Ethics of religious discussions?

Post Reply New Topic

You missed the point, I was distinguishing between people who exercise skepticism for the benefit of themselves; they use it for the power it gives them. As a person with peer-reviewed work, I can respect that system but there is a fine line between the man who criticizes in order to help someone develop and the other one who simply wants to make them feel like they can never accomplish anything. I am not making so general of a comment as you seem to think I am, if I were I would be much more plain in my prose than I was.



It is not necessarily a good thing. There certainly are benefits and I fully acknowledge them, you seem to think that I do not: I think that has more to do with your desire to pigeonhole my position, rather than try and take anything away from it. A truthful statement can be expressed with a logical fallacy attached and in some cases it is perfectly acceptable to help someone refine their argument. However, it is not generally useful when discussing ideas to allow the argument to become an argument about form rather than substance.



I have met many internet atheists who do exactly the same, though when they are challenged by someone who has more than a cursory education in philosophy and theology their positions are often exposed as highly simplistic. When an atheist gets annihilated in a debate do they often change their mind? I don't think so, yet some will rage no end against those close minded theists. When William Lane Craig smashed Christopher Hitchens, did he convert; no. When John Lennox defeated Richard Dawkins, both in print and in debate, did Dawkins alter his position, no. The elephant in the room might be that many atheists don't hold to their position because they think the evidence leads them there. That certainly was not true of me, I didn't like the idea of believing in God, I did not want the world to be like that and I preferred the world-view I had.



That would be an opinion, one not widely shared. Chesterton was respected by both sides of the debate. After he finished one of his famous debates against Bertrand Russell the two would put the matter aside and socialize together. They would be found drinking and laughing together at the nearest bar. Hell he was even in a western with one of his opponents once. What I feel has been lost, is precisely that spirit. I very much wish that when it was all over I could be friends with my opponents but that is not the case. Internet atheists and the new atheists in particular seemed to have abandoned that respect they once had for the other side. When Craig met Dawkins Mexico, the two were not going to go out to dinner afterward, in fact Dawkins behaved quite appallingly at that debate. Whereas if you take the Hitchens Craig debate, the two showed a reasonable amount of respect for one another. Modern audiences don't seem to like that very much, people seemed disappointed with the Hitchens v Hitchens debate, precisely because the two brothers did not war at one another.

Also, on Chesterton, his rhetoric is very powerful and worth reading. In style and tone he is actually very much like Christopher Hitchens and like Christopher he is a pleasure to read, even if he says some thing you are not likely to agree with.



My apologies if I insulted you. It certainly was not my intention, in fact, it was quite the opposite.

Obviously whenever you dedicate a forum to philosophy, politics, and religion and moderate it loosely at best there’s going to be strife sooner or later. This is obviously the cesspool of WP by intent so grab a handful of poop and throw it back at the enemy already.

I agree with on this. I enjoy reading him, even though I agree with nothing he says.

I did not propose a theory of justification for insult. Nothing I wrote indicated any such proposal or anything remotely close.

Chesterton not only insulted ideas, but also rational thought, oh, and people. He is insulting, because he flings insults.
(Besides, Chesteton isn't people. He's pretty inanimate...and really is only a set of ideas anymore....)


First he insults rebels and skeptics. (And equates them as the same thing) He says they do not trust, and have no loyalty. And it precludes their capability of being a revolutionist.

Then, he insults revolutionists and skeptics. (And equates them as the same thing, which is odd, because he JUST said they couldn't be the same thing) He says they undermine themselves, makes attacks against immoral men and also morality (unfounded accusation, that doesn't really make sense in this context anyway), and that they are useless.

THEN he has the audacity to claim that revolutionists/skeptics have no right to rebel.


I am a skeptic, and in this excerpt from Chesterton, he has said I cannot trust, have no loyalty, am self destructive, attack people, am useless, and have less rights than everyone else. So yes, I called him a tool. He is. He is far worse things too, which I'm holding comment on. Calling him a tool really isn't very provocative or insulting, and I have quite a few provocative things to say about him if you are curious. I will share them with the class....if you want, but I figured calling him a tool would suffice.

