tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post394298392768710101..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Prosblogion entry on atheist burnoutVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80080983791665152502010-09-11T18:38:53.729-07:002010-09-11T18:38:53.729-07:00Shackle,
I was not trying to stalk you. I thought...Shackle,<br /><br />I was not trying to stalk you. I thought I was just responding to your comments. <br /><br />You write: <br /><i>why take a scalpel to my comments, picking out each and every one in exacting detail, trying to find fault with every sentence where I may have been too critical, or uncharitable, when you *should* be doing that with Parsons---you know, the real philosopher?</i> <br /><br />Alex: Don't we, as Christians, have a higher standard that we ought to hold one another to, and that we will ultimately be judged by? You accuse Parsons of a complete lack of humility and grace. You seem to be holding him to a fairly high and characteristically Christian standard of conduct. Yet I don't see either of these qualities in your posts in this thread. Do you? Yet you also accuse Parsons of hypocrisy? Think it over...<br /><br />I apologize if I've offended you or you feel attacked.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61806947708568710502010-09-11T17:37:19.887-07:002010-09-11T17:37:19.887-07:00Hi Shackleman, there is something that needs some ...Hi Shackleman, there is something that needs some adjustment on peoples blog settings.Ive had comments disappear here the way you discribe, but happens elswhere also.<br /><br />I think if you google it you will see lots are having the same type problem.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68779173857865489052010-09-11T13:34:52.507-07:002010-09-11T13:34:52.507-07:00Alex,
Relax, and stop stalking my posts. You mi...Alex, <br /><br />Relax, and stop stalking my posts. You might want to take a step back for a minute, reread what I actually wrote in this thread, and then reread what you've written about me. Not only is it untrue, conceited, and mean-spirited, but it's also just weird. <br /><br />Ask yourself, why do you take such interest in my little posts, attempting to dress me down in front of mere strangers? And further why take a scalpel to my comments, picking out each and every one in exacting detail, trying to find fault with every sentence where I may have been too critical, or uncharitable, when you *should* be doing that with Parsons---you know, the real philosopher? Instead, you give him a free pass, though he insulted the *entire* field of apologetics. It's creepy, actually. I've never been stalked like this before. I suppose I should take it as a kind of backwards complement. My comments must have struck a nerve in you.<br /><br />I suggest before you start pointing fingers from atop your perch, you take a good long look in the mirror. You've gotten personal and insulting and you are assaulting my character for no reason. What is wrong with you? <br /><br />Now, for the record, I am not, nor have I been upset or emotional. I simply don't mince words. And when a prominent (not super famous by any means, but influential and prominent none the less) professional philosopher loses his sense of decorum, I'm going to call him out on it. Nice guy or not. Same to his apologists. Same with creepy stalkers. <br /><br />Now, on that note, I'm done with you, Alex. I have little doubt you'll pick this apart too, and take every opportunity I've given you to try to twist my words around and attempt to undermine me. Whatever floats your boat, man. Have at it. I'm out.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62670781209046890852010-09-11T13:10:57.727-07:002010-09-11T13:10:57.727-07:00Dr. Reppert,
My guess is that you inadvertantly d...Dr. Reppert,<br /><br />My guess is that you inadvertantly deleted the wrong one then. My comment posted successfully and I refreshed the screen to make sure. After coming back a few minutes later, it was gone, and my "deletion" message from the prior post was still there.<br /><br />No biggie...I thought it was rather unusual.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10894719909497778952010-09-11T12:21:08.982-07:002010-09-11T12:21:08.982-07:00Look, there are plenty of people in secular philos...Look, there are plenty of people in secular philosophy departments who reject Christianity, and who don't really put any time and effort into criticizing it. You can go to a philosophy of mind meeting at an APA meeting and hear two philosophers going at it about something like propositional attitudes or qualia who are both firmly convinced physicalists, and who are debating demoninational differences amongst types of physicalism. That's life in philosophy.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20844282840740628202010-09-11T12:15:19.464-07:002010-09-11T12:15:19.464-07:00Shackleman: I didn't delete any of your posts,...Shackleman: I didn't delete any of your posts, at least not deliberately, except to delete the ones places marked where you deleted them already.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13663832089300406372010-09-11T12:10:57.848-07:002010-09-11T12:10:57.848-07:00Shackleman wrote:
The second (and separate) irrit...Shackleman wrote: <br />The second (and separate) irritation I have is with his apologists. Not because they feel I, as a Christian am worthy of being mocked and ridiculed (I couldn't care less what they think of me personally), but because their continued attempts at excusing his indignant mockery and puffery border on hypocrisy, and somebody ought to point it out.<br /><br />Alex: The problem, Shackleman, is that while you call to others hypocrites, you engage in hypocrisy yourself. For example...<br /><br />Parsons has been called an intellectual and cultural failure by Anonymous (twice within the same short post). Instead of pointing out that this is the kind of mockery you claim to dislike, you "continue to excuse" it and even half-endorse it when you say:<br /><br /><i>I think Anon is onto something here.</i>Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55581136093187930552010-09-11T12:00:26.887-07:002010-09-11T12:00:26.887-07:00Really? Now I'm being censored and my posts a...Really? Now I'm being censored and my posts are being deleted?<br /><br />There was nothing in my post deserving of that, but hey, it's your blog, Dr. Reppert, do what you want.<br /><br />I'm flabbergasted after seeing what others have put up here that *my* post would be deleted. It was respectful disagreement, even if a bit harsh. But delete-worthy? Just, wow. I really don't know what to say.<br /><br />*shrug* Thanks for the rewarding few years of discussions. Best of luck everybody.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35288322060350718302010-09-11T11:58:24.363-07:002010-09-11T11:58:24.363-07:00Honestly, BDK's views in this thread strike me...Honestly, BDK's views in this thread strike me as extremely wise - his take on Dawkins (who I also think is fairly harmless and entertaining), his comments about the relative scarcity of combative skeptics, etc. <br /><br />As Christians, we shouldn't stoop down to trying to beat guys like Loftus at their own game. Our call is to be loving, not stoop down to the mocking and abuse. And I admit that I've done this on several occasions myself. <br /><br />I feel like, at least within the blogging world, I'm seeing alot of this kind of behavior - even on this thread. As Christians, we don't fight fire with fire. That's not what Christ has called us to do. Christ has called us to suffer shame in the face of abuse, and to offer love in return. This was the cost of His love for us, and it is the cost that we must pay as well if we wish to show others the love of Christ. <br /><br />I think the truth of the matter is that alot of theists were simply just upset or even *hurt* by what Parsons had to say. He pretty much just poo-poo'ed the entire apologetic enterprise in one blog. I admit to feeling a little upset myself as I had just been discussing some of these issues with him recently. But not many Christians responded with vulnerability or honesty. Instead we see alot of personal attacks on his intellectual ability, his career, his influence, etc. He spit on Christian thought, Christians punched him in the face.<br /><br />Parsons thinks theistic arguments are losers, so Christians start calling Parsons a loser.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18565294152084522382010-09-11T10:45:56.501-07:002010-09-11T10:45:56.501-07:00Anonymous wrote: "He's a failure, intelle...Anonymous wrote: "He's a failure, intellectually and culturally. He's hit the Loftus level."<br /><br />Alex: This is obviously very mean-spirited. What happened to loving your enemies?<br /><br />It also is simply not true. Why is he an intellectual failure? Because he doesn't have international fame like Dawkins? What are the criteria here for intellectual success. If someone feels they've acquired a significant amount of knowledge and that's enabled them to formulate a view of the world that they feel is coherent and significantly justified by the evidence, that is enough intellectual success for me. Not every atheist is going to be Graham Oppy. There really are very few people on either side of the debate who can carry it on at the level of rigor it requires. Re: cultural failure, an atheist need not have lofty evangelistic goals.<br /><br />I would even say it is going too far to call Loftus a cultural failure. I was away from the web completely for a few years and when I returned, the influence and output of Loftus seemed to increase exponentially. We can both agree that he's a bit of a clown, but I would say, if anything, his cultural impact is peaking or at least increasing.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82130635874883087262010-09-11T10:32:05.648-07:002010-09-11T10:32:05.648-07:00Shackleman wrote: But because Parsons matters. He&...Shackleman wrote: But because Parsons matters. He's influential. He's respected. He's published. He's a full-time, careful, measured, professor of a field that matters to an awful lot of people. <br /><br />Alex: This is almost delusional. Parsons has barely published anything in POR. He certainly hasn't published many influential works. How often do you think any of his publications are actually cited within the field? I would say close to never. What percent of the population do you think would recognize the name "Keith Parsons"? I would wager that, outside of the internet subculture of religion debaters or people who read popular apologetics and popular skepticism, you will never meat a person offline who knows that name.<br /><br />You need to learn to chill out or apologetics is going to eventually affect your health.