It is the same when debating those of the far left on matters of politics. The arrogance is so intense with some of them that they think that anyone who isn't convinced by their arguments must not understand them very well.
Well, let's hope for the best. John seems to me like a nice and fair-minded guy, so this surprised me a bit to get this sort of answer. If he admits he blew it here we can move on to real dialogue.
I still think Boethius had it right. We cannot see the hidden depths of our own human hearts; how can we possibly know the purposes of God!
I expanded the post as of 8 PM EST Monday by adding John's further comments and my replies.
A crisis. Interesting. Yes, I do think lots of people leave their religion in a crisis, while lots of people use the crisis to deepen their faith and their trust. It all depends on where they are at and what they truly believe in. There are some people who place there trust in religious rituals, rules, and writings. There are some people who place their trust in the the God behind the rituals, rules, and writings. Such a difference in perspective and yet both people accomplish the same thing as viewed from the outside.
Well there is that delaying tactic again: give your opponent homework assignments.
Hey Right-wing tool. Read Chomsky's Deterring Democracy and then maybe we can talk.
Hey Papal Lackey. Read some obscure medieval popes and then we can talk.
Hey primitive theist. Read a bunch of pointy-headed professors, and thenwe can talk.
It's like being invited to a pyramid-scheme meeting.
I find it interesting that he compares his own writings to "poison."
One thing that would help is to stop equating atheism with political liberalism. So many people feel that becoming christian is to learn to think like George Bush. It is not helpful. Politically Pope Benedict is way left of any democrat. So was John Paul II. Read the USCCB documents. They are all left wing. Equating christianity with your politics is creating extra obstacles for them to come to Christ. It is a big mistake of the Fundamentalists and we should not do the same thing. Debating religion is hard enough without dragging politics into it.
Hi Randy,
Neither Charlie nor Scott were doing that. Rather they were comparing atheists and leftists in one respect: in how they argue their points in an unfair and objectionable manner. So it is incorrect to label what they did above as "equating atheism with political liberalism." There are pro-life atheists (e.g., Nat Hentoff) and conservative and libertarian atheists, just as there are left-wing evangelicals (Sojourners, Ron Sider, Anthony Campolo, etc.).
I think the second fallacy in your remark is to assume that what the popes say is "leftist." Political leftism or far left liberalism in politics is essentially (but not necessarily) a secular point of view, and confined to political matters only.
I would deny that recent popes are "politically left." They are neither right nor left; they are radically Catholic, which transcends these political categories (just as doctrinal orthodoxy transcends the left-right mentality, which is why I oppose both theological liberalism and so-called "traditionalism": considered to be on the "right").
So again, the remarks you object to above did not make the equation of popes and the Church with "politically right" (though it might perhaps be argued that they implied this); whereas you seem to have made the equation of popes and the Church with "politically left."
I think that is fundamentally wrongheaded. In my own political positions, e.g., hopefully guided by the Church, I take positions that do not fall into the normal dichotomies of American political discourse.
I oppose the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral and indefensible (quite unpopular with many conservatives, as are all the following positions). I oppose the death penalty (excepting the most extreme cases, including terrorists), per John Paul II's reasoning. I think America is the wickedest nation ever, by biblical standards, and that capitalism is an extremely (though not intrinsically) corrupt system, which fosters greed and an unhelpful materialism, and would favor something akin to Chesterton's distributism. I also like the idea of socialized health care.
But I am pro-life, pro-family, oppose radical feminism and homosexual "marriage", favor the war in Iraq and coercion of terrorist prisoners (all positions popular with political conservatives).
So that is six positions considered "left" and six considered "right." But the Church transcends these secular, civil political categories, just as my own set of positions does.
Randy,
Dave defended me well (thanks), but I just wanted to add (in case it was not obvious) that my examples were purely illustrative. I have been told by a dialog opponent to read Chomsky before he would accept or interact with my points, so it was a real-life anecdote which I suppose I should have mentioned for clarity. I could just as easily have said "Hey, left-wingnut. Read some Russel Kirk and then we can talk." My objection was purely to the interaction dodge tactic of saying one's opponent does not understand the issue, will not say why, and says one must study x, y, and z before they can comment intelligently on it. And I notice that same charge has come up again in the above combox. 
Rather they were comparing atheists and leftists in one respect: in how they argue their points in an unfair and objectionable manner
This IS my point. To say leftists argue their point in an unfair an objectionable manner puts you way far right. Many people would take it as an admission you have ceased to think critically. Unless of course they were far right wing as well in which case they would just take it as an insult. In either case it does not help you.