Last edited by NarcissusSavage on 12 Feb 2012, 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

^

Antisemite and fat (though the last one isn't much of an insult)? I can't think what, otherwise.

"Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed."
-Chesterton

I don't want to go drinking with anyone that doesn't want to go drinking with GK Chesterton.

Point well taken.

Actually, I agree for the most part. However, this is a forum about autism support, and not about atheism or religion. If people want to get into heated debates about religion, I think other forums might be a more appropriate outlet. I completely understand your point though - I guess I just don't think support forums are the best place for it.

Fallacies;
Irrelevant appeal to consequence
Irrelevant appeal to force
Irrelevant appeal to pity
Fallacy of composition
Genetic Fallacy
Moralistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy
Red Herring
Weak Analogy
Accent Fallacy
Equivocation Fallacy
Straw man Fallacy
Affirming the Consequent
Arguing from Ignorance
Cum Hoc Fallacy
Post Hoc Fallacy
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Subjectivist Fallacy
(I might have missed a few, damn there are a lot in there)

That's an impressive construct, to be sure. Chester is a fine Sophist. He is very good at manipulating words to convince, to exploit the audience. But he utters no truths, and it is folly to accept his words without carefully examining what he is saying. Because if you examine those words, you will find they say nothing. Politicians do this, lawyers do it too. It’s generally considered an art form by people who want to actively deceive. And while I can understand it requires great skill to manipulate and twist and bastardize language in this manner, I will never respect it, or anyone who does it.

I'm still curious why you keep quoting me, and replying with something irrelevant to my quote. It's becoming most curious a behavior. I also must apologize for any negativity in my post earlier. Sometimes I forget to heed good advice, like;

"A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient, nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient, and look upon them only as sick and extravagant."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Its remarkable how with vast amounts of florid prose its still possible to say little to nothing of value

I think you proved my point, that modern athiests are rather prone to viewing the form rather than the substance. Poetry and prose are not argument, they are ideas. Like Christopher Hitchens, Chesterton argues the idea and not his argument, it is strange but consider it a separate genre. Approaching it as if it were a formal argument is ridiculous, it is like reading mother goose as a biology textbook and reflects more on the reader than on the subject. Chesterton is apt to point out that art is not the small thing of the fanatic or the literalist, there is symbol and parable. If however you want to discuss a more formal argument, then we can do so, but atheists in my experience are far more likely to be suddenly ambushed in the heart by poetry than they are to be convinced by reasoned argument.

I'm an atheist?

When against posters like 91, it is normal to focus on form, because substance is non-existent.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 12 Feb 2012, 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Apparently you jump around a bit. That is fine, if I was too specific in my definition then I apologize.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4356002 ... t=#4356002

For my main point however, I think it remains rather clear. That philosophy is more than just fallacies, to focus on them when reading Chesterton is to profoundly miss the point of by his writing and my statement. I would encourage you to enquire as to why highly formal atheist and skeptical thinkers like Russell think of Chesterton as a great mind. And why formal theistic minds like William Lane Craig regard Christopher Hitchens as a great writer.

Art and poetry are generally not form, they are not linked to the conclusion be premesis, but they are still profound. It is profound question to wonder why that is. And if you have not really considered why unjustified rhetoric is so powerful, why a flow of language is beautiful and it's author skillful then you have not really begun to study philosophy.

Citation needed.

Why?

Why is it nobody makes the same argument about republicans or democrats? Maybe we need a place where democrats can talk about how much they love socialized health care without being challenged. Maybe pro-choice people need a place where they can talk about it without getting called murderers. Maybe homophobes need a place to bash homosexuality without being called bigots.

...Or maybe not. Maybe people should get used to the fact that their opinions and beliefs are not holy. That there are people who disagree and that some of them are willing to disagree openly.

That "antisemite" believed that Jews were (for cultural reasons) at odds with Europe and they should have a land of their own. In short, G.K.Chesterton was a kind of Zionist. He was very much admired by the Jewish Community in Palestine ( well before the State of Israel was established).

Chesterton rejected Hitler and his doings from day one.

ruveyn