theist blogger to openly admit defeat in an argument about whether god exists.
On Blogging, Passivity, Party Lines & The Pursuit Of TruthIf you’re at all like I am, you probably consider the pursuit of truth to be pretty valuable. I think most of us can agree that the pursuit of truth is an important task. That’s the way I see it at least, and as an extension of that principle, I say one cannot accurately call oneself a pursuer of truth if they allow falsehood to remain uncorrected.
With that in mind, I’d like to discuss how passivity, especially selective passivity, can obscure the pursuit of truth – and more specifically – how these ideas relate to blogging.
Errors Of Logical TreasonJust 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.