tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1961574663034631740..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The SLTFVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83027796098854935332011-08-16T21:15:35.326-07:002011-08-16T21:15:35.326-07:00As this post was addressed to me, I should note th...As this post was addressed to me, I should note that I'm not following the thread anymore. Those looking to continue the discussion about the OTF should consult my last post on the same, as cited in the first reply here.<br /><br />And remember, folks: <br /><br /><i>WTF, LOL! STFU</i>.<br /><br />The most sophisticated argument in the universe ever.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80716923350280645562011-08-14T15:09:22.397-07:002011-08-14T15:09:22.397-07:00Hi Bob,
>>> If you believed in the Resurr...Hi Bob,<br />>>> If you believed in the Resurrection of Christ, you'd likely no longer be a "religious outsider" but a Christian, and therefore an insider.<br /><br />I was speaking about the process of becoming an insider - whatever that term actually means, I am not sure. I think this parallels with my analogy of being a juror and reaching a verdict. <br /><br />I question the use of the term "insider" anyway. Is the juror who reaches a verdict an insider, and what does that even mean?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47967536995921564822011-08-14T06:40:48.850-07:002011-08-14T06:40:48.850-07:00Mr Veale
"It was McDonald's lazy connecti...Mr Veale<br />"It was McDonald's lazy connection between social conservatism and Nazism that betrayed a horrible bigotry and dogmatism on MacDonald's part."<br /><br />How do you know that? <br />Isn't social conservatism an identifier of centre-right or the right wing of politics. Isn't Nazism and Fascism also particular aspects of right wing ideology? I thought McDonald's proposition was a reasonable position to conclude just as liberalism is usually determined as aspects of socialism and are posited to the left wing of politics.<br /><br />Arch right-wing social conservatism is as unhelpful to society as is communism on the left. So your feigned horror about the connection of social conservatism and Nazism is somewhat naive. Political commentators don't have a problem with these levels of parallels. Incidentally, I wouldn't worry too much about Feser. He is big enough and ugly enough to dispense bigotry and dogmatism with the best of them. Remember Catholics have had 2,000 years to hone their skills at bigotry and dogmatism. It is only since the Enlightenment, that golden period of humanity characterized by personal growth and secular reasoning, when religious hegemony was vigorously challenged and cast into the shadows, that atheism/agnosticism has been able to bloom; it remains some 1700 years in arrears of Catholic domination, a veritable David against the Catholic goliath. But things are changing, and for the better, Graham. I am confident a rebalancing of the influence of religion will continue its downward trend in the US to a level more reflective of the demands and needs of a diverse and multicultural community.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66917088432546219172011-08-14T05:43:26.103-07:002011-08-14T05:43:26.103-07:00This is not on a par with the holocaust. However m...This is not on a par with the holocaust. However misguided, they were an attempt to <i>stop people killing</i>. <br />It was McDonald's lazy connection between social conservatism and Nazism that betrayed a horrible bigotry and dogmatism on MacDonald's part. <br />I'm not sure what demons haunt Mr MacDonald. But he propounded the idea that social conservatism is potentially sadistic, lethal and genocidal. No argument was presented. It was like listening to a street preacher explaining any given national catastrophe by referencing the nation's godlessness and the need for repentance. <br />I am stunned by this personal attack on a respected teacher and scholar; and horrified that Professor Coyne can endorse and commend this attack. PZ Myers appears positively balanced in comparison.<br />I had expected some balance on your part Papa. However, you have fallen prey to the same blind dogmatism that allows Benny Hinn to proclaim miracles were there are none, and Ken Ham to build Arks where the rains won't fall. It is the exhilirating feeling of moral certainty and superiority, bought for minimal intellectual effort, that attracts you. Sadly, it's impossible to take you seriously at the moment. <br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66671065938464948312011-08-14T04:36:26.302-07:002011-08-14T04:36:26.302-07:00Jesse
