Christian

Gregg,

I'm no expert on logic, but it seems to me that your post amounts to

1 - setting up a strawman.
2 - making an ad hominum attack against that strawman.

Is that the best response atheism can muster against my experiences?

I suggest that humility and genuine respect begins with engaging the person you are addressing, rather than your own pre-concieved notions.

Respectfully,

Christian

livius drusus

You are wrong on both counts, I'm afraid. Gregg was attempting to explain to you and Magus the emotional impact of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which is what you employed with small regard for its inherent disrespectfulness in your first post on this thread. Gregg made no argument beyond a plea for real consideration of other people's experiences and points of view. This is by no stretch of the imagination anything at all like a straw man.

As for your second point, it is wrong in two ways. An ad hominem argument holds that since the person x is <insert any given insult here>, his argument is therefore invalid. Gregg did not insult you in the first place. He certainly didn't dismiss your argument because of said non-existent insult. Finally, as you can see by the above definitions, an ad hominem cannot by definition be directed towards a straw man argument. It can only be directed "to the man," which, after all, is what the words "ad hominem" mean. Gregg is not the platonic form of atheism. He does not speak for non-belief in deities (even if we could personify it to the point where it was capable of hiring a spokesperson) nor does he speak for all atheists. If you disagree with his position, quote it and reply to it. Do not attempt to draw unjustified conclusions about non-believers or non-belief itself based on your interpretation of his post. That would be an example of the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. You will have to explain to me what you saw in Gregg's post that did not apply to your or Magus' position but was instead him taking his own biases out for a spin. I don't see it. I found Gregg's post eminently gentle and understanding, and clearly Carrie agrees with me. Could you please elaborate using quotes from his post to clarify your position.

Clutch

You can insist that the private and immediate nature of your apparent experience of god makes it immune to refutation by those who've not had your personal experiences.

Or you can claim to have sufficient knowledge of others' private apparent experiences of god to tell them that theirs was not the genuine article.

But not both.

If the things Carrie says and does are sufficient evidence for you to diagnose her experiences, then the things you say and do render your claimed experiences similarly open to public diagnosis.

Maverick

Unfortunately the server did "hicup" while Peter was splitting the thread. I was unable to recover the lost posts.

Maverick
IIDB Administrator

Christian

Livius,

Gregg said I took that to be a "strawman" argument. I have not said anything of the sort, but he is assuming that position for me, and he goes on to attack it. If this is not a valid use of the term "strawman," please explain why.

Gregg saidIn short he attacks my position by speculating negatively (without any basis that I can see) as to what my motives and my thought processes are. He was attacking my motives (i.e. "you don't want to think about this ... you don't want to consider the alternative") rather than addressing anything I had said. From the link you gave on ad hominem:

Specifically Gregg¡¯s statement qualifies as ad hominem because he was rejecting my conclusion by referring to my (purely imagined) circumstances. If that is not an accurate analysis, please point out my error.

I'm not sure I understand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy from the link you provided. I did not attempt to shift the meaning of any words or make an ad hoc fallacy in my earlier post that I can see.

I admit making a hasty generalization.

I explain why I take Gregg's post as a strawman above.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Clutch,

Agreed. I am suggesting that Gregg's diagnosis is logically flawed. I'm not suggesting that he cannot or should not be making a diagnosis.

Respectfully,

Christian

Clutch

Christian,

Your attempt to explain in what the logical flaw consists has not been very successful. Gregg simply points out that formerly committed Christians, who once said the sorts of things you now say, are in a position to diagnose and debunk the argument that Jesus' spiritual existence is guaranteed by the nature of one's experience of a personal relationship.

He anticipates the reply that these people were never really Christians: a reply that commits the No True Scots fallacy. If you think this reply is so dismal that you would never have offered it, then far from there being any ad hominem, you and Gregg are on the same page; you both reject the reply whose failure Gregg notes. The question is, what other reply can you offer? Especially since you seem already to have made the claim that you say is ad hominem to attribute to you: "You never knew Christ in the first place."

Your argument is "You never knew Christ in the first place, because if you'd had my experiences with Christ, you would not now describe your experiences with Christianity the way you do."

