tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post3011644475520925329..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-17876380775950083322016-04-27T17:47:46.510-07:002016-04-27T17:47:46.510-07:00I still think it is ad hominem. In that particula...I still think it is <i>ad hominem</i>. In that particular paragraph, he's not refuting one of Coyne's arguments in the book (actually, he didn't do that at all), but he is refuting the proposition that the book is worth reading, and he does it by making personal insults against the author. In my book, that's <i>ad hominem</i>. You are free to disagree, but if you do, what would you call it?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-25706269080885229652016-04-27T17:20:47.754-07:002016-04-27T17:20:47.754-07:00Well, if he did not actually commit an ad hominem ...Well, if he did not actually commit an ad hominem then you should not call it an ad hominem. That is, you ought to not call it what it is not if you want to be an ethical speaker. If what Feser says does not fit what I described as an ad hominem then you need to use a different term unless you want to speak without accuracy. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-84873185334024745082016-04-27T13:40:58.151-07:002016-04-27T13:40:58.151-07:00Feser insults Coyne as a means of showing that his...Feser insults Coyne as a means of showing that his book is bad, rather than pointing out specifically what makes it bad. you can call it what you like. I call it <i>ad hominem</i>.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-60634645740814855422016-04-27T13:05:11.006-07:002016-04-27T13:05:11.006-07:00Did you see my previous comment? I didn't acc...Did you see my previous comment? I didn't accuse him of that. What Parsons defends is his fellow elitists, even if they do make bad arguments.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-22166238155762293372016-04-27T11:43:48.000-07:002016-04-27T11:43:48.000-07:00Remember, an ad hominem is a type of informal fall...Remember, an ad hominem is a type of informal fallacy. An insult is not an ad hominem. <br /><br />Ad hominem's pretty much work like this: Person A makes an argument P or a claim x. Person B says P is unsound or x is false not due to any fact about P, or any fact about x, but rather an alleged fact about A.<br /><br />Ad hominems are fallacies of irrelevance. The problem with them, as the "irrelevance" parts suggests, is that the ad hominem attack has nothing to do with the soundness of an argument or the truth of some proposition, unless the circumstances allow it. <br /><br />Feser then would be committing an ad hominem by saying Coyne "lacks even the at-best mediocre qualities of the worst of the New Atheists" only if either one of the following occurs:<br /><br />1. Feser insults Coyne to infer that an argument by Coyne is invalid (Or inductively weak), and the insult is irrelevant to the validity of inductive strength of Coyne's argument.<br /><br />2. Feser insults Coyne to show that a proposition asserted by Coyne is false, and the insult is irrelevant to the truth of Coyne's asserted proposition. <br /><br />Feser can be very insulting to New Atheists, but unlike his psychopathic commenters on his site, I don't think Feser actually commits the ad hominem fallacy with his insults. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-52417520765508451962016-04-27T11:21:01.749-07:002016-04-27T11:21:01.749-07:00Defending Craig's prowess is very different th...Defending Craig's prowess is very different than defending Craig's use of bad math against criticisms for his math being bad. I don't think Parsons would ever do anything like the latter despite your accusation. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-67966973932585068812016-04-27T11:18:34.411-07:002016-04-27T11:18:34.411-07:00Circular arguments are not invalid. If an argument...Circular arguments are not invalid. If an argument is invalid then the conclusion cannot be derived from the premises. Obviously in circular arguments the conclusion can sometimes be derived from the premises, so an argument being circular is not a sufficient condition for it being invalid. e.g. If I was to argue that "1. P. Therefore, P", I would be making a circular argument, but it would be valid since P implies P. <br /><br />Circularity aside, as far as I'm aware, the arguments from reason are not arguments that the philosophical community are split over. Contra what Victor Reppert might tell you, I don't think many philosophers, even in the POR, are even aware of any arguments from reason. Supposing they are, can you cite any form of survey that shows the POR community is split on the arguments from reason? Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-34039578656193817662016-04-22T21:14:59.336-07:002016-04-22T21:14:59.336-07:00Feser:
