tim@unc.UUCP (06/24/83)
Tim: I think your attitude of not wanting to
reply to Larry's articles is not very rational either.
It is not rational in its motivation. It comes from a very deep
frustration. I consistently go out of my way to present intelligent
and rational arguments, and Larry consistently responds by ignoring
the points I am trying to make, preferring to take one (or at most
two) sentences out of context and follow them with some Bible quotes,
or tell me to "remember those words at the judgment". I am
counterinclined to continue to bash my head against a wall. Larry is
obviously not listening with his intellect, and thus my continued
efforts would be a waste of time.
I can understand your not accepting his throwing
verses at you, but as far as reasonable discussion is
concerned, I don't see why he shoudn't [sic] expose
whatever flaws your arguments may contain.
I don't either. I wish that he would at least try to do so.
Instead, he ignores the argument as a whole and focuses on things
which are at best exemplars. Further, all the evidence and argument
that he uses rests on acceptance of the Bible; this sort of argument
is by definition not rational.
In any case, what may be a trivial matter for one
person can be important to another, so to say that he
is "picking at small things" and not answering the big
ones (which I don't think is true) is very relative
anyway.
No it isn't. When I explicitly present A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT and
Larry ignores it, it is not a relative statement to say that he has
not responded to my argument.
You often use a sarcastic tone which I don't think
is proper to "rational discussion", as you put it.
Personally, I don't mind it, but some people might.
I'm glad to see that you have been appointed guardian for them.
This sort of unasked-for restriction is one of my big gripes with the
whole Judeo-Christian moral approach. (Not all Judeo-Christians are
like this, but the brother's keeper attitude is encouraged by the idea
of absolute right and wrong.) If you are telling the truth, that is,
you don't mind sarcasm, then why are you even talking about it? If
someone does object, they are capable of saying so themselves.
Besides, I think you (and too many other people)
tend to dismiss as irrational any conclusion that does
not confer [sic -- read "concur"] with yours. Take
for instance the resurrection case. Larry took his
arguments from McDowell's book. Now McDowell was not
a Christian to begin with; he studied the evidence and
found it conclusive. Do you mean he has no use of
reason? Or that his mind works worse than yours? C.
S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer -- so many people have
embraced Christianity on a rational basis!
I disagree entirely. If the flimsy and pathetic arguments in
"Mere Christianity" REALLY converted C. S. Lewis, then I have no
qualms about saying, yes, Lewis's mind worked worse than mine. Those
arguments have holes you could fly a cargo plane through. I find it
hard to believe that they could convert anyone who didn't WANT to be
converted. I don't think that these people's true motivation was
rationality; if so, then their intellects must have been very weak.
These are harsh words, but they are an honest statement of the facts.
There is no rational reason to prefer Christianity to any other faith.
To quote Bertrand Russell:
"Of course I know that the sort of intellectual
arguments I have been talking to you about are not
what really moves people. What really moves people to
believe in God is not any intellectual argument at
all. Most people believe in God because they have
been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is
the main reason." [From "Why I Am Not a Christian"]
(I would like to make it clear that I have a religion, and that I
have adopted it for reasons that are not rational but do not in any
way conflict with rationality, for instance by forcing me to believe
in possibly unreal historical events, or non-existent sentient beings.
My choice of a lover is not rational either, and I would never degrade
it by making up these spurious "rational" arguments for it.)
The fact that someone became a convert is in itself no evidence
for the truth of what they converted to. For instance, a good number
of people have studied astrology with an eye to disproving it, but
wound up converts. Does this mean that astrology is valid? Of course
not, and neither does it say anything favorable about the rationality
of the convert.
I can't talk about Schaeffer, since I don't know anything about
him, but about McDowell -- where have you been? There have been quite
a few articles in the last few months about his "evidence", finding it
wanting in a variety of ways. In particular, it seems that he does
not examine evidence critically, ignoring the possibility of later
Christian interpolations in historical records.
In summary, the reason that I am no longer replying to Larry is
not that he maintains his contrary position, but that my repeated
efforts to get him to engage in rational conversation have always
failed, both on the net and in private mail. Given this fact, I see
no reason to continue to waste time when my arguments fall on self-
deafened ears.
Tim Maroneytim@unc.UUCP (06/29/83)
I'm not really sure whether I should continue to respond to
Silvio's attacks; this interchange probably bores the rest of you.
However, it's very difficult for me to ignore a public insult. Here
goes.
Your response vividly displays the two points I
made in my article: 1) Your definition of rationality
is what agrees with your opinions; 2) Your way to
attack other people's arguments is not always
rational.
