Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Emperors, Clothing, and the Courtier's Reply
I think the Courtier's Reply can be effective in certain contexts. Let's take the Emperor's Clothes case. If I someone says that the emperor has clothes on even though he appears naked, and he runs through a long list of different types of invisible fabric that he's wearing, of course, that doesn't cut any ice. If, for some reason, he has an argument for why, in spite of the fact that the emperor appears naked, he nonetheless really does have clothing on, and is attempting to offer an explanation as to why this might be, then at the very least you've got to get the argument right. Granted, you could use a G. E. Moore type response, (it's evident to the senses that the king is naked, and that is more evident than any reason we might have for thinking he is clothed), but what you can't do is straw-man the argument in defense of the emperor's clothes.
For example, if I don't believe that angels exist, it seems to me that I can hold that belief without knowing a lot of angelology, or being able to distinguish between different types of angels, etc., if I have good reason to believe that there aren't any angels. However, if someone has an argument for the existence of angels, then I can't use this as an excuse to misrepresent the argument. I have to get it right, if I am to be credited with actually refuting it. I can't get away with presenting a cosmological argument that says "Everything's got to have a cause, so the universe has to have one, too."
Similarly, if I am defending an argument from evil for atheism, then I had better know what the theistic responses are and get them right. Otherwise, I'm just straw-manning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Dr. Reppert,
Your post seems to assume there is a basic cosmological argument, or a basic response to an argument from evil, and that responses to other arguments are strawmen. I have not discovered any such creations. There are almost as many cosmological arguments as there are religions, and no short response is going to address more than a tiny minority.
The cosmological arguments have all been addressed, but like any other formal creation, the strength attached by the listener to both the arguments and the rebuttals will depend much more strongly on the listeners inclination to agree with the argument/rebuttal than on any inherent value in the argument/rebuttal itself.
One Brow,
No one is blaming the New Atheists for not countering every version of the cosmological argument. Rather, we are blaming them for attacking a version of the cosmological argument that has NEVER been used by ANYONE.
Watch as Steven Colbert eats Richard Dawkins for lunch, as Dawkins attempts to take on the imaginary cosmological argument:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/76821/october-17-2006/richard-dawkins?xrs=share_copy
Dawkins's really decisive defeat occurs in the last minute, when Colbert nails him with the Argument from Reason. The whole balloon just deflates at that point, and Dawkins is just left twisting in the wind (but he can't admit it, or his book sales will suffer).
It's just simply a brute fact "Everything's got to have a cause, so the universe has to have one, too." is not nor has ever been a legitimate version of the Cosmological Argument.
At best it is a caricature that some amateur apologists might pick up & use from time to time.
Anonymous said...
... a version of the cosmological argument that has NEVER been used by ANYONE.
I am impressed that your knowledge of both the literature and the dialog engaged in popularly is so vast and detailed that you can not only make such a statement without qualification, but use captical letters, as well. In the hands of anyone with less knowledge, that would seem like a pathetic attempt at over-compensation.
B Prokop,
We heard two very different interviews, apparently.
As the Incredible String Band once sang, "We see what we see; we see seldom what is".
One Brow if you have evidence contrary to my claim which as you know I take from Feser then produce it.
After all I can't prove a negative here.
Ben Yachov,
Why do you ask me for evidence contrary to a claim I did not dispute?
B. Prokop,
Agreed.
@One Brow
So why the snarky bag on Anon if you don't dispute the idea EHC isn't found in any historical version of CA argument?
It could be left as an exercise as the reader to suggest a (cheeky) response to sceptical theism on 'emperor's new clothes' lines.
"After all I can't prove a negative here."
And yet you expect atheists to prove the non-existence of gods all the time. Double standards methinks.
It is possible to prove a negative. There isn't a mass larger than the sun between Earth and Mars. There isn't an even integer between 4 and 6. Etc..
How does that claim persist.
"And yet you expect atheists to prove the non-existence of gods all the time. Double standards methinks."
Methinks no-one has suggested any such thing. Less of the red herrings, please.
B Prokop: "Watch as Steven Colbert eats Richard Dawkins for lunch, as Dawkins attempts to take on the imaginary cosmological argument."
I think Colbert's character on The Report is one of the most interesting ones on TV; he's playing a kind of alternative personality, but he's very coy about where his sensibilities really lie. I think he does truly lean towards a kind of religious belief, and is sympathetic to a number of conservative positions, but just as often I find myself thinking otherwise.
Anyway, another stake in the heart of America's public intellectual life that the best political reporting in the U.S. is done on The Jon Stewart Show, and the best talk show about ideas is on the Colbert Report.
In real life, Steven Colbert is actually a very active Catholic. He is even a grade school Religious Education instructor at his church!
@Paps
>And yet you expect atheists to prove the non-existence of gods all the time. Double standards methinks.
Nonsense! I expect intelligent Atheists (which excludes Fundie Gnu's like yourself) to make good philosophical arguments for Monism, Materialism & Naturalism.
I expect them to make good philosophical arguments as to why God as understood in the Classic sense is incoherent. I expect good philosophical arguments as to why any particular philosophical argument for God is wrong.
The problem is brain dead Gnu's irrationally reject philosophy as a legitimate and necessary means to natural knowledge.
The old guard Atheists believed in & knew philosophy. They where a cut above intellectually their devolved Gnu'Atheist cousins.
Your popular version of "Atheism" Paps is the intellectual equivalent of YEC for infidels.
I would never believe in it even if I denied God. I love reason too much.
BenYachov said...
So why the snarky bag on Anon if you don't dispute the idea EHC isn't found in any historical version of CA argument?
YOu used qualifiers like "legitimate", which are open enough to interpretation that there seems to be little point is trying to affirm or deny your statement. Anyone who did use that argument would not be "legitimate", right?
Since we're talking about Steven colbert, my take on him is that he is both religious and liberal, and not fond of some of the actions of positions of the Catholic Church. In my younger days, my congregation was made up mostly of such people.
>YOu used qualifiers like "legitimate", which are open enough to interpretation that there seems to be little point is trying to affirm or deny your statement.
Then why not speak plainly as to why you found his statement wanting? The snark suggests you disapprove of the statement in general.
"[Colbert] is both religious and liberal"
I hope you're not making a connection between religion and conservatism, a la the "Tea Party". I regard myself as fairly religious, and am also a liberal Democrat (I think Victor is as well, but I should let him speak for himself).
And don't forget such towering figures in 20th Century religion such as Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, Gustavo Gutierrez, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Archbishop Romero. Not a right winger in the bunch!
Then why not speak plainly as to why you found his statement wanting?
I did.
The snark suggests you disapprove of the statement in general.
You mean, you found the clause "so vast and detailed that you can not only make such a statement without qualification, but use capital letters, as well" to be unspecific of what I objected to? OK.
B. Prokop said...
"[Colbert] is both religious and liberal"
I hope you're not making a connection between religion and conservatism,
I am not the slightest bit surprised you read such an intention into what I wrote.
Why?
B Prokop wrote: "As the Incredible String Band once sang, "We see what we see; we see seldom what is"."
Complete red herring - I'm so glad someone else remembers this wonderfully crazy band!!
B. Prokop said...
Why?
Recent experience. I will say no more on that subject.
BDK
It even turned up in Dilbert!!!
B. Prokop,
The funny thing about your link to the Colbert Report, is that I have noticed that the more respect he has for a guest, the less theatrics he does before he goes over to shake their hand.
So, I think that high-five tour of the crowd before going to sit with Dawkins was telling.
Post a Comment