I do agree that Catholics should be above political alliances. That is why making statments that will alienate the political left is very unwise. Many Fundamentalists try to make you a christian and a Republican and not always in that order. We need to focus on faith and let them worry about how that should impact their politcs later.
>To say leftists argue their point in an unfair an objectionable manner puts you way far right.
That's sheer nonsense. One can make such a generalization without having any particular political position. Indeed, a leftist himself could make such a point: that the way his colleagues arguie their positions is often objectionable. A conservative could do the same thing on his side about his colleagues. You are thinking illogically.
>Many people would take it as an admission you have ceased to think critically.
Rubbish; all this would prove is that they did exactly what they falsely accused me of and that they are using fallacious logic (usually, in these instances, based on irrational emotionalism).
None of us said that the entirety of the leftist argument is a bunch of lousy and illogical argumentation. The point was simply made that this often occurs. There is no grounds here at all to conclude that any of us "have ceased to think critically." C'mon! LOL You are falling into the same pattern that we have criticized. And moreover, you took what was a philosophical discussion, primarily about logic, and have made it political where it was not at all: only in a very limited analogical sense.
>Unless of course they were far right wing as well in which case they would just take it as an insult.
What is "far right wing" anyway, and how is it relevant to this discussion? I have shown you (I can't speak for the others) that my own political views can hardly even be classified as "right" in any conventional understanding of these things (nor can the Church's, I have argued).
>In either case it does not help you.
The observation made was a perfectly valid one, and I stand by it. It doesn't prove in the slightest what you are contending.
>I do agree that Catholics should be above political alliances. That is why making statments that will alienate the political left is very unwise.
We are fully justified in criticizing large-scale trends in how people of certain persuasions tend to argue things. For heaven's sake, I've been arguing with liberals (both theological and political) for thirty years. I've contended with atheists and pro-aborts and radical homosexual activists, Marxists and feminists. I know how these people argue. And it is oftentimes exactly as it is portrayed above, in the disputed statements.
Now, having said that, this doesn't imply in the least that those on the right do not have their own perhaps equally serious deficiencies in method and argument. But I'm not dealing with that. I am dealing with prevalent left wing methodology at the moment.
>Many Fundamentalists try to make you a christian and a Republican and not always in that order.
Case in point. That has never been my approach. I've never been an apologist for either the Republican Party or capitalism. But there are certain clear differences where the Republicans are clearly on the side of the angels, or far more so
(cont.)
. . . than the Democrats (e.g., abortion and homosexual so-called "marriage"), and (I would contend) how church and state are related.
>We need to focus on faith and let them worry about how that should impact their politics later.
I agree. I deny that these comments made do otherwise. I think you're being far too sensitive (I imagine because of your own political views, to whatever degree).
It seems Randy took the cue from the first comment, and perhaps my reference to Chomsky. To defend Charlie, he did qualify the Left with "far". It is not controversial at all to suggest that as one gets to the extreme of the spectrum, Left OR Right, the logic gets muddled. I happen to be used to the absurd thinking from the far Left. I see plenty on the right such as at Mark Shea's blog as certain folks exhibit some ghastly thinking in excusing torture.
You guys just don't get it. By just mentioning "I happen to be used to the absurd thinking from the far Left" you get a reaction from someone who doesn't think the left is absurd at all. You might think Chomsky is an idiot. Mentioning it in a debate like this will cause your opponent to put you in a box. It makes it much harder for them to credit anything you say.
You may try and split hairs and say you are just refering to arguing tactics but it is wishful thinking. People rarely ridcule arguments they agree with. They certainly don't trot them out as negative paralells. They might point out a flaw here and there but they would never dismiss all the arguments as "absurd thinking" if they agreed with the conclusions.
You guys just don't get it. By just mentioning "I happen to be used to the absurd thinking from the far Left" you get a reaction from someone who doesn't think the left is absurd at all.
So there is no absurd thinking at all on the Left? I conceded that bad thinking exists on both sides of the spectrum, and I am one to point it out wherever found. I only mention that out of experience, not as a generalization. Kinda like if a car mechanic said, "I am familiar with the bad design of the new Mustang." He doesn't necessaily mean Ford always makes a bad car.
You might think Chomsky is an idiot.
No. I don't have to. Just like I don't have to necessarily read him to be conversant on a particular topic.
Mentioning it in a debate like this will cause your opponent to put you in a box. It makes it much harder for them to credit anything you say.