Faith versus Fact is some kind of achievem...Feser:<br /><br /><i>Faith versus Fact is some kind of achievement. Biologist Jerry Coyne has managed to write what might be the worst book yet published in the New Atheist genre. True, the competition for that particular distinction is fierce. But among other volumes in this metastasizing literature, each has at least some small redeeming feature. For example, though Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe from Nothing is bad as philosophy, it is middling as pop science. Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great was at least written by someone who could write like Christopher Hitchens. Though devoid of interest, Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation is brief. Even PZ Myers’s book The Happy Atheist has at least one advantage over Coyne’s book: It came out first. </i><br /><br />So saying that Coyne as an author lacks even the at-best mediocre qualities of the worst of the New Atheists doesn't qualify as ad hominem abusive in your mind? I must say, your reading of Feser is indeed charitable.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-6018502999527485672016-04-22T20:35:38.437-07:002016-04-22T20:35:38.437-07:00Well, as a matter of fact, I think Bertrand Russel...Well, as a matter of fact, I think Bertrand Russell, who I am a huge fan of and who played a role in my deconversion, does indeed look stupid when he dismisses cosmological arguments for that reason. Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-12743809484886843832016-04-22T20:34:04.646-07:002016-04-22T20:34:04.646-07:00Feser's opening salvo was an ad hominem attack...<b>Feser's opening salvo was an ad hominem attack on Coyne. </b><br /><br />According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" rel="nofollow">here</a>), there are three recognized versions of the <i>ad hominem</i> fallacy. Let's compare those three versions to what Feser wrote to see if he is, in fact, guilty of committing this fallacy in his opening salvo.<br /><br />1. <i>The abusive ad hominem fallacy</i> "involves saying that someone’s view should not be accepted because they have some unfavorable property." Feser's salvo does not do this.<br /><br />2. <i>The circumstantial ad hominem</i> involves the allegation that the target's "position is supported by self-interest rather than by good evidence." As with the first type of ad hominem argument, Feser doesn't do this.<br /><br />3. <i>Tu quoque.</i> "It involves not accepting a view or a recommendation because the espouser him- or herself does not follow it." Once again, Feser doesn't do this.<br /><br /><b> He nit-picked about the definition of religion,</b><br /><br />To call it "nitpicking" trivializes the importance of the definition to Coyne's book. In a book about science vs. religion, I think the definitions of "science" and "religion" are hugely important. <br /><br /><b>and he ranted about a distorted view of scientism.</b><br /><br />I don't know why you call it "distorted" so I can't comment.<br /><br /><b>But he didn't discuss anything of substance about the book beyond its introduction.</b><br /><br />That may well be true. As I said, I haven't read Coyne's book yet. But if -- notice I used the word "if" -- Coyne botched the definition of "religion," I think that would be a pretty good reason for dismissing the book, much as we tend to dismiss any creationist book which uses a bogus definition of "evolution." <br /><br /><b>And I'd still like to know what Parsons was complaining about.</b><br /><br />I'm not Parsons, so I can't speak for him. And, as I said, if he's wrong, then so be it.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-63947837009370512912016-04-22T07:52:05.402-07:002016-04-22T07:52:05.402-07:00whenever an atheist asks, "What caused God?&q...<i>whenever an atheist asks, "What caused God?", that's a category mistake which only makes that atheist look stupid</i><br /><br />So either you think David Hume and Bertrand Russell look stupid, or you have a double standard.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-33737026261546885092016-04-22T07:16:31.115-07:002016-04-22T07:16:31.115-07:00Feser's opening salvo was an ad hominem attack...Feser's opening salvo was an <i>ad hominem</i> attack on Coyne. He nit-picked about the definition of religion, and he ranted about a distorted view of scientism. But he didn't discuss anything of substance about the book beyond its introduction. And I'd still like to know what Parsons was complaining about.