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46093874455194862052010-09-11T10:26:41.562-07:002010-09-11T10:26:41.562-07:00I'm starting to think alot of the Christians t...I'm starting to think alot of the Christians that get into apologetics and philosophy of religion really think Christianity hangs in the balance of these arguments that go back and forth. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to recognize the insignificance of this little subculture of intellectual religion debaters. I think it is great and fun for nerdy Christians, it can be helpful in a pastoral setting to be able to answer certain questions, and there is even the (VERY RARE) conversion of the skeptic. Further I think there's some trickle-down into the wider culture on alot of levels as Craig has argued. But for the large part, I doubt anyone would notice or the world would be much different if all parties involved (theist/atheist alike) were raptured tomorrow.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82054663895014222172010-09-11T10:18:21.568-07:002010-09-11T10:18:21.568-07:00Shackleman,
You are *way* too upset over this. I...Shackleman, <br /><br />You are *way* too upset over this. It is just a blog. The Secular Outpost is not a very influential or popular blog at that. It is very surprising that so many theistic blogs have picked up on this, but that's probably bc they just keep it in their blog reader, on the radar so to speak. If you're one of the few who actually regularly read it, 90% of the posts are the snobby rants of Taner Edis, the content of which very few writers of the same blog would even agree with. <br /><br />Shackleman writes:<br /><br />But, one of their own resorting to such self-righteous indignation, and they rush to his defense, excusing his antics as just being the emotional outbursts of a Texan, exhausted and wronged by the nitwits he has had to contend with for lo these many years, and *praising* him for doing so.<br /><br />Alex: Shackleman, you seem like you are referring to me here (re: Texan outburst comment). While I like Parsons, he is not "one of my own". I am a Christian theist (perhaps a bit more liberal than some of the regulars on this blog). <br /><br />You guys need to chill out. Stop being so angry and blowing things out of proportion. Parsons was venting and in doing so he pushed some buttons (that's kinda the point of venting like that). Learn to be more tolerant of occasional intolerance. If someone isn't making any actual arguments, in what way are you or your beliefs threatened exactly? Who really cares?Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72220177406342349082010-09-11T09:02:35.097-07:002010-09-11T09:02:35.097-07:00Couple of corrections in my post:
I meant to say ...Couple of corrections in my post:<br /><br />I meant to say which team you like more. Not which team is better.<br />Obviously there is a way to determine which team is better.<br />But I meant to state which team you like more, you're affiliated with, etc.<br /><br />Also,<br /><br />I meant to say "one street is no more true than the other".Charles Starcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18292218731642945102010-09-11T09:00:12.760-07:002010-09-11T09:00:12.760-07:00Being as honest as possible here, but I'm also...Being as honest as possible here, but I'm also close to giving up on debating with theists.<br /><br />I will admit with Parsons, there are alot of good people out there. Are some of the very bright? Definitely.<br /><br />One day I was arguing over which football team was the best with one of my friends.<br />It quickly dawned on me that the way he was responding was alot like the way theists respond to arguments.<br />No, we all know that one team isn't "better" than another. It's all a matter of taste. It was then that I thought, "he's not believing this so much because he sincerely thinks it to be true - it's a matter of taste to a large extent."<br /><br />When I was a kid we used to fight with kids from another street. <br />In philosophy we would call that distinction a 'per accidens' distinction (opposed to a per se distinction). One street is more "true" than another.<br /><br />These realizations make it hard to debate with theists at times.Charles Starcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76465602268146439782010-09-10T18:10:14.455-07:002010-09-10T18:10:14.455-07:00Walter said.."Many of my friends that were ra...Walter said.."Many of my friends that were raised completely non-religious could absolutely care less about arguing religion at any time, online or other. The enthusiastic zeal which comes when one feels they have had an epiphany can probably explain Paul's zeal when he switched from persecutor to champion of Christian faith. Some atheists are just the flip side of the coin, going from champion to persecutor."<br /><br />Yes its a fact people not so effected by religion dont often bother think about it much.A bit like people who are not personally effected by cerebral palsy, often dont bother even thinking or considering what it might be like if they were effected by cerebal palsy.<br /><br />In my opinion its all part of the reason so much abuse is still able to exist among faith and religion.<br /><br />Do we see many faithful folk <b>actively</b> fighting to help stop abuse among religion?.How many church faith groups are <b>actively</b> involved in trying to help bring about change in abusive cults like westboro baptists, who will activly preach hate and excommunicate and disown any children who disagree with their nastiness.