1) "If the flimsy and pathetic arguments in "Mere
Christianity" REALLY converted C.S.Lewis, then I ...
[say] Lewis's mind worked worse than mine."
Translation: "I find C.S.L.'s arguments flimsy and
pathetic; he originated (or voiced) them; ergo, he is
an oaf." Fine way to be rational...
Oh, come on now. What you are saying is that if I disagree with
someone strongly, that is an insult, and therefore not rational.
Presumably then the only way to be rational is to agree with everyone,
and to say that everyone is rational? Clearly not.
I never called Lewis an oaf. What I said was that anyone who was
CONVERTED by his arguments must have something wrong with his reason.
I would have seen the holes in them before I had even reached puberty,
if I had read the book then. My implication is not that Lewis is a
fool, but that his conversion did not in fact come from those silly
arguments.
Or, turning Bertrand Russell's arguments around
(observe I don't necessarily agree with the next
paragraph; I just want to make clear B.R.'s arguments
*can* be used the other way around):
"Of course I know that the sort of
intellectual argument that are
presented against Christianity is not
what really moves people. The reason
why people do not believe in God is
because that would mean they have to
serve him, and change their lives, and
moreover they have been taught from
infancy not to do it, stemming from
godless homes."
Even if it were true that most people believe in
God because they have been taught to (B.R. certainly
does not *prove* this fact), how do you account for
the exceptions? And how does this disprove the
existence of God?
Silvio, EVERYONE in this culture is taught from youth to be a
Christian or Jew. In the schools, in discussions with peers, in the
media, etc., the Judeo-Christian viewpoint is touted as the greatest
thing since sliced bread. Even given the counter-training in some
cases, this is not a factor which we can ignore. If people are taught
to be atheists and then find themselves having religious experiences,
as often happens (involuntarily) to teenagers and troubled adults,
they are given no other other context to place them into than the
Judeo-Christian model. Fortunately, this is changing, and a wider
range of options is opening for many.
This does not disprove the existence of God in any way, nor did
Bertrand Russell present it in order to provide such disproof. In a
positive assertion, the burden of proof (stop me if you've heard this
one) rests squarely and unalterably on the claimant. Russell is
saying that the reason most people believe in God is not sufficient
for a person as devoted to reason as he.
"I find it hard to believe that [such arguments]
could convert anyone who didn't WANT to be converted."
So do I. If someone doesn't want to be converted, no
amount of argumentation will do the trick. The point
is, some people do approach the matter with an open mind.
I'm a very literal person, Silvio. I didn't say "want to not be
converted", I said "not want to be converted". See the difference?
Such arguments could only convert someone who already (from some other
source) had decided that he or she wanted to be converted. They would
not convince someone who had an open but inquiring mind.
2) So now being polite and considerate about other
people's feelings is something peculiar to Judeo-
Christian morals! If so, the more reason to keep
these morals. C'mon, Tim, are you *really* saying you
like to be nasty and if someone tells you not to they
automatically become your enemies?
What the Hell are you talking about? Does this have to do with
sarcasm? If so, you don't understand its purpose. Sarcasm exists,
not to be rude or nasty, but to explicitly point out a contradiction
or absurdity which is only not seen as such because of the convoluted
verbal web surrounding it. Sarcasm is a tool which cuts through
nonsense like a sword, striking directly to its heart. Nothing can
ever replace it.
... the use of "sic" also bothers me.... [I]f you
want to prove your opponent is ignorant, there are less
hostile ways of doing so.
When I use "sic", it isn't to insult the "sicee", but to show that
I am not the one responsible for the mistake. I don't feel
comfortable correcting the spelling and grammar of net articles
without the poster's consent, so I am left with no other option.
Since it offends you so strongly, though, I'll not do it to your
articles. Everyone should assume that any mistakes are yours.
Now I'd really like to know about your religion,
and what are the un-rational reasons why you adopted it.
I was raised a Christian, became an atheist against my emotional
desires because of my rationality, which balked at the insufficiency
of evidence, loosened this to agnosticism when my reason matured to
that point, and finally adopted a non-dogmatic religion to deal with
my religious experiences when they happened. I may at some future
date give details of my religion, but since we're non-dogmatic and not
overly concerned about making converts, my motivation to do so is not
very strong. However, I posted Liber OZ a few days back, which is a
simple statement of our moral views; this may help to shed some light
if you're curious.
Finally, Silvio, I have tried to avoid insulting you, and
therefore I see no reason that you should feel obliged to carry this
any further publicly. I find this sort of explicitly combative
discussion rather degrading, but if you continue to publicly insult
me, I will continue to publicly defend myself.
======================================
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill