Hi Dave,
Yikes...so far lots of baloney arguments and hemming and hawing. Are they actually going to ever debate?
And I have a sneaking suspicion that Dagoods rejected an 8th grade level understanding of Christianity. But I could be mistaken. I hope I am. I'd love to see a really substantial exchange. So, I'll hold my breath until he explicitly informs us of the nature of the faith he eventually found to be wanting.
The other poster's comments (the ones in green) prove that lousy thinking is shared equally among Christians and atheists. On his view, you should put off the appropriation of any convictions so that you can putatively remain a neutral and open-minded dialogue partner with a sense of objectivity. But since you have convictions already (as if he didn't), you're not even worth one's time as an interlocutor. The fact that Dagoods viewed that as a great post doesn't fill me with hope. You write, however, that he's a decent thinker and a fair guy. So, let's see what materializes.
James
James
Thanks for your comments, James. Yes, I'm willing to be patient with this. I've had great dialogues with DagoodS. It's very common in atheist-Christian dialogue to be subjected to lectures from a second party who is convinced that you are a moron with an entirely closed mind. That was as surprising as the sun coming up.
The key is how DagoodS views all the character judgments towards me. If he agrees with the other guy, then it's over. If not, then Micah is just an annoyance like a mosquito, and it can continue.
His position essentially amounts to saying that it is open-minded to reject Christianity and not be re-convinced of it, but it is closed-minded to be a Christian and to claim that atheist arguments have been unconvincing.
That, in turn, simply boils down to:
Atheism is true and theism or Christianity isn't, hence it is open-minded and smart to adopt the former but not the latter. It reduces to circular reasoning, short of something outside the mere bald claim that they are supposedly so open-minded whereas I allegedly am not simply because I have convictions.
And, as you say, who says they don't have convictions, too? It's a denial of reality to pretend that they do not. Micah was pretty convinced about all sorts of interior dispositions of mine that he thinks he "knows" about, wasn't he?
Micah continues:
I do know, at least, from my own direct experience, and from reading of DagoodS', that it was the inconsistency in reason that led directly to my deconversion, and if I have read his writings correctly, his as well.
Then my task (i.e., assuming I remain a Christian in the near future and am not convinced by the sheer unanswerability of all these atheist arguments) is to show one of two things:
1) The purported "inconsistency" was DagoodS' own, due to mistaken notions, or a fault of one particular Christian tradition or apologetic but not all; therefore it doesn't disprove Christianity as a whole, and hence, forms no good or sufficient reason for Dag or anyone else to reject Christianity. As Alvin Plantinga would say, "the defeater would be defeated."
or:
2) What he claims is inconsistent is in fact, not inconsistent, as shown by sustained examination and argumentation.
As soon as he provides us with some reasons other than psychological projection, I'll be more than happy to examine them from a Christian perspective, to see if they hold up under scrutiny.
Further, I have never met an Ex-Christian who deconverted because some fundamental premise was altered, wholly outside of their "system for belief", upon which every other thing had been built; and I do not expect to. Have you?
I haven't encountered enough deconversion stories to say one way or another. But I know that the ones I have seen thus far, and examined, fell entirely flat in their purpose, from where I sit; often with very basic assertions about some aspect of Christianity being in error.
I can only comment that someone willing to be proved wrong would not have stated so bluntly at the start that per goal was to "critique" his story, nor would presume that, since he is not a Christian, there must be an error in his reasoning. An honest evaluator would devote herself to do just that: evaluate.
That's a load of rubbish. We all have intellectual commitments that we hold at the present time. DagoodS knows full well that as a Christian apologist I would seek to show that his reasons for rejecting Christianity were inadequate.
You don't care all that much about relative truth claims, or whether there is God or not (I read a bit about how you approach these things). But I do. I believe passionately in Christianity and believe that it makes an eternal difference where a person could end up. And so I defend it passionately. You may not understand that, but that doesn't make it automatically suspicious simply because YOU feel differently.
I examined this mentality of yours on my blog. One of my commenters wrote about the silliness and double standard of your argument from yesterday [cited above comment by James]
DagoodS writes:
Are you saying that the truth claims of Christianity must be objectively weighed and accepted or rejected by non-objective individuals?
Yes; how can it be otherwise? But they are only relatively non-objective; not to the extent that they are utterly unable to relatively weigh objective claims (as I have explained). Otherwise, this entire discussion is entirely futile. Why waste our time?
How do non-objective persons objectively weigh truth claims?
By bringing reason and fact to bear, just as in every sort of intellectual inquiry.
How do non-objective persons objectively accept or reject truth claims?
The above, and by virtue of the accumulation of plausible evidences.