<br /><br />Many?.No sadly not many.<br /><br />So we have plenty of church folk in liberal churches all cozy-rosy and feeling God is great.And plenty of other general folks not effected or so bothered by religion,who couldnt care less.<br /><br />And then we have some other angry folk ,folk who people like Blue admit often have had past involvement in religion themselves. <br /><br />Some of these people have now been named as the new atheists.Many are angry and loud and disrespectful etc.<br /><br />When many church folk in cozy liberal churches often do so very little themselves, about taking any positive action! towards helping free captives stuck in abusive faiths.I would like to ask, why then is this respect they demand of them, always so honestly deserving?.Does faith deserve respect?,if so why<br /><br />Im extremely thankful for the atheists like Blue and Walter, i have to admit i do specially admire their very calm and collected type attitude of reasoning.I see extreme value in it, and i would be sad if i saw it had changed.I even hope some of their type attitude rubs off on me.<br /><br />But in saying that, i also have to say i think it would be a very great shame! for both atheism and also <b>Christianity</b> if the new atheists ever disappeared.We still need many more angry new atheists around, not less of them.Because without the new atheists in all honesty, many more liberal Christians would all simply get handed the unopposed right, to simply go straight back to sleep in all their cozy-rosy liberal churches.Lulled into thinking all within faith was rosy and quite fine .<br /><br />While many kids in the more nasty churches still got continually spiritually abused and treated very badly and suffered onward in silence.Silence born out of their own personal fear! of even daring to speak up about problems they themselves need to face each and every day.Fear to disagree with the faithful nastiness they are often born into, and never even get the right to choose.Nastiness that would simply excommunicate! and totally disown! any of them, should they dare even try to claim the right to the <b>freedom</b> of thought, to dare think and act a little differently than the <b>faith group</b> they were born among.<br /><br />These kids and even many adult have become captives of faith terrorism.Their lives controlled by threats that bind them together.They dont even have honest freedom.<br /><br />Christianity has been around for <b>thousands of years</b> now, and all the while during that whole time, certain groups of these christians have still continued onward to freely abuse and harm many among them.<br /><br />There is plenty of very good reason for all the anger publically on display these days about faith.Things surrounding matters of faith need to change and evolve a whole lot more quickly than they have been. <br /><br />Not only for benefit of atheists but for benefit of the Christians honesty of right to even claim they actually do deserve to be respected.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52724289286247476982010-09-10T18:05:49.121-07:002010-09-10T18:05:49.121-07:00Interesting, the Loftus-bashing going on in this t...Interesting, the Loftus-bashing going on in this thread...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53250974557542225362010-09-10T13:02:44.507-07:002010-09-10T13:02:44.507-07:00First, when I direct something toward an individua...First, when I direct something toward an individual, I say so. You are not the only apologist for Parsons commenting here, so I wasn't talking exclusively to you or about you. Relax. <br /><br />Second, there are two distinctions I'm drawing here that you are (willfully?) ignoring. I'm irritated at Parson's antics, yes, not because I'm an "easily offended religious person". But because Parsons matters. He's influential. He's respected. He's published. He's a full-time, careful, measured, professor of a field that matters to an awful lot of people. He's not "BDK the part-time weekend blogger". What he says is actually taken seriously. Therefore he ought to leave the debate that has been so good to him with dignity, class, and respect for his opposition. He's not. That should be admonished.<br /><br />To wave your hand dismissively and compare his commentary with yours or my commentary does not give his status as a professional philosopher its proper due.<br /><br />Which brings me to my next point.<br /><br />The second (and separate) irritation I have is with his apologists. Not because they feel I, as a Christian am worthy of being mocked and ridiculed (I couldn't care less what they think of me personally), but because their continued attempts at excusing his indignant mockery and puffery border on hypocrisy, and somebody ought to point it out.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91652189665165184032010-09-10T12:34:44.906-07:002010-09-10T12:34:44.906-07:00Shackelman I said I understand the annoyance so I&...Shackelman I said I understand the annoyance so I'm not sure why you are complaining about me. Neither Parsons nor the people annoyed with him are wrong here: we are talking about sentiments not arguments. <br /><br />We could argue about whether the arguments that he rejects truly are as crappy as he says. If he were leaving a life of fighting holocaust deniers, nobody here would be complaining. We'd all understand his frustration.