I will close this segment by addressing the issues of my "lying"; the Atheist accusers will not be allowed to respond because they have already made their case; after my response, the issue will be closed.
First the issue of me "lying" about PZ's request for emails from Atheists concerning the reasons for their Atheism: When I write "Why I am an Atheist", it is the same as "here are the reasons that I am an Atheist". The definition of "why" is this:
why,adv. 1. for what reason, cause, or purpose; with what motive; used interrogatively...Along with this, the issue of the Atheist's responses being merely anecdotes rather than logical responses, thereby excusing the Atheists for the lack of logic in their positions, has been brought as an accusation also. Should the Atheists not be held to their reasons? In many cases the Atheist has declared devotion to logic and rationality as an abstraction without so much as a clue as to what that actually entails in terms of disciplined adherence to an external standard. If logic is claimed, then one should be expected to have logical reasons. And in fact, many more of the responses detail emotional reasons for their Atheism, without any discussion of the need for, or use of, logic, and no apparent thought for logic at all.
The second accusation is that I have lied and am too stupid to understand the complexities of the Atheist argument. This is the response to the logical faults and fallacies which I demonstrated to the argument being made. When logic is violated wilfully there is little anyone can respond to except the violations. If an argument does succeed in adhering to logical requirements, then one could proceed to ask what the probability of its being true might be. But if it contains violations of logical procedures, then there is nothing else to discuss, but those violations.
Now, it is entirely possible that I did not understand the series of words in the same sense in which the writer intended them to be understood. But words and sentences are the currency of intellectual transaction. When they can be seen, on their face, to contain errors, then what else can be done?
The default position for Atheists who are cornered seems always to be to resort to airs of superiority and ridicule, yet in the total absence of material or logical proof.
The final insults have been made. These two will have to complain about me elsewhere; their comments will no longer be accepted here.
UPDATE:
PZ has made this request update:
Why are you an atheist?why you are an atheist, format it simply (just text is best, don’t get fancy on me so I have to fuss with it), and email it to pzmyers@gmail.com, and I’ll toss it into my special WIAAA folder.
December 17, 2011 at 8:35 am PZ Myers
I’m still getting submissions, and I’m still getting asked how to make a submission. It’s easy! Write an essay of whatever length moves you on
Then be patient.
[Emphasis added]
3 comments:
Stan,
If your personal, anecdotal story was critiqued as if it was intended to be a logical syllogism, would you not regard this as misrepresentation? As a straw man attack? Is this not disingenuous? Is it not fair to label such misrepresentation as lying?
As I reread the comments of the people you banned, I find they contribute a great deal. Their comments are on point, reasoned and honest. I have no impressions they are attempting word games nor merely trolling and name calling.
They (and I) honestly feel you are misrepresenting these WIAAA stories. Which understandably can result in some frustration. It is not an Ad Hominem to say someone is lying, when you consider them to be lying..
It was explained the context in which these stories were requested. Posting the definition of why and selecting "reason" while ignoring the subsequent "cause, or purpose, with what intent, justification, or motive:" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/why) just makes your case worse. In my view. It really does come off as dishonest.
Furthermore, as Martin has cleverly pointed out, there does seem to be a recurring theme within these anecdotal stories.
1. Religious claims conflict with observable reality.
2. Religious claims on morality conflict with our innate ideas of right and wrong.
3. There is no evidence for the existence of a deity.
4. We have alternate systems of discovery which has consistently outperformed theism. (Also, I can't think of a single thing that theism "discovered")
Frankly, these all individually seem valid reasons to logically abandon theism. And collectively, they make me wonder how it is possible to even accept the possibility of theism. Childhood indoctrination aside.
Now, it is entirely possible that I did not understand the series of words in the same sense in which the writer intended them to be understood.
This is entirely possible, and was even pointed out by one of the people you banned. However, I personally find it unlikely that someone who was an atheist for 40 years can so grossly misinterpret these stories as being without reasonable justification.
These stories are indeed, without reasonable justification. In almost every case the protagonist proclaims their confusion/skepticism/lack of understanding of some part of religious faith, and at no point does the narrative ever go on to describe them seeking out the very best answers they could find, reading deeply of philosophy or theology or in any way strongly seeking to clear up their lack of comprehension. If they had done so, they would be able to state the best arguments in favor of theism and show exactly what is wrong with them (rather than making blanket, unsubstantiated statements about how they're "all worthless").
Instead, our protagonists grill the weakest explainers they can find and call it good.
Narratives of atheists deeply studying the questions from the best sources do, in fact exist, in the testimonies of those who became theists. The reasons given by these former atheists are generally "reasons" and not just "anecdotes". Specifics and not just sweeping statements that atheist arguments are "all worthless".
I think Stan is absolutely justified in critiquing these "reasons" as he does. It is not at all his fault that these atheists prefer anecdotes to something with rational, analyzable content.
The problem is that whenever a facet of theism is left untouched, Stan points it out and proclaims the conversion story irrational because the person has failed to logical disprove the possibility of a First Cause of the universe.
Hence the complaints that these stories are not logical syllogisms intended to prove such. And how it is dishonest to critique them as such.
(See the posts on and before Nov. 20th. I don't believe he's actually critique a story since, just summaries.)
I think that is the crux of this whole "dishonesty" and "misrepresentation" issue.
How about you throw me the very best argument (1) you have for theism then? I wouldn't want to be accused of grilling the weakest explainers.
Post a Comment