There seems to be a problem here…
On your end, certainly. If you insist on making intelligent and intelligible conversation impossible by some extreme skepticism about knowledge, go ahead, but I think it would be a shame, as I do enjoy sparring with you.
ME:
Unless we agree upon some objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels, …
DagoodS:
Such as…?
ME:
You tell me, since apparently you are burdened by a great deal of epistemological skepticism. If you inform me as to what your axioms are, regarding what one can know (and hence talk about), then we can go from there. I adjust my argument (as a good socratic) according to where my opponent is coming from.
DagoodS:
Thank you, micah cowan for your outstanding and encouraging post.
Dave:
Well, I suppose it would be if someone says you are the greatest open-minded thinker since Socrates and runs your opponent down as intolerably dogmatic.
Micah:
Your powers of exaggeration continue to astonish.
Certainly you are not unfamiliar with the place of exaggeration within the sphere of classical rhetoric, in the exercise of intellectual examination of opposing positions?
You're a sharp guy. I would find it hard to believe that you don't understand this fairly elementary aspect of rhetoric (and of course, humor usually enters in as well, in the use of exaggeration).
I found it quite humorous that DagoodS describes your post as "outstanding and encouraging" seeing that it contained all this profuse praise, such as:
"If I know anything from what I've seen of DagoodS' refreshingly modest style of writing, then I can confidently state that he, on the other hand, is willing to be proved wrong. He is willing to honestly evaluate arguments and points being made to him, but has found them so far to be wanting."
A little (shall we say?) "self-interest" there, on Dag's part?
Now it may just be me, but I found that very funny. Hence the exaggeration to highlight the humor of it. You clearly do not yet understand either my argumentation or my humor. Give it some time. I've been through this routine with many atheists: several of whom came to have a great deal more respect for myself and my arguments after they got to know me beyond the first encounter.
DagoodS and I seemed to bypass that inconvenience, which is one reason I have enjoyed dialoguing with him.
See, e.g.,:
A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms with Examples
http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/r...s/
rhetoric.html
"Hyperbole":
-- exaggeration for emphasis or for rhetorical effect.
http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/
r...hetoric.html#23
Or again:
Rhetorica: Tropes and Schemes:
"In classical rhetoric, the tropes and schemes fall under the canon of style. These stylistic features certainly do add spice to writing and speaking. And they are commonly thought to be persuasive because they dress up otherwise mundane language; the idea being that we are persuaded by the imagery and artistry because we find it entertaining. There is much more to tropes and schemes than surface considerations. Indeed, politicians and pundits use these language forms to create specific social and political effects by playing on our emotions.
"Note: Some examples from "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" by Edward P. J. Corbett.
"Definitions:
"Trope: The use of a word, phrase, or image in a way not intended by its normal signification.
Scheme: A change in standard word order or pattern.
"Tropes and schemes are collectively known as figures of speech. The following is a short list of some of the most common figures of speech. I have selected figures that politicians and pundits use often--especially schemes of repetition and word order, which convey authority.
[ . . . ]
"Hyperbole: A trope composed of exaggerated words or ideals used for emphasis and not to be taken literally. Example: "I've told you a million times not to call me a liar!" "
http://www.rhetorica.net/tropes.htm
And now we're already headed down the road of needless controversy and questionable moderation:
DagoodS:
Dave Armstrong, I would ask that you self-monitor your tone toward other people that comment. You are free (of course) to use whatever tone you desire with me. But I value what everyone has to say on my blog. Sometimes how you present yourself can be a bit…offputting. And I would hate to have someone not post a comment, or self-censor themselves because of the manner of your presentation.
Thanks.
ME:
I'll be glad to "self-monitor" my tone as long as the same standard is applied to the atheists. Are not the following descriptions from Micah of myself equally objectionable if not more so? He started down this road and I responded. If I am guilty (and perhaps I am), then at least consider what it is that caused me to respond in kind:
you already have the truth, so anyone who holds an opposing view could not possibly be right.
[intolerant dogmatism, according to the standard atheist stereotype of how Christians supposedly almost always are; poisoning the well]
There is little to be gained in presenting arguments to someone who has already indicated an unwillingness to listen.
[if I don't even listen, then why are we here at all? Obviously, DagoodS must have presumed that something of worth could be gained from this, else he wouldn't fulfill my request for a deconversion story]
I doubt he will spend much effort towards attempting to convince the obviously inconvincible.
[reading hearts and minds. I have argued in several different ways that this is a double standard: it applies no more to me than to the atheist, DagoodS or Micah]
I can only comment that someone willing to be proved wrong would not have stated so bluntly at the start that per goal was to "critique" his story, nor would phe assume that, since he is not a Christian, there must be an error in his reasoning. An honest evaluator would devote perself to do just that: evaluate.