<br /><br />I am sympathetic that people here believe he is dismissing something significant, not at all analagous to such things. So you are annoyed. However, if I had to spend 20 years addressing 'liar lunatic lord' arguments, arguments about martyr-risk behavior, and such, I bet I would lose patience much faster than him.<br /><br />It seems you are intent on not simply taking what he is saying at face value and keep trying to paint him as somehow defective (comments about getting tenure and then leaving...huh?).<br /><br />It is annoying and hurtful and you don't think it is as silly and stupid as he acts. I get it. <br /><br />I also know it is easy to offend religious people, and being nonreligious myself I have to actively watch what I say around the religious, as I do tend to make jokes and mock Christian beliefs when I am among people who are not Christian. I do find them sort of funny and superstitious and pretty much unbelievable. <br /><br />However, when interacting with said believers, I try my best to interact with the ideas, to honor the seeming complexity of the arguments, and see thing from their perspective. To realize I really don't have a knock-down argument against theism, etc.. Humility and respect to other people is called for even though my personal attitude toward the <i>ideas</i> is generally one of dismissive irreverence. And that's all he said, was that he thought the ideas were ridiculous.<br /><br />As an atheist, a fairly staunch one at that, his seems a fairly innocuous declaration, something like I would have given if I had just spent 20 years fighting YEC.<br /><br />At any rate, this discussion is sort of weird and personal and psychological so I'll bow out. Plus I need to stop reading/posting at this blog so my goal is none for at least a week (so, no good posts, please, Victor). No blog activity for a week for me.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20115818350156695222010-09-10T12:08:28.292-07:002010-09-10T12:08:28.292-07:00Sorry, the Parson apologists both on his blog and ...Sorry, the Parson apologists both on his blog and on here seem to be blind to a hypocrisy. I would bet good money that they would never be so tolerant and excusing of a prominent and respected theistic apologist exiting the stage whilst whining that *all* opposing arguments are vacuous, merit-less, disgust-inducing frauds. <br /><br />No, instead they would (rightly) cry foul, and vehemently denounce those antics.<br /><br />But, one of their own resorting to such self-righteous indignation, and they rush to his defense, excusing his antics as just being the emotional outbursts of a Texan, exhausted and wronged by the nitwits he has had to contend with for lo these many years, and *praising* him for doing so.<br /><br />Ridiculous.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5459951412978238412010-09-10T11:01:18.536-07:002010-09-10T11:01:18.536-07:00Alex I largely agree with you (though I left philo...Alex I largely agree with you (though I left philosophy as a whole because I feel it is largely a waste of time as a profession versus a hobby, so I might not agree that it is all that useful to spend so much time on realism/antirealism and other endless empirically underdetermined endless philosophical argument spirals).<br /><br />I basically feel toward philosophy as a whole the way parsons feels toward philosophy of religion. Difference is I left philosophy as a profession to be a scientist, thank goodness. Somehow he stayed a philosopher of religion for a very long time. Silly rabbit!Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86322985417703802822010-09-10T10:56:43.709-07:002010-09-10T10:56:43.709-07:00Shackelman: I did what Parsons did with young eart...Shackelman: I did what Parsons did with young earthers. I spent a year or two dealing with them, and then just stopped for similar reasons. Their beliefs were so silly, and they were so inflexible and incapable of evidence-based thinking, I just stopped. So I can understand him.<br /><br />I post and read here because people here, for the most part, aren't pushing such a silly system of thought. Also, there is a <i>huge</i> difference between messing around in blog comments and getting a PhD, becoming a professional philosopher to teach about these issues. My time is devoted to neuroscience. My free time I post at Victor's blog (though frankly lately I have realized what a time sink it is and that I should probably stop just to be more productive in my real persuits).<br /><br />Parsons obviously feels he has hit a point where he is sick of it. He is burned out. I don't feel that way (even though I do agree the arguments aren't all that great). I haven't spent enough time on it to get burnt out, but I understand that it could easily happen. Kudos to him for lasting as long as he did.<br /><br />Ya'll are annoyed. It's understandable. Don't read too much into it. Anonymous got very personal attacking Parsons, while Parsons quite explicitly attacked the <i>ideas</i>, and that's what I respect (as opposed to Loftus). Parson's said:<br />"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.."<br /><br />This seems quite reasonable. It's how I feel about young earth creationists, and I would probably feel that way about most theistic arguments if I spent the last X years studying the topic as much as he has.