Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-Jay- · 10-02-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Please understand what Dave is doing here. He is not engaged in apologetics. Apologetics requires actually explicating a theological point with logic, argument, and evidence. Dave is engaged in a much more limited and far more questionable practice: witnessing.

<snip>

Dave is presenting the words and thoughts of other people in the irrational, but quite firm belief that it will somehow 'open your mind to the truth of God.' That's what witnessing is all about. The witness rarely bothers to defend - and even more rarely understands well enough to defend - the work; the presentation is all.

CM -
You seem to have more than passing familiarity with the practicing of witnessing. I do not, hence these questions:

How does the witness intellectually deflect the disconfirming data that they are likely to encounter? Is Dave's response typical? I cannot understand the background that encourages (requires?) people of certain faiths to categorically deny anything that runs counter to the approved doctrine of their faith community.

regards,

NinJay

Keith&Co. · 10-02-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

CM -
You seem to have more than passing familiarity with the practicing of witnessing. I do not, hence these questions:

How does the witness intellectually deflect the disconfirming data that they are likely to encounter?

Backwards.
The data must be evaluated with respect to the conclusion that is approved. Data that does not support the conclusion must be discarded. An easy way is to ignore it. Or to assume that the bias of the person presenting it makes a difference to the data itself. The vast anti-christain conspiracy in science is a nice villain to attribute such data to.

Quote:

Is Dave's response typical?

Yes, actually.
If there are 40 talking points in a criticism of one's 'goddidit' proposal, seek one (usually one that's addressed on a site online) and attempt to show that it's weak or wrong. Ignore any counter arguments. After a certain amount of verbage, declare victory. Keep saying "I've addressed that" (which means, really, I've pointed out an argument that i thin kaddresses it). "I finished that." "I proved that."

Quote:

I cannot understand the background that encourages (requires?) people of certain faiths to categorically deny anything that runs counter to the approved doctrine of their faith community.

THey have THE conclusion. Anything counter to that is wrong by definition. If they allow any sort of argument to weaken their position, it's a failure of God. And since God can't fail, therefore their argument wins.

These are not rational people offering rational arguments.
They work backwards from their emotional conclusion to the rationalizations.

Constant Mews · 10-02-2007, 11:47 AM

Interesting enough, this is a very old problem that was identified long ago. Perhaps the classic expression of the issue is from Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles:

Quote:

From this we evidently gather the following conclusion: whatever arguments are brought forward against the doctrines of faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles imbedded in nature. Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either probable or sophistical. And so, there exists the possibility to answer them.

from here.

This mindset is evident in Dave and in virtually all Witnesses: they don't necessarily understand the counter-argument; but that doesn't matter. They know with inner certainty that something must be wrong with the counter-argument. Must be. This is why any response from the Witness is acceptable: since the non-believer's argument must be wrong, to shed any doubt on it whatsoever is sufficient to show it up.

-Jay- · 10-02-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

How does the witness intellectually deflect the disconfirming data that they are likely to encounter?

Backwards.
The data must be evaluated with respect to the conclusion that is approved. Data that does not support the conclusion must be discarded. An easy way is to ignore it. Or to assume that the bias of the person presenting it makes a difference to the data itself. The vast anti-christain conspiracy in science is a nice villain to attribute such data to.

So is this approach explicitly taught in some sense, or is it just learned by example? It's such a foreign thought process to me that I get a headache even trying to think that way. (I'm asking honestly, and rather than derail the thread, we can continue in PM.)

Constant Mews - thanks for the pointer to Aquinas.

regards,

NinJay

Hex · 10-02-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

So is this approach explicitly taught in some sense, or is it just learned by example? It's such a foreign thought process to me that I get a headache even trying to think that way. (I'm asking honestly, and rather than derail the thread, we can continue in PM.)

Constant Mews - thanks for the pointer to Aquinas.

regards,

NinJay

No, please keep it public (Maybe a topic split?). I've wondered about it as well. I'm always happy to help 'seekers' who really want to learn, but then I run across 'Afdave's and 'Larsguy's, well ... I wonder about the value of trying at all.