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-49857653442830177982016-04-22T07:11:03.789-07:002016-04-22T07:11:03.789-07:00Appreciate the response Jeff. At least I do now k...Appreciate the response Jeff. At least I do now know you can offer a definitive answer [Points 1 through 3].<br /><br />As you say, in your exchange with Skep, you do indeed ask the questions. That seems to be your preferred modus operandi rather than to state a position, rightly or wrongly. Fear of creating a strawman of your own making? The tenor of your H2 argument more than implies ‘New Atheists’ are about as accurate as a blunderbuss, with a probability no greater than chance to being correct. It also plays on a pejorative demarcation intentionally differentiating the ‘new atheist’ from the ‘old atheist’, the latter who according to JJL, do “know what they’re talking about”. It it a distinction you clearly endorse viz. “Why prefer H1 over H2? <br /><br />Which leads me to infer that your rejection in Point 1 is disingenuous. The premise underlying the H1:H2 example relies precisely on making the distinction between ‘new’ and ‘old’ atheists. Might it be that you are using a strawman? Otherwise, why would you even consider offering Skep a strawman dichotomy to elicit a response about something which you yourself apparently eschew [Point 1]. I might add, whether you reject the notion or otherwise, is both inconsequential and irrelevant. It is already a feature of the everyday lexicon, thanks to our religious-minded combatants. Talk to Feser, Plantinga about refraining from using it.<br /><br />Your Point 2 is a bit of a stretch. You may miss having formal qualification in philosophy but one need only read your site to apprise the level of belief in your own ability to make comment on all manner of ‘philosophical’ issues of the moment. ‘Amateur’ is not an epithet that readily springs to my mind. I wonder what J W Loftus would make of this?<br /><br />Point 3? Irrelevant. Conjecture at best. The point has been missed. ‘Who made God?’ is no less a valid response to the theist corollary of the ‘ground of all being’. <br /><br />Contrary to your claim, PoR philosophers really don’t know what they are talking about, unless one understands that theology [religion] is a subsumed derivative of the broader study of Mythology. But in terms of understanding the world, about us, about the universe, I don’t think they do. According to you, Philosophers of the Feser and Bentley Hart variety, are made out to ‘know what they’re talking about and yet subscribe to the ‘ground of all being’ and ‘Goddidit’ as veritable fact meriting serious consideration. I don’t buy it, and neither you nor Parsons should be enablers to the Fesers, Plantingas and Harts of the world into imagining they have a genuine and deserving philosophical insight worthy of the claim. <br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-40396147484113018982016-04-22T00:11:21.672-07:002016-04-22T00:11:21.672-07:00I really don't get it, either. Feser's ope...I really don't get it, either. Feser's opening salvo is that Coyne waffled on the definition of religion in his book, but your complaint is that Feser didn't address the content of the book. Isn't Coyne's definition of religion part of the content of his (Coyne's) book? If so, I really don't get your complaint. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that you either consider the definition to be unimportant and/or you don't think he covered enough of the book's content. <br /><br />I'm having a hard time understanding how it could be important to waffle on the definition of "religion" in a book about science vs. religion. It seems like a pretty foundational topic. If Coyne screwed it up, I can understand why Feser would dismiss the entire book. <br /><br />I suppose I need to go read Coyne's book for myself and then re-read Parsons' post and your post. Because right now I'm not seeing what you're seeing.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-23405728329855892592016-04-21T22:01:07.197-07:002016-04-21T22:01:07.197-07:00To sum up, I'm trying to steer the debate away...<i>To sum up, I'm trying to steer the debate away from unsupported generalizations on either side and instead pin down specifics.</i><br /><br />You're steering the discussion away from the points that I have been trying to make. I didn't make any complaint about Feser's criticism of the definition of religion. My main complaint was that he didn't address the content of the book. Parsons' reply to Feser was about how nasty those New Atheists are, with all their ridiculing and such, and I'd like to know what Coyne said to elicit that. Anyone care to provide some specifics here? But it did seem extremely hypocritical, given that his buddy Feser is a fine exemplar of what Parsons rails against. Or maybe it is superior knowledge of philosophical issues that justifies Feser's <i>ad hominem</i> attacks. I suppose that's my ignorance showing. I really don't get it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-22717563869890047502016-04-21T21:12:28.471-07:002016-04-21T21:12:28.471-07:00im-skeptical:
1. If Parsons is wrong, then so be ...im-skeptical:<br /><br />1. If Parsons is wrong, then so be it. If I think he is wrong, I won't hesitate to say so. You speak of being charitable, but you are either unaware or do not mention that Parsons has publicly admitted error many times in the past. So your claim that he refuses to admit that even he can be wrong about some things is false.<br /><br />2. My point about H1 and H2, which Papalinton labels semantics, is that you have been making an implied claim that you still have not adequately defended. You imply that the best explanation for the differences between the acceptability of "new atheist" ridicule vs. "old atheist" ridicule is hypocrisy or a double-standard: it's "okay" for 'old atheists' to do it, but not okay for 'new atheists' to do it. I'm not convinced yet there is a double-standard because all the examples of 'new atheist ridicule' I can think of are based on strawmen. <br /><br />When creationists try to ridicule evolution by asking, "If evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?", in my opinion it's fair to ridicule the ridicule because their question is stupid & based upon a straw man of evolution. Likewise, if an atheist -- new or old -- tries to ridicule a supernatural claim based upon a strawman, it's fair to ridicule that atheist.<br /><br />On the other hand, I think it is totally fair to ridicule theistic beliefs when the ridicule isn't based on a strawman. For example, when Corey Washington (who is not a PoR) debated William Lane Craig, he employed a brilliant use of ridicule that wasn't based upon a strawman. After describing in detail the gruesome way Ebola kills its victims, he ended with the question, "Don't you think God could have made him [the victim in the story] suffer just a little bit less?" <br /><br />Compare that Jerry Coyne's book, which I haven't read -- yet. But I am genuinely curious if what Feser is accurate when he writes about Coyne's waffling on the definition of "religion." Feser determines that, by Coyne's own admission, what Coyne sometimes means by "religion" is "Bible Belt creationism." But then Feser points out that, in other places, Coyne seems to mean something else. The point: Coyne doesn't use a consistent definition of "religion" in his book.<br /><br />I haven't seen any of Coyne's defenders address this point yet, so let me ask you. Is that accurate? I think this is a hugely important question because you would expect a book about the incompatibility of science and religion to use a consistent definition of "science" and "religion."<br /><br />If it is accurate, then I think at least some of Feser's ridicule and scorn against Coyne appears justified. If it is not accurate, then I think at least some of Feser's ridicule and scorn against Coyne is unjustified. <br /><br />To sum up, I'm trying to steer the debate away from unsupported generalizations on either side and instead pin down specifics. So I'm not saying your blog post is wrong. I'm just saying I don't think it is supported yet. If it can be supported, then great! I'll join the bandwagon and criticize unjustified philosophical elitism or snobbery.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-76783732093376765822016-04-21T21:12:22.903-07:002016-04-21T21:12:22.903-07:00Papalinton: You say it is difficult to pin me down...Papalinton: You say it is difficult to pin me down to an answer, but in the exchange between im-skeptical and I, I was the one asking the questions. But in response to the rest of your comment, let me be clear:<br /><br />1. I reject the "old atheists" vs. "new atheists" labels because I don't think there is anything new about so-called "new atheists," especially when it comes to saying that supernatural claims are false.<br /><br />2. I am not a professional philosopher, so my statement that PoR experts "know what they are talking about" can't be hubris in the sense that I am praising my own abilities. <br /><br />3. Yes, by default, I think professional philosophers who have Ph.D.s in the philosophy of religion DO know what they are talking about. So when they ridicule beliefs, they are less likely than non-experts to strawman the beliefs they are ridiculing. In contrast, non-experts in PoR are more likely than experts to strawman the beliefs they ridicule. For example, this isn't an example of ridicule, but whenever an atheist asks, "What caused God?", that's a category mistake which only makes that atheist look stupid, in the same way asking, "Who is that bachelor's wife?", a category error.