<br /><br />But yes, I'm sure it is annoying and who am I to stop someone from venting their feelings :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15108100589078290362010-09-10T10:49:58.766-07:002010-09-10T10:49:58.766-07:00BDK wrote: he's finally going to work on what ...BDK wrote: he's finally going to work on what he thinks is right, rather than refuting what he thinks is wrong. I commend him, and only wish it had happened sooner as it seems a waste of one's mental energy.<br /><br />Alex: Yes, I understand your view here and I pretty much agree that on some level that's the way to go for Parsons. But we want to be careful not to attribute that commendable motive to him either. Indeed, that may simply be the consolation of the decision. <br /><br />We have to remember that working on what one thinks is right, as you say, can be done quite successfully within POR. It is just alot more difficult to do in an environment where worldviews are as polarized as they are in the theism/atheism divide, and passions run as high as they do with all of the real-world implications of one's position (ethically, politically, socially, etc.). Oppy and Sobel have done it quite successfully. Arguing that a god probably does not exist is on the face of it no more of a waste of time, or less of an instance of arguing for what one thinks is right, than arguing about scientific realism, the demarcation problem, etc.<br /><br />I think Parsons has been pretty clear that he feels he simply doesn't have much more to contribute beyond what some of the luminaries already have. There's nothing to be ashamed of there...at all. <br /><br />Obviously I think it is silly to suppose some of the books he's mentioned have the last word. I've seen some very powerful critiques of them already (particularly Oppy who makes some really strange [and I think "vacuous" - to borrow from Parsons] arguments for the possibility of something arising from nothing). <br /><br />As a philosopher, I just think he should realize, there really never will be a final word on this debate, from either side. And I think that's the (somewhat immature) desire for certainty in him, as a Skeptic, that you speak about in another post.<br /><br />Ultimately, I think it is very obvious that there's a struggle going on between Parsons the "skeptical debunker", and Parsons the philosopher, and I'm glad to see hope that the latter might win out. I don't think it will if he keeps dabbling in POR as he has been.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11401908997979529862010-09-10T10:20:58.553-07:002010-09-10T10:20:58.553-07:00Eh, I think I'm a pretty good read on people. ...Eh, I think I'm a pretty good read on people. From my very limited interaction with him, I can still tell Parsons is a good guy. He's bright and he's been cordial and fairly open-minded within most of the theist/atheist dialogues I've seen him in. I'll have more to say on his deconversion from active skepticism (something to be celebrated) at another time. <br /><br />I don't really see much similarity with Loftus at all. If there is any at all, it might be a tendency to get a little riled up, blow off steam, get frustrated, etc. Listening to him debate Craig, at a minimum, you can see he is a passionate person. I know he teaches in Texas. I'm not sure where he's originally from, but having lived in Austin for the last 6 yrs or so, he reminds me of several intellectuals that I've had extended discussions/debates with over the years. They make great debate partners but occasionally they get red in the face, start yelling, and tell you "ah, that's just a buncha crap!". They don't mean anything personal by it; they've just hit their patience limit. If I had to speculate, I'd say Parsons probably had a specific instance where he experienced frustration with regards to theism, theistic arguments, or a theist in particular, and his latest blog is his way of venting about it.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30609935033423993722010-09-10T10:17:57.027-07:002010-09-10T10:17:57.027-07:00You know, the more I think about this, the more de...You know, the more I think about this, the more despicable I think it is.<br /><br />This guy has spent much of his professional life building up a career for himself (a career that has paid him quite handsomely surely) engaging in this debate, and now, presumably after he has acquired tenure, is spitting in the eye of his debate opponents, saying they're specious and vacuous, and so now he takes his ball and is going home and pouting all the way.<br /><br />What a crock. Even in his Dear John letter he admits that there is merit enough for "others" to waste mental energy debating his opposition.<br /><br />I think Anon is onto something here. He admits to being irrelevant now, considering others have made his case for him better than he himself can make it. To leave now with such little class is just showing his true colors, and nearly tacitly admits defeat.<br /><br />And BDK, with all due respect, if it's a waste of mental energy to devote time debating apologists, why have you devoted so much of yours over the years on this blog and others doing just that? You're one of the most consistent posters here, sometimes devoting days of thorough and obvious rigor of thought in your defenses and arguments.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.com