I'd -love- to understand so that maybe, somehow, I could get through to them ... :huh:

- Hex

Keith&Co. · 10-02-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

So is this approach explicitly taught in some sense, or is it just learned by example?

A little of both. As mentioned above, they don't care if they understand an explanation for a difficulty. SOmeone in authority SAYS that the answer is in Woodcock's book, or Saint Pheltup addressed it in his writings. No one in the congregation questions the assurance that the reference answers the difficulty.
An authority figure tells them that another authority has produced an answer. Skeptics would question the answer, or the authority, or want to beat the reference around and see if it really addresses the answer.
Witnesses nod their head, happy that it's been addressed.
So when they offer it to skeptics, they really do believe that it answers the question they remember hearing associated with it.
When the so-called intellectuals don't accept it as an answer, there must be something wrong...with the skeptics. Theynever really understood it the first time, so they can't defend it when criticism comes up.

Quote:

It's such a foreign thought process to me that I get a headache even trying to think that way. (I'm asking honestly, and rather than derail the thread, we can continue in PM.)

What, derail Dave not-answering rebuttals, questions and reviews?

One of the reasons i left the church was the realization that i wasn't getting answers to my questions. I was getting IOUs for answers, or platitudes. Those around me didn't say, "Hey, that's a good question." or even "Hey, that doesn't answer his question."
THey asked who the hell i was to ask such a question, or to keep asking the question when i got a perfectly good answer.

Toto · 10-02-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

...
So is this approach explicitly taught in some sense, or is it just learned by example? ...

On a somewhat higher level, this is what Christian apologetics is all about. Consider Robert Prices' description of Willian Laine Craig's arguments

Quote:

William Lane Craig is an employee of Campus Crusade for Christ. Thus it is no surprise that his is what is today euphemistically called "engaged scholarship." Dropping the euphemism, one might call him a PR man for Bill Bright and his various agendas. One thing one cannot expect from party hacks and spin doctors is that they should in any whit vary from their party line. When is the last time you heard a pitchman for some product admit that it might not be the best on the market? When have you heard a spokesman for a political candidate admit that his man might be in the wrong, might have wandered from the truth on this or that point? Do you ever expect to hear a Trekkie admit that the episode about the Galileo 7 was a stinker? Heaven and earth might pass away more easily. And still, there is just the outside chance that Craig might have become convinced through his long years of graduate study that Bill Bright has stumbled upon the inerrant truth, that needle in the haystack of competing world views and theories. But I doubt it. I think he has tipped his hand toward the end of the first chapter of his book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, "Faith and Reason: How Do I Know Christianity is True?"[2] There he draws a distinction between knowing Christianity is true and showing it is true.

What, then, should be our approach in apologetics? It should be something like this: "My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself." [3]

A little further on he saith, "unbelief is at root a spiritual, not an intellectual, problem. Sometimes an unbeliever will throw up an intellectual smoke screen so that he can avoid personal, existential involvement with the gospel."[4]

Craig, then, freely admits his conviction arises from purely subjective factors, in no whit different from the teenage Mormon door-knocker who tells you he knows the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Americans because he has a warm, swelling feeling in his stomach when he asks God if it's true. Certain intellectual questions have to receive certain answers to be consistent with this revivalistic "heart-warming" experience, so Craig knows in advance that, e.g., Strauss and Bultmann must have been wrong. And, like the O.J. Simpson defense team, he will find a way to get from here to there. Craig would repudiate my analogy, but let no one who can read doubt from his words just quoted that, first, his enterprise is completely circular, since it is a subjectivity described arbitrarily in terms of Christian belief (Holy Spirit, etc.) that supposedly grounds Christian belief! And, second, Craig admits the circularity of it.

Mike PSS · 10-02-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Interesting enough, this is a very old problem that was identified long ago. Perhaps the classic expression of the issue is from Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles:

Quote:

From this we evidently gather the following conclusion: whatever arguments are brought forward against the doctrines of faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles imbedded in nature. Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either probable or sophistical. And so, there exists the possibility to answer them.

from here.

This mindset is evident in Dave and in virtually all Witnesses: they don't necessarily understand the counter-argument; but that doesn't matter. They know with inner certainty that something must be wrong with the counter-argument. Must be. This is why any response from the Witness is acceptable: since the non-believer's argument must be wrong, to shed any doubt on it whatsoever is sufficient to show it up.