[I've gone over this, too. But note the charge of dishonesty at the end]
Yet none of this is remotely "offputting?" I'm the guest here, in the sense of being the dissenting outsider. We have had cordial relations in the past. If I were in your shoes and you in mine, I would have been advising Micah either publicly or privately that his judgmentalism is what is not helpful, and arguably quite rude to a guest on the blog.
I am perfectly willing to admit that I am not perfect in language, but I also make it known that my reactions do not come from nowhere, and are perfectly reasonable, given the unreasonable charges made against me.
People apparently can't handle an opposing view, so all of a sudden now you have to moderate your comments lest other atheists fly off the handle and become truly ridiculous.
That's not my fault, my friend. Any of you are more than welcome to come to my blog, and I'll see to it that you are treated fairly and with respect. I never have to moderate comments on my blog.
====================
Now we'll see if my comments are not allowed, since DagoodS has to now approve every comment. I sense the death of amiable, open conversation approaching . . . but let's hope not. Lots of things can happen when one's friends put pressure on one.
Good news: DagoodS allowed all my comments above and decided to stop moderator approval of comments. I wrote:
"Glad and heartened to see you have stopped the moderator approval. Good for you."
DagoodS has provided Part II of his story:
http://sandwichesforsale.blogspo...h-we-
learn.html
Still not much of substance here that could be debated, though he hints at several motifs that probably become key later (I'll wait till then rather than go after tidbits). So I asked on his blog:
---------------------
During this period, were you ever given materials to read or talks explaining why you believed what you were required to believe (i.e., apologetics)? If not, did you do it on your own? Thanks.
Dag answered my question above:
"At church? No, most of the books we read or utilized were study guides. Books that already presumed the Bible was divine, Jesus was God, and that a literal 6-day creation occurred about 6000 years ago. (Perhaps an occasional defense of the faith, but even then, it was primarily against other faiths—not complete atheism.)
"School was different…(I am working on that entry now)…"
"sacred slut":
there will always be at least one person who proclaims that "you were never a TRUE CHRISTIAN."
Yes, of course. Calvinism requires its adherents to take this stand. That was Dag's old belief-system. If one departs, he never was truly in the place where most folks assumed he was.
I have never believed that myself, as an Arminian Protestant and then a Catholic, because it isn't required (nor is it biblical ). I don't deny that DagoodS was a Christian before. I have no reason to doubt it. It is possible he was not in the full sense but I could hardly determine that, not knowing his heart. Only God knows. One should take another at his word unless there is massive, irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Calvinists often neglect to understand that even John Calvin stated that no one could know who is in the elect. DagoodS could be saved in the end. No one knows but God.
I even designed one of those fake church signs about the latter possibility:
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello.../
churchsign.jpg
This is interesting. I have never really seen debates/discussions with atheists before.
Dag's second part of his conversion story paints himself to be a child prodigy, at this point he is really raising the stakes. The way he is talking now I expect him to lay down some SOLID arguments of why he deconverted, if he cant do that then I would disregard all of what he has said so far as pure cheap talk and deception.
One question that comes up so far is what exactly was his level of understanding of Christianity. If the church he attended were the type that has a low view of theology then him standing out is not that remarkable. A very interesting point he brought up is how he would read the context of the verse while most people he knew didnt think twice about context...he says this was one issue that got his skepticism started. If that is true then the picture painted so far is of a not so informed Protestant deconverting to what was actually a slightly more informed perspective. After all if your church is composed of the type that think the Bible fell from the sky and that God hates gays then really is it deconverting anymore?...if anything it is moving up.
Also interesting is his calvinist background which starts to bother him due to its inherent circular reasoning and other twisted logic. The way he describes his church leadership they dont appear too intelligent...again if this was his "reference point" then I dont blame him for being unsatisfied. There is in fact hope in my mind he could become Catholic.
But keep in mind Christianity, especially Catholicism, offers very intellectually satisfying arguments so given this, anything short of Dag coming from a strong intellectual Christian background his "deconversion" story will fail to satisfy most Catholics interested in apologetics.
Another question that comes to mind is what are the differences between Protestants who deconvert and Catholics who deconvert?
We shall all watch future installments with interest.
As an atheist and occasional visitor, it is interesting to see Dave take on an atheist.
I have not seen the intellectually satisfying arguments for Catholicism. Indeed, one would expect the Pope to put forward such arguments if they existed.
As it stands, the Pope seems to appeal to "creative reason" which is reason with something else added, suggesting reason by itself
is insufficient
Welcome to the blog, Iron. Hope you stick around and engage us as occasion arises.
Any Catholic would say that reason is "insufficient" insofar as it isn't the sole repository of all knowledge. The very category of faith presupposes that. But of course we speak of a "reasonable faith" that is not contrary to reason.