I agree that Macdonald’s Nazi comparisons a...Jesse<br /><br />I agree that Macdonald’s Nazi comparisons are ridiculous and unjust. But your comment on his comparison is very misleading. You say:<br /><br />“The systematic enslavement and destruction of millions is a bit worse than a callous excommunication, callous though it might be.”<br /><br />Macdonald’s objection is not so much that the excommunications themselves were cruel but that they provide evidence of the cruelty of the Catholic Church. People were excommunicated because they did things which, if it had had the power to do so, the Church would have prevented.<br /><br />The nine year old rape victim who was pregnant with twins was able to have an abortion and the dying woman was able to have a simple operation that saved her life only because there were people who were prepared to disobey the Church. Excommunication was all that the Church could do but, by doing it, it showed what would have happened if obedient Catholics had been in charge.kbrownenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79243780684943351062011-08-14T02:32:48.031-07:002011-08-14T02:32:48.031-07:00"Theo-speak"
poe"Theo-speak" <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />poePapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36013475808202483842011-08-14T00:50:22.306-07:002011-08-14T00:50:22.306-07:00Papa, it is funnier than hell that you call theist...Papa, it is funnier than hell that you call theists a touchy lot.<br /><br />You are the most self absorbed touchy atheist I have seen on these boards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75400414111961629772011-08-14T00:50:02.214-07:002011-08-14T00:50:02.214-07:00Papa, it is funnier than hell that you call theist...Papa, it is funnier than hell that you call theists a touchy lot.<br /><br />You are the most self absorbed touchy atheist I have seen on these boards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79090853082943542222011-08-13T23:52:48.743-07:002011-08-13T23:52:48.743-07:00Why are we listing other interpretations?
Ok, app...Why are we listing other interpretations?<br /><br />Ok, apparently some samples are in order:<br /><br />"I have already argued in my last post that the immorality and inhumanity to which Feser’s reason drives him is reason enough to question his arguments. If we are driven by our arguments to believe, for example, that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and subordinate all others to themselves, then we should go back and look at our premises. But if our premises are highly subtle and disputed claims in the philosophy of logc, as Feser’s are, and if these premises lead us to callous and inhuman conclusions, then we must revisit our premises. This is a moral obligation."<br /><br />"Such inhumanity surely calls into question the train of argument which leads to it. Having come to this point, surely the philosopher has a responsibility to go back and try to find where the error in his reasoning lies."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g" rel="nofollow">Shall we check her eye color?</a><br /><br />Odd that for someone trying to translate thoughts into `theo-speak' for the sake of the religious, the contemptible nature of religious dogma is taken as read.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11901414117452273162011-08-13T23:37:59.546-07:002011-08-13T23:37:59.546-07:00"Instead, MacDonald labeled his work as error..."Instead, MacDonald labeled his work as error and witchcraft. Whether the witch's eyes are green, brown, blue, or black is immaterial; a witch is a witch, after all."<br /><br />Another interpretation is that McDonald is presenting his critique in theo-speak, so that the message is not misconstrued by the religiose. You know, about witches and witchcraft etc. These are common elements of the supernatural milieu, intimately known by all theists for the activities that either bring discredit to god or enhance it.<br /><br />It seems for someone with god on their side, theists are a very touchy lot.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16561847666786294642011-08-13T22:01:53.091-07:002011-08-13T22:01:53.091-07:00Papalinton,