This goes to my point--not interacting with the actual ideas in an argument and rather saying, "go read this." It is the similar to the data-dump when someone posts reams of other people's material as if it constitutes an argument.
You may try and split hairs and say you are just refering to arguing tactics but it is wishful thinking. People rarely ridcule arguments they agree with. They certainly don't trot them out as negative paralells. They might point out a flaw here and there but they would never dismiss all the arguments as "absurd thinking" if they agreed with the conclusions.
Ok. So what? Arguments are either valid or invalid regardless of the PR job we do on them. The question is whether someone's bias or prejudices actually affect the logic itself. If it does, it shouldn't be hard to dismantle their point. Many folk won't do this because it requires work and would rather just cry foul when someone makes a generalization.
Ok. So what? Arguments are either valid or invalid regardless of the PR job we do on them. The question is whether someone's bias or prejudices actually affect the logic itself
I don't think it effects the logic itself but it does effect how likely you are to get them to see beyond any prejudices they may have. Most arguments about religion amount to getting people to see how their subconcious effects their thinking and causes them to see certain arguments as reasonable and others as not. This is not based on pure reason even though many people beleive it is for them. In reality it has a lot to do with tradition, painful experiences, sinful desires, etc. I believe if you can get past all that and get them to evaluate Catholicism based on pure reason it will be very appealing to them.
How do you do that? One way is to strip away anything that could trigger a negative response from their subconcious. It is not possible to do that completely but we should try and minimize it. Introducing political ideas that have a ton of baggage is the last thing you want to do.
He has said he can show how the Catholic doctrine of suffering is self contradictory. Make him show it. He can't. So don't give him a way out.
I stand by my original point--I did not equate atheism with liberalism and no one could resonably conclude that I did. I see no obligation to guess someone motives and tip-toe around prejudices that could easily be wholly imaginary.
Dave, would YOU like to debate me on the problem of evil? You seem to be a knowledgeable guy. How about it? I have seen nothing here that begins to seriously deal with it. Again, sorry.
And after further reflection I realized something. I asked myself what/who is the first thing I think of when I think of atheism. The answer I come up with is not left-wingers, but rght-wingers of the Ayn Rand/Objectivist sort. I think of Penn & Teller, who are right-wing (at least everything I have read or heard from them), or Richard Dawkins, whose political leanings I have no knowledge. So I am afraid this completely dismantles your point that I equate atheism with liberalism. Again I'l reiterate that it is about the ideas, and not the presuppositions which, as shown, can be so far off base that it is simply best to charge ahead and not worry about them.
Scott
I agree that Randy makes a good point vis-a-vis practical considerations. I was dealing with the logical aspect. But as a general rule, it is good to avoid controversial politics when discussing philosophical or theological issues. That I have no trouble with, and would agree that it is wise policy and strategy, so to speak.
Scott,
Good point. Most liberals I know believe in God. They are often theologically liberal (overlap). Atheists, on the other hand, quite often can fall into the objectivist / libertarian camp. I have two brothers-in-law who do exactly that. I still stand by my point about disagreeable argumentative methods from the far left, but agree also that this is also true of the far right, or indeed, of anyone who doesn't know how to argue properly, regardless of political persuasion.
Hi John,
>Dave, would YOU like to debate me on the problem of evil?
I've already begun; just not in a formal sense. You'll get a lot more people reading our interactions than you got in your live debate (100 or so). I get 600 hits a day on my blog, so what you say can reach all of them. Since you think your arguments will cause serious, faith-threatening doubts in any Christian who seriously considers them, this is a golden opportunity for you, isn't it?
>You seem to be a knowledgeable guy.
Not based on what you've said about me so far! LOL You've now stated about five times, I think, that I am ignorant about the Problem of Evil and don't have a clue.
>How about it?
Like I said, I've already begun, and your refusal to grant that I know anything about it has made me determined to do all the more reading (which is always a good thing). So I thank you for providing great motivation for pursuing one particular line of study. It's a good topic. I look forward to learning more and more. I usually get more interested in things (than I already am) based on situations liike this, in the course of my apologetics.
>I have seen nothing here that begins to seriously deal with it. Again, sorry.
No need to be sorry. I'm delighted that you think I am ignorant, because then it'll get really fun later on, if and when you get to a place where you have run out of answers from your atheist perspective and then have to figure out how that could be if I am so abysmally ignorant. LOL
So by all means, keep it up. "drunken tune" is doing the same. You'll all look foolish eventually, wholly apart from the arguments of either side. I know this because I've been through this elitist, intellectual snobbery routine so many times before with atheists (also with some Christians, by the way). I oppose it in all its guises.