The obvious reply is, "I had your sort of experiences, and I now understand them to have been delusive, which is why I now say the things I do about Christianity."

This might appear an impasse, but that's probably all that the atheist needs. The issue almost always surfaces in the context of the theist's claim that, if only you really had a relationship with god, it would all make sense. (Or at least more sense.) This line of thought bears no weight in the space of public reasons, though -- it bogs down precisely on the question of who's enfranchaised to judge the bona fides and significance of someone else's private experiences.

CX

I don't think this discussion, fascinating s it is, is really within the purview of Biblical Criticism & Arcaheology. Of you go...

livius drusus

The first line of your op was "You never knew Christ in the first place," which fits precisely into the first option Gregg provided. Please note that "they didn't go about it right" is not a character judgement like questioning their sincerity would be. It simply states that if someone's experience of God is deficient or unsatisfying in some way, the experience itself is faulty, most likely due to seeker error, or misapprehension, or even poor teaching.

Gregg is not caricaturing your position in any way here, nor do I consider his tone, firm though it may be, or his text to be anything like an attack. Keep in mind also that Gregg addressed his post to both you and Magus, so some of his points apply to one of you and some to both.

In the first phrase you quoted, Gregg said "it seems" to make clear that this was his impression of yours and Magus' responses to Carrie's deconversion experience. It is not an attack or an assumption. It is an idea and one based directly on your posts. If he is wrong, then he drew the wrong conclusions, but there is no error of logic.

As for second part of your quotation, Gregg got this impression from the pat tone of your post, which, as Clutch pointed out, assumed all kinds of things about Carrie's experience of belief. For example, you said "But from your description it's patently obvious that you have never know any of the things I see as important or meaningful in the Christian experience, as what knowing Christ is really all about." What is the difference between Gregg stating his opinion of how the depth of your investment in your particular version of Christianity effects your judgement of Carrie's experience and you stating your opinion on the patent obviousness of Carrie's inferior brand of Christ worship? What both you and Gregg did was state an opinion without qualifying it as such. This is common in abstract discussion where firm statements of position are the norm.

Certainly. His entire post was an interpretation of your position. At no point did he say "you are an idiot and therefore your argument is false." He did say that your investment in your position is so massive that it can't help but color your perception of others who were once just like you. That is a reasonable conclusion for him to draw. Again, perhaps he's wrong, but there is no flaw in his logic. You did shift the meaning of a word: Christianity. You and Magus both responded to Carrie's deconversion story by redefining Christianity so as to assure that Carrie's former experience would not qualify under your definition. That is the essence of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Person A says she was Christian and it was ultimately so unsatisfying to her that she was forced (sometimes at great personal cost) to seek out answers beyond doctrine. Person B, a Christian unwilling to concede that it is even possible for someone like them to be unsatisfied with the experience, concludes therefore that Person A was never like him, that A's experience was flawed, incomplete, wrong in the first place, that A was never a True Christian like he is, or she would never have been unsatisfied. That is an elegant concession. I much appreciate your courteous demeanor, Christian. Thank you.

Infidelettante

Originally posted by Christian
Carrie,

You never knew Christ in the first place. (2 Cor 13:5-7) I normally try to avoid saying things like that which sound like a "quip." I'm not saying that you are lying or insincere about anything. But from your description it's patently obvious that you have never know any of the things I see as important or meaningful in the Christian experience, as what knowing Christ is really all about. If my experience with Christianity was what you describe here, I would have rejected it to.

I just can't let this pass without comment. Christian, do you have any concept of how insulting this is? To say that anyone who decides to leave the fold was never a *true Christian* is a tactic that Christians use to insulate themselves from the reasons others find not to believe any more. If you can convince yourself that we didn't really know Jesus then you don't have to deal with the truths we discovered about your religion. And before you think I never knew the real Jesus understand that I earned a BA in Biblical Education with a major in theology from a Bible college that was about as fundie as they get. This is not a *quip* and no protestation of how much you respect intellectual honesty makes it anything but an insulting show of condescension.

JT

I have great respect for intellectual honesty, and can understand your decision. You are closer to the truth than many casual Christians I know. Those are the people I'm not able to understand.

Take care,

Respectfully,

Christian