I can’t help but harbor suspicions of someone who doesn’t release a written version of his argument for easy perusal. He makes me write it down for him. He is obviously reading off the screen just below his computer camera. Why not release the text? Just an irritation I have with YouTuber philosophers.
His nom de plume is Theoretical Bullshit. He is 5 full minutes into the video before he makes the first argument regarding anything in particular. That argument is that no one can prove that the First Principles are true, an argument made 120 years ago by Friedrich Nietzsche in “Beyond Good and Evil”, where he laid the groundwork for his “Anti-Rational” philosophy. Nietzsche showed quite clearly that if the First Principles are not true – and they cannot be proven so – then rationality fails completely. Nonetheless, video philosopher Theoretical Bullshit takes the tack (at 5:32) that it is logical to reject the absoluteness of the First principles. At least until later when he accepts the absoluteness of the First Principles (roughly 8:35).
The failure of the First Principles to be provable rather than axiomatic demonstrates to Theoretical Bullshit that the First Principles have to show their own truth: they must all prove themselves. So they are all subjective. At least until (8:35).
From this revelation, Theoretical Bullshit veers away from the argument altogether. At 6:15, Theoretical Bullshit claims that “God’s consciousness itself is unaccounted for by your worldview" [Christianity]. The remainder of the video is a Tu Quoque excursion into Red Herrings away from the challenge at hand: If you can’t account for God, his qualities, and so on, then I don’t have to account for any absolutes such as Logic (which is not an absolute anyway)(until 8:35).
Toward the end, a full 3 minutes of the video are consumed with dodging the challenge, using the same reasoning fallacy over and over and over. If you don’t account for God then I don’t have to account for Logic as an absolute.
At 8:36 Theoretical Bullshit even claims that “peeled back all the way” there are absolute principles after all that “just are“ for all worldviews, and he accepts that without question: “but that’s me!” he exudes. So he doesn’t have to show any accountability for accepting a baseline of absolutes.
But the theist, under his own claim of having a reference for these absolutes, must then prove not just the principles, but the reference itself. Theoretical Bullshit's conclusion, of course, is that the theist's failure to fully account for the aspects of the reference translates into a skip for the Atheist, allowing him to blow off validation of his own beliefs.
In fact, Theoretical Bullshit is quite clear that he accepts these absolutes without questioning them or their origin: a spectacularly clear statement of faith.
In the end, none of the TAG argument is even discussed by Theoretical Bullshit. His only argument is that he doesn’t have to address it. It took right at 10:00 minutes to say that.
I can't help but wonder why he chose that name.
10 comments:
I'm not sure if I got this right. In Theoretical Bullshit's refutation of Slick's TAG, the issue of Logic being authored by the deity or being part of the deity's nature was significant.
Again, I'm not sure, but I believe that the attack of this particular theodicy resembles the Euthyphro exchange in some way. What's makes good, good? If the deity is the author of good, then it's arbitrary and hardly good. If not, then good is above the deity. Tautology issues?
It seemed more like the "who made God" issue to me: if you demand a source for our absolutes (Logic), then I demand that you show a source for your absolute (God).
I.e., who made God? What is the source of His powers? How did he get his essence? It is the age old infinite regress problem that Atheists use despite its simple refutation. They never accept a refutation, though.
It is enough for Theoretical Bullshit to declare, "It doesn't matter to me what the source of Logic is". And if he is challenged he doesn't answer the challenge: he responds that "you too have a source that you can't explain", so I don't have to accept your argument. That is a blatant Tu Quoque Fallacy: an evasion; used as a Red Herring to avoid an issue that he cannot win by dragging the argument away from the topic and into a different issue. This is a political ploy, not a rational approach to discussion of the merits of the proposition.
I suspect that Theoretical Bullshit is just like the other Atheists in demanding hard proof for a First Cause, before he would believe that, though. He might believe in logic without questioning its authenticity, but never a First Cause.
Rejecting an argument completely by using a standard fallacy is not rational or logical reasoning. It is just false. And rather cowardly, in that he refuses to address the merits of the argument.
hmm.
Perhaps you could say it's a variant of the cosmological argument?
It's sort of a negation of the cosmological argument, and it stands on its own due to some of the famous philosophers who tumbled for it in their teenage years, including Bertrand Russell, J.S.Mill (I think), and Richard Dawkins. Russell and Dawkins both refer to the "who made God" argument as a decisive turn in their intellectual lives, one that neither ever got past.
There's an excellent article here (PDF)by an atheist philosopher, who shreds Dawkins' God Delusion argument which is based on the whole "who made God" objection, but then offers a better argument based on Hume. He also rips into the ridiculous "Courtier's Reply" that many atheists use these days.
A Tu Quoque Fallacy is to admit a problem with one's position and attempt to shift focus away from that problem by pointing to a similar or identical problem with an opposing position. However, this is clearly not what TheoreticalBullshit did. Rather, he denied that any such problem existed, and demonstrated that his interlocutors find no such problem either, whether they admit it or not. He demonstrated a clear double standard on the part of the theist.
In any case, TBS has done much more on the subject of TAG than the video you cite here, and in much, much greater detail. Below is a playlist of such videos:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC494E2C093CDF2E1&feature=plcp
Anonymous,
Man up and choose a moniker please.
Tu Quoque is a fallacy independent of whether the opposing party has an identical problem. And there is no necessary admission of culpability for one's own problem. The fallacy is the shift of focus, independent of any other factors.
It's been over a year since I have considered TBS, but as I recall, he specifically avoided the issue with the standard claim that Atheists don't have to prove anything. Neither logic nor evidence is required (or possible) for the logic and evidence based Atheist.
If I get the time, I might revisit TBS to see if he ever actually addressed the issue, rather than merely addressing NOT addressing the issue.
Maybe.
Hi Stan,
I'm Scott (aka TheoreticalBullshit). A friend asked me if I'd mind dropping by this blog site and address your comments. While I am fairly busy (I'm planning a wedding!), I can impart a thought or two.
You seem to either misunderstand what a Tu Quoque fallacy is, or what my argument is.
Tu Quoque is to acknowledge a problem, and in response, shift the focus onto the party pointing it out by claiming that they have the same problem and have not successfully dealt with it themselves. This is not what I did.
I do not commit Tu Quoque because my position is to deny such a problem exists altogether. I've made about a half-dozen videos detailing why, which you appear to intentionally ignore (the above commenter "Anonymous" left a link to a playlist of such videos). However, my position is also to point out that if your (TAG's) premises were granted, it means your worldview has the same unsolved problem you believe mine does.
I have dealt with this problem by explaining why it is illusory. But you reject that it is illusory. Thus, your worldview has a problem to solve that mine does not, and since you have not solved said problem (or shown why your worldview does not suffer from it), your worldview is necessarily self-defeating whereas mine is not. This is standard reductio ad absurdum.
Now, if you'd like to challenge my arguments for why so-called "logical absolutes" pose no problem for atheism, that's a different story. But it would require you to address those arguments, which you haven't even attempted to do so far.
Best,
Scott
Man this is ALL so pretentious
I love how christians create word games because they have no evidence. TAG nor the Kalam are actually taken seriously outside of Christian circles. Period. End of story.
Post a Comment