But you no doubt are more familiar with many particulars of the debate than I am, since you obviously have a great interest in it, as one of your "zingers" for atheism. I don't deny that now, nor have I ever done so. That's not my point, which is that I am not AS wholly ignorant as you keep making out
(cont.)
Moreover, why is it you want to debate me if indeed I don't have a clue about this? I've often marveled at people who take such a cynical position and then ask for a debate. What's the point? You want to find the dumbest Christian opponents on any given topic so that you can make Christians look like fools?
That's a backwards, incomprehensible approach. Wouldn't you be much better off seeking the most intelligent, informed opponents for your project of showing Christianity to be so irrational? Why don't you debate your friend, Dr. Sennett, for example? Instead you want to debate me: someone you say over and over doesn't have a clue as to the current debate.
Again, that isn't true, since it so happens that one of the books I read years ago is God, Freedom, and Evil, by Alvin Plantinga, now widely considered perhaps THE best theistic treatment of the subject. I agree with it; I think it is great, and Plantinga is my favorite philosopher.
But according to you, nevertheless, somehow I don't understand the Problem of Evil. I grant that I may not have examined other variants of it, but I consider what he dealt with (in agreement with him) as the essence of the objection: i.e., does the PoE disprove God's existence or prove that He is not good or omnipotent, or that a formal contradiction is involved in holding these propositions conkointly, as Christians do? The answer, per Plantinga, is no, no, no, and the consensus in philosophy now agrees.
That is my primary interest: not emotional tear-jerking arguments repeating every ghastly horror of the Holocaust of child rape. If there is no end-all-discussion logical objection to the Christian God (contrary to foolish, philosophically naive, sophomoric remarks of some on your blog), that is the main thing here, not trying to figure out every individual instance of evil in the world.
There could be any number of possible explanations for those. I don't claim to have all the answers about that, or even very many answers. That's why I (like Plantinga) do FWD, not FWT.
But those arguments no longer disprove Christianity. That is the thing. They point to difficulties or dilemmas from a human perspective, but that is fully to be expected, which is why Christians aren't troubled by them to the point of losing faith, as you did, and which relegates them primarily, per Plantinga, to "pastoral" frameworks, not logical or philosophical. You understand the distinction, as a former pastor.
it'll get really fun later on, if and when you get to a place where you have run out of answers from your atheist perspective and then have to figure out how that could be if I am so abysmally ignorant. LOL
So let me get this straight. On the one hand you say that the Problem of evil is the most serious challenge for your faith, yet on the other hand you have arguments that will basically silence me. Hmmm. I would grant you that if that happens on this particular issue, then if the rest of what you believe is not so problematic, then you have a high probability that your faith is true.
You call what you want a dialogue. But it's a debate that you want.
What I meant was that I believe at some point the atheist also comes to a place where they have no answers with regard to this topic (esp. wrt their own "problem of good"), which is probably the most troubling one that any human being faces, of whatever belief. You come to the end of yourself too. Y'all are no different from us in that respect.
You may think you can run down Christianity till the cows come home. I'm sure you can. But when it comes to you giving us some positive, proactive alternative vision that makes any sense, let alone being compelling, one doesn't see that very often in atheist ranks. It's mostly negative rhetoric about Christianity.
Hence your blog. You don't have a blog about "the joys and fulfillment and rewards of atheism." It has to be an attack on Christianity. But on my blog, the atheism page is just one of 50 major sub-topics.
I not only don't want a "debate" in your sense of the word; in my sense of the word it ain't even a debate by definition. The goal is not to kick someone's butt and win some silly victory to brag about. It is to seek truth. It should be done in mutual respect, not in an attitude of one-upsmanship and triumphalism.
You start by saying over and over (in a relatively nice way, yet with clear intent) how stupid I am on the very issue you now want to debate me on, and now you have concluded that I am particularly "cocksure." Is that the way to commence a good-natured debate?
The one you just had ended with you making out that anyone who would believe your opponent must be an absolute clueless idiot:
"I'll tell you what my wife said, and I quote: 'the only people who will think David won the debate are those who are blinded by their faith, and/or people who cannot deal with arguments.' "
http://debunkingchristianity.blo...em-of-
evil.html
Wow; that's amazing. It's not even a far more qualified "deal with THE arguments" (i.e., of the debate), but rather, we Christians can't handle any arguments at all and we're "blind" (gotta get that one in, every time!).