There's a deeper level of intellectual inconsistency at play here. This thread is a prime example of how someone can argue against a proposition that, taken on its own, offers zero threat to the faith.

The DH doesn't speak against the stories contained in the bible. Nor does it make claims about the conclusions reached in those stories. But, for some twisted reason the DH is opposed by Dave and AiG (I think) because of some innerrency claim somewhere in their twisted belief system. Overturning the DH appears as one more item in the list of theories that run counter to believing the literalist interpretation of the bible for some strange reason.

Reading through Dave's different objections to different scientific theories just reinforces the point that Dave and others are trying to fit the data (not ALL the data but just some data) into a pre-concieved conclusion about what the bible says.

And what's funny from my perspective is that here is CM and others who carry an entirely different viewpoint on the situation but have the same basis of belief, the bible.

So Dave, WHY MUST THE DH BE WRONG IN YOUR WORLD? WHY DOES THE DH FIT INTO CM'S FAITH WHEN YOU BOTH USE THE SAME BIBLE AS A BASIS OF YOUR FAITH?

-Jay- · 10-02-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

No, please keep it public (Maybe a topic split?). I've wondered about it as well. I'm always happy to help 'seekers' who really want to learn, but then I run across 'Afdave's and 'Larsguy's, well ... I wonder about the value of trying at all.

I'd -love- to understand so that maybe, somehow, I could get through to them ... :huh:

- Hex

Hex, my friend, I was wondering if anyone else would make the connection to Larsguy. I didn't want to mention him for fear of speaking him back into exisitence.

I have to admit, though, that afdave seems to be cut from the same cloth.

So, Mods - This might be a good time to split this out into a distinct thread. I'll leave it to your learned judgement as to the most appropriate fora for it.

regards,

NinJay

Constant Mews · 10-02-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Interesting enough, this is a very old problem that was identified long ago. Perhaps the classic expression of the issue is from Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles: from here.

This mindset is evident in Dave and in virtually all Witnesses: they don't necessarily understand the counter-argument; but that doesn't matter. They know with inner certainty that something must be wrong with the counter-argument. Must be. This is why any response from the Witness is acceptable: since the non-believer's argument must be wrong, to shed any doubt on it whatsoever is sufficient to show it up.

There's a deeper level of intellectual inconsistency at play here. This thread is a prime example of how someone can argue against a proposition that, taken on its own, offers zero threat to the faith.

The DH doesn't speak against the stories contained in the bible. Nor does it make claims about the conclusions reached in those stories. But, for some twisted reason the DH is opposed by Dave and AiG (I think) because of some innerrency claim somewhere in their twisted belief system. Overturning the DH appears as one more item in the list of theories that run counter to believing the literalist interpretation of the bible for some strange reason.

Reading through Dave's different objections to different scientific theories just reinforces the point that Dave and others are trying to fit the data (not ALL the data but just some data) into a pre-concieved conclusion about what the bible says.

And what's funny from my perspective is that here is CM and others who carry an entirely different viewpoint on the situation but have the same basis of belief, the bible.

So Dave, WHY MUST THE DH BE WRONG IN YOUR WORLD? WHY DOES THE DH FIT INTO CM'S FAITH WHEN YOU BOTH USE THE SAME BIBLE AS A BASIS OF YOUR FAITH?

Dave has actually already made his answer clear: in his eyes, I am not a Christian. I do not accept the irrational, unprovable, or simply insane ignorance of reality that his particular Christian view requires. In Dave's eyes, I am a heretic: little different from any of you nasty atheists and certainly not in touch with God.

As the highly interesting analysis of William Lane Craig above points out, faith is based on inner certainty. All Christ left us was a set of somewhat vague moral precepts and (arguably) a cult of His person. Everything else: Biblical literalism, Christian rite and ritual, theology, apologetics - all of it is the work of Man, not God. This leads us to a fundamental problem for Christians:

It is completely impossible to reason one's way to the Christian faith from observation of the natural world.

The effect of this problem is endless heresy, cults, divisions, and people such as Dave.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.