Thanks for the welcome. I have changed to a better nick (one I used a few months ago - and forgot about).
I may engage you but, after having read some of your exchanges, it appears you may only be interested in defending the internal consistency of Catholicism.
As an atheist, I do not deny that internal consistency. But lots of worldviews are internally consistent. With enough effort, a worldview which denies the existence of the moon could be internally consistent.
Islam could also be a reasonable faith from that point of view.
Hi Lawless,
>>As an atheist, I do not deny that internal consistency. But lots of worldviews are internally consistent.>>
I concur. As Catholics we recognize that internal consistency does not necessarily imply truth. That's just coherentism. Hence, the importance of discussing first principles, our unquestioned axioms from which our inquiries and philosophical views start. For example, I'd probably commence by asking you how you would define truth. What is truth, in other words?
Welcome to the blog. I look forward to reading you in the future and sharing ideas.
Peace,
James
I do not have a definition of truth.
I tend to operate by looking at evidence and drawing conclusions.
Dave discussed a claimed contradiction between different Bible verses and his resolution relied upon a prior belief in speculation and Catholic sources.
Since I do not have such a prior belief, for me, the contradiction remains.
I imagine I look at these things in much the same way as other atheists.
Whether that makes me a lost cause to you, I am not sure
Dave discussed a claimed contradiction between different Bible verses and his resolution relied upon a prior belief in speculation and Catholic sources.
I'm afraid you lost me here. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks.
I am talking about this discussion
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
regarding.html
But maybe discussions about contradictions should best occur between believers, as having the necessary background
Hi Lawless,
How does one not have a definition of truth and at the same time argue that something isn't true? Since this is my first exchange with you, I'm assuming that there are times when you argue precisely in that direction. So, what do you mean when you say "that's not true?"
Do evidence - and the logic employed to arrive at conclusions in re: of said evidence - ever lead to what you might call truth? Can false logic when applied to a body of evidence ever lead to something you might call error? Do you have a definition of error?
Are you implying that something is contradictory based on how your mind/brain conceives it and not based on the actual nature of the thing in question? In other words, your mind makes a certain cluster of scriptures contradictory and Dave's mind (given his "prior belief") makes it coherent, thus it is at once contradictory and coherent depending on who is speaking. Do I understand you correctly?
James
Ok, thanks. Well, as in any dispute, to discuss that we would have to open it up entirely again and examine my reasoning and DagoodS' reasoning. Not sure you (or he) want to go through all that.
Presently I'm quite disappointed that he essentially wanted to shut me down from a discussion of his deconversion (see my latest comment on that post, above), so I'm not all that nuts about revisiting an old dialogue with him.
But I will be examining more deconversion stories in the future; that's for sure. If these are considered good reasons to become an atheist, then I aim to show that there is scarcely little reason there at all. At least those I have seen thus far offer no one any compelling reason to leave Christianity, as far as I am concerned.
It is not necessary to have a definition in order to argue. You might said the current Pope is John Paul II. I could say "that is not true" and refer you to the wikipedia page on Benedict XVI.
If you are asking about whether science and atheists ever get it wrong, well, yes they do.
Knowledge changes over time. Newtonian physics is replaced by Einsteinian physics and so forth.
Do we ever have the final answer? No, we do not.
History is updated as our knowledge changes.
Regarding your point about the separation between mind and the world, it reminds me of a Christian who asked how I could know that I was not being deceived about the world by some malevolent entity, some huge conspiracy.
He seemed to think that this might incline me towards belief in God. However, I asked him how he knew he was not being deceived by Satan himself and he did not reply (to my memory).
Different people can come to different conclusions. Dave might well look at the same passage of scripture and see different problems in it.
All I can do is look at the scripture and see if, by itself, it shows (by its wonderful coherence or otherwise) that there is some divine pattern.
So far, it just looks like the work of man.
The work of man can give rise to an internally consistent worldview in which Islam is true but such a view would not be testable - "test everything, hold on to the true"
Hi Lawless,
If I say the current Pope is John Paul II how is this not an error or falsehood given the fact that he's dead and upwards of five million people attended his globally telecast funeral? How does refering me to Wikepedia change that truth?
The fact that you state that Scientist and atheist sometimes get it wrong implies that you hold to a notion of "right" and "wrong." How is that different from truth anf falshood?
Hence, I'll ask again: What is truth?
I'm not doubting the relativity of scientific knowledge. But from that fact it doesn't follow that there is no definition for the word truth.
True or false
1. President Bush is president of the United States.
2. Luciano Pavarotti died just recently.
3. 2 + 2 = 4
4. You were born.
5. Stevie Wonder is blind.
To agree or disagree with the above statements requires that you come down on the side of a truth claim. What is truth?
James
Commenting by HaloScan