You're something else. On the one hand, you seem highly concerned that Christians treat you with respect. You wrote (somewhat touchingly, I felt) about going back to your Christian college, and how nice your debate opponent was. But then you post a quote like that, from your wife, which was completely unnecessary and tactless and petty.
Even if you "won", is it an act of class to stand over your opponent and spit at and mock him? Why the need for bragging and posturing?
Now we see what you are writing about me. Is this the way you expect to attain respect from Christians? I have nothing against you. I don't have the idiotic attitude of too many unreflective (and unbiblical) Christians that all atheists are wicked and going to hell. I can dialogue in a friendly fashion with anybody. It is this sort of rhetoric coming from you which kills the spirit of f
(cont.)
. . . friendly, amiable dialogue and debate.
I may make "confident" statements in the course of my remarks (I'm very confident indeed, in Christ), but if you look closely, you'll see it is usually in a context of some sharp, acerbic remark being made about Christians (particularly when dealing with atheists) or me personally.
Confident statements? "idiotic" "ridiculous" "stupid?" Other similar words were used if not these exact ones. You are not just confident, but cocksure of yourself. You debate but proclaim it's a dialogue you want. Tell ya what. If I'm wrong that you're arguments are weak, then show me. I haven't seen anything yet that actually understands the issue. Can you at least spell out the issue for me so I know you know what the problem of evil is? Show me you actually believe it's a serious problem to your faith. That's dialouge. But instead you're the answer man. I think I could spin you around in circles (that's a metaphor, by the way, indicating how little you actually know about the problem of evil).
Right.
So first it is ignorance, then cocksureness. The remaining inevitable charge will be intellectual cowardice. I'm waiting for that to come any time now. In fact, I predict it. Those who have the big-time wrestling ethos of "debate" that you seem to possess always come up with that if someone doesn't wanna wrestle and do the body slams and neck-chokes. I know that full well from my dealings with anti-Catholics.
You foolishly cite some of my "extreme" words, completely out of context, of course (as folks have sometimes done in the past -- I'm always amused by it).
When I used "idiotic" above it was actually chiding Christians and defending atheists:
"I don't have the idiotic attitude of too many unreflective (and unbiblical) Christians that all atheists are wicked and going to hell."
"Stupid" was used to accurately describe what you think of the state of my knowledge re: PoE.:
"You start by saying over and over (in a relatively nice way, yet with clear intent) how stupid I am on the very issue you now want to debate me on, . . . "
How either instance proves that I am "cocksure" is beyond me. But your rhetoric certainly suggests that you suffer from something at least akin to this. Anyone who is so sure that his book will inevitably cause the shipwreck of an opponent's worldview has plenty of self-deluded hubris.
Why don't we drop this silliness and get back to serious discussion? Pretty soon, if you keep it up, you'll just be ignored, just as I do with anti-Catholic Protestants (only a minority of the larger group).
>I haven't seen anything yet that actually understands the issue. Can you at least spell out the issue for me so I know you know what the problem of evil is?
The Plantinga paper did that. Is it your contention that he doesn't understand the issue either?
> Show me you actually believe it's a serious problem to your faith.
It's deeply perplexing and troubling. I already stated that, in agreement with Plantinga. I don't believe it is fatal at all to the Christian claims. This is what Plantinga also showed. What: do you require that a Christian admits that this is fatal to their faith, or else they haven't seriously pondered the issue? LOL That would be a scream:
"Either a Christian gives up his faith or he hasn't seriously thought through the problem of evil."
That's about what you seem to be implying now. Thus, only an atheist could possibly have done so. Any person who works through PoE and doesn't come to your conclusion is in self-delusion, dishonest, a lightweight, ignorant, etc.
And you call me "cocksure"? I don't say or imply that atheists are necessarily ignorant or dishonest simply by virtue of being atheists. I think, for the most part, they simply suffer from lousy thinking and logic and have been taken in by false reasoning. That could happen to anyone of any persuasion.
>I think I could spin you around in circles (that's a metap
(cont.)
. . . metaphor, by the way, indicating how little you actually know about the problem of evil).
If you ever actually make an argument, we'll see, won't we, John? As it is, I'm waiting for the transcript of your debate. You've given me little else except mockery and adolescent braggadocio. We see how you have "responded" to Plantinga, so obviously you have no serious intention of answering him.
But I rapidly lose patience with all these sorts of diversionary tactics, so I may lose total interest by the time your transcript arrives or until such time as you actually give us anything else to consider. I don't suffer folly easily. Never have, and I don't see that I will change in that respect anytime soon.
Commenting by HaloScan