I do not think MacDonald was accusing...Papalinton,<br /><br />I do not think MacDonald was accusing Feser of stupidity either, but he might as well have done so. Does he expect his audience to take Feser's work seriously after such an introduction?<br /><br />On the assumption that Feser is not a moron, he may have something interesting and worthwhile to say. His arguments may be worth being stated at their strongest. One might be unconvinced and come away a secularist and materialist, but perhaps a better one.<br /><br />Instead, MacDonald labeled his work as error and witchcraft. Whether the witch's eyes are green, brown, blue, or black is immaterial; a witch is a witch, after all. Now, at best, the discussion is "let's see where this is nonsense and a threat to your rational and moral soundness," as opposed to "what do we learn from this?"<br /><br />Are we ready, as commenters at <i>Choice in Dying</i> suggest, to ignore rationalist inquiry concerning the content of the arguments, to focus on the psychology of its proponent? Are popular audiences of atheists already so adept concerning Platonism, Aristotelianism, and scholastic philosophy that we could only be bored by a serious hearing?Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60836410228327948442011-08-13T21:31:26.170-07:002011-08-13T21:31:26.170-07:00"For all his the weirdness about gayness, Fes..."For all his the weirdness about gayness, Feser is not a moron."<br /><br />No he is not a moron, and I think McDonald is not suggesting that. But it seems that the defense of the Catholic mythos, founded on tradition, can even make smart people do moronic things with incognizant alacrityPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82839209872733571812011-08-13T21:30:04.083-07:002011-08-13T21:30:04.083-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30217929601946284692011-08-13T20:37:18.526-07:002011-08-13T20:37:18.526-07:00I like much of MacDonald's writing, but I have...I like much of MacDonald's writing, but I have to second Graham here. For all his the weirdness about gayness, Feser is not a moron. When I have more scratch, I plan to get a copy of his <i>Aquinas</i>, and I have much enjoyed his blog.<br /><br />MacDonald might have carefully separated the `religious' aspects of the philosophy from the quality of the philosophy, as many critics of Feser have done. Instead, he dismissed them as "considered unsuccessful by lots of smart folks" and left it at that. I suppose he gets bonus points for the irony.<br /><br />No special irony points for the argument from morally distasteful results, but that one appears as well.<br /><br />I shouldn't have to say anything about the Nazi invocations. But since he supplied something of a defense...<br /><br />"Someone will tell me that this is an outrageous comparison, but I am not so sure. Of course the scale of the horror is not so great, but is the injustice and the horror any less because it happens only to a few?"<br /><br />With his examples in mind, yes. The systematic enslavement and destruction of millions is a bit worse than a callous excommunication, callous though it might be.<br /><br />"I will return to consider Feser’s understanding of the Aristotelian arguments and what Aquinas makes of them in a later post, but I find it a disagreeable and rebarbative task, and for now will think of other things."<br /><br />That should have been the first task. I think Eric is poisoning the well here.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18632192793103623672011-08-13T20:26:12.770-07:002011-08-13T20:26:12.770-07:00Graham Veale
"This is why I was astonished to...Graham Veale<br />"This is why I was astonished to see you refer to that horrific and bigotted attack on a Roman Catholic thinker. Especially when you have not read Feser's books. "<br /><br />That horrid and bigoted writer, Graham, is a serious man, a former Anglican priest, who knows his theological onions and makes serious arguments against the fatuity of theologians like Feser. <br /><br />He brings with him the experience of having been an insider for decades, and understands and can challenge the vacuity of Feser's arguments, which are unabashedly couched in singularly Apologetical theistic terms, dressed up as philosophy [mutton dressed as lamb].<br />Feser is a theologian first, a man whose whole existence is predicated on the superstition of an extra-natural world replete with malevolent spirits, celestial levitation, satans, and cherubim [first mention is at Gen 3:24], even unicorns [Num. 23:22] and satyrs [Isa. 13:21]. <br />Feser as a philosopher of any standing outside Apologetical circles, is of little value. <br /><br />[Indeed the bible mentions the existence of unicorns 9 times in the OT. The biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1). In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.<br />Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration.] Just a little additional side piece of information.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18522624749253907962011-08-13T19:13:38.874-07:002011-08-13T19:13:38.874-07:00Seriously Brenda, read one of your charges:
Then...Seriously Brenda, read one of your charges:<br /><br /><i><br />Then, in February 2006, after Irving was jailed in Austria, Hitchens published another defense of Irving's "free speech," this time on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. "It was very decent of him because it wasn't the popular thing to do," Irving told me.<br /><br />"And you're still good friends with him?" I asked Irving. "You're still in touch with Christopher Hitchens?"<br /><br />"Yes, I think it's fair to say that," he responded. "I really don't want to incriminate him."<br /></i><br /><br />Hitchens has <i>contact</i>! He <i>associates</i> with unsavory types!<br /><br />I'm not here to give the `New Atheists' - especially Harris - any free pass. I'm not even here to claim that they have an unblemished record. But I don't have to listen to this noise about totalitarianism.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85079107246590209732011-08-13T19:05:22.116-07:002011-08-13T19:05:22.116-07:00SteveK writes, "As a religious outsider, if I...SteveK writes, "As a religious outsider, if I think the evidence supports the conclusion that Christ was resurrected, then that ought to be enough to justify and explain why I don't think the other religions are true.<br />Is this reasonable?"<br /><br />I'm not sure how to respond to this. If you believed in the Resurrection of Christ, you'd likely no longer be a "religious outsider" but a Christian, and therefore an insider.<br /><br />But to speak to a larger issue, the "truth" of any particular religion is not necessarily a binary, yes/no sort of thing. As you might have inferred by my tongue in cheek list, they lie on a continuum of increasing or decreasing overall reflection of reality. Some are so far off the deep end that there is next to zero correspondence between them and Truth, while others are much closer. I would imagine that even atheists would agree with this idea.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77686648435914040282011-08-13T18:51:33.570-07:002011-08-13T18:51:33.570-07:00Brenda,
I know he "did a bit more than that....Brenda,<br /><br />I know he "did a bit more than that." You could have read the article that I linked; I stand by Hitchens' judgment on Irving. He did <i>nothing</i>, I repeat, <i>nothing</i> to endorse Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, which is how you presented it.<br /><br />That's scummy. I know better, and you should too. <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm" rel="nofollow">Similar things have been said about others you, by your phrasings, seem to know</a>.<br /><br />On Dawkins: Had you read the article, you would have seen this:<br /><br />"Either you should say, "I don't care whether his beliefs are based on religion or not, they are private and I refuse to take them into account." Or you should join me in saying, "I don't care whether his beliefs are based on religion or not, they affect his suitability for the job, and I am going to take them into account." A law that encourages you to say, "If a candidate's private beliefs are based on religion I shall ignore them, otherwise I shall take them into account", is a bad law."<br /><br />I happen to have qualms about Dawkins' position, but it was, again, <i>nothing</i> like you presented it. It also had nothing to do with supplying degrees, but everything to do with admitting professors who do not take their subject matter seriously. Which is why I approve of <a href="http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/09/goodbye-to-all-that.html" rel="nofollow">Parsons' decision to stop teaching</a> about philosophy of religion now that he puts no stock in the arguments. Here is what he said:<br /><br />"I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest; I don’t think there is a Bernie Madoff in the bunch. I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it. I’ve turned the philosophy of religion courses over to a colleague."<br /><br />Is Parsons a totalitarian as well?<br /><br />On Harris: I've said before that I have little to say in his defense, but <a href="http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/" rel="nofollow">again, you misrepresent</a>.<br /><br />Should I start on your representation of agnosticism as a `middle ground'? Middle of what, exactly?<br /><br />Quit with the slanders. Even if they were accurate for these select people, they are not accurate for atheists in general. Quit pretending that by labeling yourself an agnostic you've put yourself in the camp of sunshine and pleasantness.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81998247546650043832011-08-13T18:27:45.533-07:002011-08-13T18:27:45.533-07:00Jesse - For Dawkins claiming to deny religious peo...Jesse - <i>For Dawkins claiming to deny religious people degrees, I would like a reference.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html" rel="nofollow">Should employers be blind to private beliefs?