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-16760036260638676592016-04-21T20:19:24.523-07:002016-04-21T20:19:24.523-07:00Hubris indeed. This is disappointing. I tried to...Hubris indeed. This is disappointing. I tried to reason with Parsons about Feser's shitty review of Coyne, and he wouldn't even listen. The attitude of "We're smarter than the rest of the world" comes across loud and clear. They love to harp about the ignorance of others, but refuse to admit that even they can be wrong about some things, just like the rest of us.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-72667085381102546762016-04-21T19:35:25.291-07:002016-04-21T19:35:25.291-07:00It is difficult to pin Jeff down to an answer. He...It is difficult to pin Jeff down to an answer. He is a parable-er [my neologism. Phonetic: /pəræ'bələ/] and a liker of play-on semantics. Not only does his H1 v H2 example characterise that proclivity but the implied notion that 'old atheist' "know what their talking about", because other 'old atheists' say so, smacks of a little touch of hubris, methinks.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-31828801798337282442016-04-20T08:25:48.998-07:002016-04-20T08:25:48.998-07:00What I'm saying is that there is an attitude o...What I'm saying is that there is an attitude of elitism among some subset of PoRs. They believe that only fellow PoRs can make any good argument for or against God belief. They reject the arguments of others without giving them fair consideration. They are especially biased against certain people they label as "New Atheists", often unjustly accusing them of boorish behavior, while at the same time, ignoring such behavior on the part of their fellow PoRs. They make statements about how they prefer to carry on discussions in the more civilized company their fellows. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-42609004888637894622016-04-19T22:53:59.882-07:002016-04-19T22:53:59.882-07:00Consider the following explanations.
H1. When ath...Consider the following explanations.<br /><br />H1. When atheistic philosophical elitsts ridicule and lampoon certain beliefs or arguments, they can get away with it. But when "new" atheists do so, they get blamed unfairly.<br /><br />H2. When "old" atheists ridicule or lampoon certain beliefs, they know what they are talking about. But when "new" atheists do so, sometimes they know what they are talking about and sometimes their "ridicule" simply reveals their ignorance.<br /><br />Why prefer H1 over H2?Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66114043676845468112016-04-19T16:07:36.445-07:002016-04-19T16:07:36.445-07:00Part of my thesis, anyway. To the extent that thi...Part of my thesis, anyway. To the extent that this kind of behavior occurs among members of the club, it doesn't seem to cause too much consternation. But New Atheists are blamed, often unfairly, for the same sort of thing.<br /><br />Coyne's book prompted accusations from Parsons of ridiculing and lampooning, but it was Feser's review that actually did that. Why blame Coyne instead of Feser? because he's not a member of the club.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-37684272846039236692016-04-19T15:02:32.469-07:002016-04-19T15:02:32.469-07:00I'm not following you. Sorry if I am being den...I'm not following you. Sorry if I am being dense. How does my pointing out examples of where he was disrespectful to some theists support your thesis? In the article responding to Jones, I thought it was clear he didn't take Jones seriously. Or is it your complaint that he responded to Jones at all? (Sent from phone, please excuse any typos)Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-87378119719225946202016-04-19T14:30:43.999-07:002016-04-19T14:30:43.999-07:00Would you care to expand on that? To me, the first...Would you care to expand on that? To me, the first premise<br /><br /><i>No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.</i><br /><br />is saying that non-rational matter can't give rise to rational thought. This is equivalent to the assertion that rational thought is immaterial, or supernatural. This is the assumption of the argument, which then goes on to conclude that there is no good reason to accept naturalism. Of course there isn't, if you assume something supernatural from the first premise. It's circular reasoning.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-22762759196218481842016-04-19T14:14:20.588-07:002016-04-19T14:14:20.588-07:00Why don't you make a reasoned response instead...Why don't you make a reasoned response instead of of all these accusations?<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com