Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Motive arguments and Mutual Assured Destruction
My claim is that everyone's belief choices are partly the result of reflection, and partly the result of motives, of which none of us are fully aware. No one side in the discussion has a monopoly on rational or nonrational motives. So motive arguments are a wash, and if they are introduced in place of actual arguments, the result is mutual assured destruction, since each side can "bomb" the other with an equal measure of motive arguments, and blow up the discussion permanently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Many people do not want discussion. In fact, discussion is pretty threatening - it's an opportunity to be shown wrong.
Why discuss when you may lose, and if winning is paramount? Better to shout down or lie or BS as much as you can if you can get away with it in that case.
"My claim is that everyone's belief choices are partly the result of reflection, and partly the result of motives, of which none of us are fully aware."
True.
"No one side in the discussion has a monopoly on rational or nonrational motives."
True
"So motive arguments are a wash"
That just does not follow. One side could be doing a better job of suppressing nonrational motives than the other.
I have tried many many times to find common ground with a theist, just to try and get a conversation off the ground. For example, I will say something like "we ought to proportion the strength of belief to the evidence" or "we ought to be suspicious if our beliefs match what we desire to be true". But I cannot even get the theist to agree to that.
So I don't know where to start with most theists. There is just no common ground, epistemically.
BI,
The problem with what you regard as conversation starters is that they are anything but. I.e., it is obvious to a blind man that you have loaded each proposition with terminology that means something very specific to you, and is intended to steer any subsequent exchange in your desired direction. I have found, for example, that the word "evidence" is code language to the non-believer meant solely to poison the well against whatever the theist might have to offer.
Now Christians have no problem with evidence. Why should we? We know the weight of it is on our side, and have repeatedly demonstrated this without ever having been satisfactorily rebutted. So by your terms, if you were truly honest in your use of them, our belief in Christianity ought to be strong indeed. But that's not the outcome you wanted, so you will say "I cannot even get the theist to agree to that" as though that actually means anything.
Even worse is your second proposition. I see no reason for accepting that one at all. I very much desire to be alive, and believe that I am. Should I then be suspicious of that belief because of my desire? I desire my family to be healthy (and they are, thank God). Should I be suspicious of that belief as well, simply because it is my greatest desire?
Code words and loaded language, and you have the nerve to say "I don't know where to start with most theists" as though the failure to communicate is all on their side.
I have tried many many times to find common ground with a theist, just to try and get a conversation off the ground.
Where? You're a known troll whose nigh-every contribution is mockery and question begging.
There are plenty of ways to start a dialogue and discussion with theists if you're an agnostic or atheist. Plenty of atheists and agnostics are able, and plenty of theists are able to have conversations with atheists and agnostics.
Now, a Cult of Gnu style atheist? That's not happening, for the same reason it's not happening with a Westboro Baptist member.
"I have found, for example, that the word "evidence" is code language to the non-believer meant solely to poison the well against whatever the theist might have to offer."
Couldn't have scripted a finer example of projected motive and a resort unschooled and undisciplined teleology and intention.
Having said that, it also points to Victor's POV on "motive arguments are a wash", being demonstrably of little merit because not for one moment has Bob the strength of personal discipline to refrain from projecting motive with his 'code language' comment.
Erratum
""Couldn't have scripted a finer example of projected motive and a resort to unschooled and undisciplined teleology and intention.
Post a Comment