</a><br /><br />"I would discriminate against both these religious men [Kurt Wise and Martin Gaskell] if I were on the search committee for a university job, on the same grounds as I gave for my hypothetical examples above. The fact that these particular anti-scientific beliefs happen to be grounded in religion should make no difference. Religious beliefs should never be privileged over other beliefs, simply by virtue of being religious."<br /><br />---<br /><i>I have yet to see the new atheists demand state atheism.</i><br /><br />Sam Harris - "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,"<br /><br /><i>Atheists span the political gamut. We have liberals like Myers and Dawkins, and conservatives like Shermer and Harris, and other things like Hitchens.</i><br /><br />And just as you complain about moderate Christians failure to speak out against fundamentalists so also I think moderate atheists should be criticized for their failure to call out extremist atheists for their anti-democratic totalitarianist views. Oh wait, I *am* a moderate atheist by some reckonings (agnosticism being a middle or moderate position). In spite of the claim that there is no club of atheism, no dogma, Ihave experienced intense fury, hate speech and personal attacks simply because I criticize prominent atheists for their very own words.<br /><br /><i>What Hitchens supported was Irving's right to free speech. Weirdly totalitarian, right?</i><br /><br />He did a bit more than that:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/a-holocaust-denier-hits-m_b_115056.html" rel="nofollow">Max Blumenthal at the Huffington Post</a><br />"In an article for Vanity Fair in 1996, Hitchens called Irving a "great historian," and argued that Irving's book,, "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich," deserved to be published by a mainstream publisher. St. Martin's Press had initially agreed to publish it, but backed out when it became a target of protests because of Irving's Holocaust denial and historical distortions. "He wrote a very, very fair account of the controversy [over "Goebbels"] in his magazine and he impressed me by his fairness," Irving said.<br /><br />Then, in February 2006, after Irving was jailed in Austria, Hitchens published another defense of Irving's "free speech," this time on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. "It was very decent of him because it wasn't the popular thing to do," Irving told me.<br /><br />"And you're still good friends with him?" I asked Irving. "You're still in touch with Christopher Hitchens?"<br /><br />"Yes, I think it's fair to say that," he responded. "I really don't want to incriminate him.""brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82388258268066194182011-08-13T17:46:43.418-07:002011-08-13T17:46:43.418-07:00PapaLinton
I agree that evangelicals do not do en...PapaLinton<br /><br />I agree that evangelicals do not do enough about Benny Hinn. We tend to fall back on "judge not that ye be not judged" as an excuse for cowardice. <br />I can say the same about Ken Ham's attempt to build an Ark Theme Park. It's one thing to have an eccentric idea; I'm even happy for you to campaign to promote that eccentric idea. But to take money that could be better used to build a theme park? Come on...<br /><br />I also agree that there is a lazy connection between atheism and nihilism in the evangelical subculture. This comes from a misunderstanding of the moral argument for Theism. The moral argument works from the assumption that the Theist and the Atheist can agree that there are moral facts that both can agree on. Then the Theist tries to argue that Theism best explains those facts, or that only Theism can explain those facts. <br />But evangelicals forget that the moral argument only works if Theist and Atheist agree that there are moral facts!!! So if the evangelical wants to use the moral argument he has to assume that the atheist is a moral person. <br /><br />Perhaps there is a throwback to Locke's suspicion of atheism as dangerous. Maybe he worried that all atheists would end up agreeing with Hobbes. But whatever the reason, evangelicals tend to muddle the moral argument up with a practical argument, which insists that without Theism we will descend into moral chaos. And then they further confuse that argument with the assumption that the <i>individual atheist</i> will approve of moral chaos. <br /><br />Which is nonsense. You strike me as a very moral person - maybe even an idealist. (Difficult to explain your prose otherwise). This is why I was astonished to see you refer to that horrific and bigotted attack on a Roman Catholic thinker. Especially when you have not read Feser's books. <br /><br />This is exactly the unfair treatment that you complain about. "You are an atheist" does not mean "you are morally dangerous". <br />"You are a conservative Catholic" does not mean "you excuse Priestly Paedophilia and remind me of Himmler". <br /><br />What's sauce for the goose, and all that...<br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58503180431453583362011-08-13T17:33:58.536-07:002011-08-13T17:33:58.536-07:00Oops...I should have said:
