If my foregoing discussion is correct, opponents of, say, the resurrection of Jesus cannot appeal to a general theory of probability to prove that anyone who accepts the resurrection is being irrational. It is also a consequence that different people can reasonably expected to have different credence functions with respect to Christian (and other) miracle claims. If you want to convince some people that Christ was resurrected, you have a much heavier burden of proof than you have in convincing others. It must be noted that there is no way, on the model I have presented, to show that everyone who denies the Resurrection is irrational, or engaged in bad faith. Of course, one can still believe that unbelievers disbelieve because of "sin" or "suppressing the truth," or what have you. But given the legitimate differences that can exist concerning the antecedent probability of the miraculous, I don't see how such charges can be defended. So the lesson here, I think, is that both apologetics and anti-apologetics should be engaged in persuasion, not coercion, and that the attempt to ground irrationality charges against one's opponents is a misguided enterprise.[22]
Here.
9 comments:
"So the lesson here, I think, is that both apologetics and anti-apologetics should be engaged in persuasion, not coercion, and that the attempt to ground irrationality charges against one's opponents is a misguided enterprise."
Excellent advice, Victor. For myself (if I am to be honest), I simply cannot reconcile atheism with rationality, but I must keep that to myself in the middle of a discussion with unbelievers. (Though, again for honesty's sake, I should at some point make it clear that this is what I do in fact think.)
A number of your commenters to this website (myself included at times) like to psychoanalyze their interlocutors with phrases like "getting desperate" and "refusing to acknowledge", etc. But, Ilion's insistence to the contrary, both "sides" in this debate are operating from grounds they genuinely consider rational.
So rather than simply label someone you disagree with delusional, irrational, misguided, brainwashed, stupid, wishful thinking (even if you consider such modifiers to be true), it's usually better to just demonstrate why you believe the way you do, and let the story speak for itself. I am a firm believer that in the long run (sometimes the very long run), Truth will ultimately triumph over error.
I would like to follow this advice myself. I know that "in the heat of battle", it's not always easy to do. But I shall try. (And occasionally fail.)
Footnote: This advice does not apply when dealing with the demon possessed.
Pot, meet Kettle.
This advice does not apply when dealing with the demon possessed.
Why do you mention it, Bob? Do you have any particular locar commenter on mind here?
"Do you have any particular local commenter in mind here?"
Perhaps.
Really interesting. Although it´s sure that you won´t tell who is the one, I would be very much interested ...
Jakub,
First you have to decide for yourself whether such a condition is even possible. Otherwise, it's like trying to discuss with someone who does not believe in the possibility of miracles altogether whether, for instance, the evidence for Fatima point to its being a genuine apparition or not. In other words - pointless.
So naturally, if a person does not believe in the supernatural, they're going to to dismiss out of hand any idea of demon possession. But if you are open to the possibility, then you have to ask yourself, how might such a person act? And more to the point, how might you recognize the condition over the internet?
I think you'd have grounds for suspicion if the person you're dealing with over a computer screen is unable to reference the sacred without a reflex action of extreme insult and ridicule. For instance, he would be unable to call the events in Christ's life by their proper names, or without appending denigrating commentary if he does so. But more importantly, Sacred Scripture would be like a hot stove to him. He would attempt to rule it "out of bounds" in a discussion, and would be unable to take it seriously.
I that I wrote "unable" and not just he was unwilling to do so.
But that's pretty much standard operating procedure for New Atheists.
Victor,
That's why I made the distinction between "unable" and "not willing to".
Post a Comment