"What's the m...Oops...I should have said:<br /><br />"What's the methodology for evaluating the test results and can a similar test be made for jurors? I am sure the judicial system would be interested in a bullet-proof test like this. No more hung juries. No more incorrect verdicts."SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13759051128869813672011-08-13T17:28:36.040-07:002011-08-13T17:28:36.040-07:00It is all too easy for a Theist to think that dism...It is all too easy for a Theist to think that dismantling McAtheism means that he has dismantled Atheism. <br />It means nothing of the sort. I'm afraid that I don't have a simple refutation of William Rowe's evidential argument from evil. Now, I think that I have some good reasons for doubting Rowe's conclusion. But I'm fully aware that Rowe wouldn't buy them. <br /><br />It might irk me that people who are way smarter than me - Jesse and BDK and Thrasymachus, can read and understand apologetic arguments that convince me, and yet remain unconvinced themselves. But that's life. There's room for disagreement. <br /><br />And as Paul Moser has argued, a Perfect God would not be interested in communicating theoretical information that he exists. He would be interested in transforming people in an existentially and morally challenging way. (Moser tends to talk as if God engaged in a cover-up though. I tend to think that there is publicly available evidence of God's existence.) <br /><br />So I'm happy to live with the fact that very clever people can read the same arguments that I do and reach different conclusions. To some extent I'm <i> happier </i> . If all there was to theism was the proposition that a personal God exists, it would hardly be worth bothering with. It would be like the philosophical debate over universals. Theoretically interesting, important even. But hardly gripping and life changing. <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41026663758341030012011-08-13T17:25:33.294-07:002011-08-13T17:25:33.294-07:00Pap,
>>> So, which is the truth, Bob? The...Pap,<br />>>> So, which is the truth, Bob? The Islamic evidence or Christian evidence?<br /><br />By your own comment, this is a non-issue for the OTF. You said that rational people can reach different conclusions using the same objective evidence. <br /><br />So when juror 1 says "guilty", juror 2 says "innocent" and the sum total of all 12 jurors says "we can't decide" (hung jury) there isn't *necessarily* a bias problem or a problem with the rationality of the jurors. <br /><br />It should go without saying that there is only one answer to the question of guilt. Non-contradiction requires it.<br /><br />Likewise, there is only one answer to the question of God. The fact that people disagree about the answer is not *necessarily* a sign of bias or irrationality. <br /><br />You aren't saying it's possible that individuals are bias and/or irrational when it comes to religion (we all know it's possible). No, you and Loftus are saying the test CONFIRMS that religious individuals are biased and/or irrational in ALL cases. Really?<br /><br />Tests must comport to reality so I have to ask how the test goes about confirming the conclusion? What's the methodology for evaluating the test results?<br /><br />BTW, you never responded to my comment made on August 12, 2011 9:57 PM. Is that reasonable to you?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29190016088022288262011-08-13T15:39:46.026-07:002011-08-13T15:39:46.026-07:00Do I even need to start?
I appreciate you adding ...<i>Do I even need to start?</i><br /><br />I appreciate you adding your offering to the pile of deserved smack-arounds the piss-poor "OTF" has garnered. I appreciate your difficulties with New Atheism/McAtheism. But I stand by my observations.<br /><br />I could add that believing that Maher is not a "rationalist" would apparently put you at odds with Dawkins. Of course, I seem to remember Dawkins claiming he wasn't aware of Maher's takes on medicine and didn't have much to say even when Maher was receiving some manner of Bright award. Whether that implies Dawkins is clueless or a liar, I leave to others to decide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44603715729106512302011-08-13T15:17:39.103-07:002011-08-13T15:17:39.103-07:00Do I even need to start?Do I even need to start?Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.com