In 2008, police officers arrested Pastor Teesdale and eight members of his church, Garfield Ridge Baptist, as they were talking to the public about the gospel and handing out scripture near a public event. Now, after a three year battle, the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has finally reaffirmed Pastor Teesdale's free speech rights.The judgement was a victory in that it acknowledged that the City of Chicago has had a "misguided litigation position" with respect to the event. And it also acknowledged the importance of protected free speech: "We acknowledge the great importance that our rights to such freedoms are to be respected."
The only reason there was no monetary award for damages was apparently because the misguided actions of the City of Chicago are not a part of official city policy.
The main message from the judgment is clear: Arresting people on the street for simply exercising their First Amendment right of free speech is unconstitutional and the Constitution is still considered a foundational basis of law by the court.
In considering how many US Constitutional rights have been stripped away since September 11, 2001, there is a bit of comfort to realize that a remnant of constitutional protection remains.
(updated 09/04/12)
Tags: Summary of Teesdale free speech case, deposition and court documents for Frank Teesdale case, Pastor Frank Teesdale wins First Amendment victory in court for free speech rights, Christians and free speech,
It's worth noting that the court upheld the restrictions against using a bullhorn, for example, which means that the original behavior that Teesdale engaged in -- proselytizing using a bullhorn at another church's street festival -- still prohibitable as a "reasonable time, place, and manner" condition.
ReplyDeleteAnd that the ruling was, in one way, a *defeat* for the pastor -- he'd sued for damages, it appears, and the court ruled that if the issue was not a *policy* of the city of Chicago, there was no grounds for a suit.
In other words, the right the original off-duty policeman acknowledged he had was upheld, but no additional rights. This is hardly a major victory for church speech.
Imnotandrei has his own misguided positions he needs to deal with. Recently, he claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited. When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
ReplyDelete"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I addressed all of Imnotandrei's points and informed him of this on 09/01/12. Imnotandrei again refused to offer any quotes or links to back up his claim, but stated,
"I have backed it up (his supposed refutation) -- that you are unable to go back and read does not make my evidence invalid."
And, to top it off, as a supposed example of atheist logic, Imnotandrei has posted a link to an article where Stephen Law discusses the logic of a Christian argument by William Lane Craig. This is what Imnotandrei considers to be an example of a top atheist apologist "using" logic.
When asked to present his own favorite argument in a simple logical syntax, Stephen Law refused. Simply discussing another person's logical arguments and avoiding the presentation of your own arguments in an organized logical syntax reveals a lack of desire to incorporate logical laws and principles. Imnotandrei has failed to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, he has only helped to underscore the main logical deduction in the article he claimed was discredited:
P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of ideas.
C. Therefore, top atheist apologists are probably not very interested in the truth of ideas.
Hey, Rick -- go back and look here:
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346698374044#c4167230418649481093
In which you will find two links to atheist/agnostic positions put in the language of formal logic, such as you requested -- *before* you posted this. Which means by reposting the same critique, you're losing credibility -- being discredited, as it were. ;)
P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of ideas.
C. Therefore, top atheist apologists are probably not very interested in the truth of ideas.
P1: You have given no examples of "misuse" -- and the only "avoidance" you've shown is a decision not to use the simple syllogistic format that you prefer, Rick.
P2: Agreed.
C: False, as P1 is an erroneous premise.
However, to structure an argument similarly:
P1: Honestly responding to people's arguments, rather than ignoring them, is required to test the truth of differing ideas.
P2: Rick Warden regularly ignores or twists other people's arguments.
C: Therefore, Rick Warden is not interested in the truth of ideas.
Same structure, and mine has far more evidence, sitting right here on this blog, Rick; are both true, or neither true?
Note: Rick added the following section to his original post after I made my comment:
The judgement was a victory in that it acknowledged that the City of Chicago has had a "misguided litigation position" with respect to the event. And it also acknowledged the importance of protected free speech: "We acknowledge the great importance that our rights to such freedoms are to be respected."
The only reason there was no monetary award for damages was apparently because the misguided actions of the City of Chicago are not a part of official city policy.
The main message from the judgment is clear: Arresting people on the street for simply exercising their First Amendment right of free speech is unconstitutional and the Constitution is still considered a foundational basis of law by the court.
In considering how many US Constitutional rights have been stripped away since September 11, 2001, there is a bit of comfort to realize that a remnant of constitutional protection remains.
In response to your addition:
I notice you do not acknowledge that the original issue was, essentially, a failure-to-warn issue; that the position taken by the street festival would have been legal if better published -- a reasonable restriction on methods and use. I am not surprised you removed this, as it does not fit your "Hey, we won!" narrative.
In response to my comment, Imnotandrei argues that P1 is not valid because, "the only "avoidance" you've shown is a decision not to use the simple syllogistic format that you prefer, Rick."
Delete- I have never stated that the syllogistic format is the only valid format, though it is preferable to arguments in common everyday language. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy outlines why some forms of logical presentation are superior to others, "Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic." Ordinary language, the type of presentation Stephen Law chooses, is apparently a bit too ambiguous for clearly discerning logical consequence. And the syllogistic form is not considered the only valid formal system, "very many different formal systems that each propose different relations of logical consequence."
So, in accordance with a reputable source, it is evident that Stephen Law has chosen a rather ambiguous method for presenting his favorite argument when there are clearly more reliable methods. The act of choosing less reliable methods of discerning truth and logic is basically an act of avoiding time-tested available logical principles. Imnotandrei has not refuted P1, but has has helped to further clarify it and reinforce it. Will Imnotandrei be able to admit his error and his false claim that my article highlighting top atheist apologists has been "discredited"?
- I have never stated that the syllogistic format is the only valid format, though it is preferable to arguments in common everyday language.
DeleteAs I said -- the format you prefer, Rick.
Your *preferences* are not binding on other people. And, given the fact that your own arguments are natural-language ones (indeed, "seems" is hardly a logical particle, and your use of "probably" is hardly in accordance with any formal-logic model) dressed up in syllogism form, you're in no position to stand on a high horse when discussing other people's logic.
(I notice that you're also proving my own syllogism correct by avoiding issues other than the very narrow one you seem interested in.)
(By the way, Rick -- why the change to third person? I'm curious.)
So, you can give up your quixotic quest for an apology, Rick, because you're not getting one. You never admit your errors -- why should I admit to an error I didn't make?
(I notice you also have dropped my point that in that article, you relied upon other articles whose main claims have been undercut significantly -- a further discrediting.)
Indeed, you are now trying to argue in effect that, since one claim you made was accurate, your entire article is accurate. To put it formally:
You are arguing for a definition of "discredited" such that: If there exists a statement A that is true in article Y, and that statement A is true, then article Y is true.
I *hope* you can see why that is ludicrous.
Instead, I am using the following standard:
If there exists a statement A in article Y, upon which the conclusion of article Y rests, and which is unsupported or significantly challenged without response, then article Y is discredited.
And I have provided examples for statement As in both the article about Stephen Law, and the article regarding Sam Harris -- hence, "articles", plural, "discredited".
Imnotandrei has stated,
DeleteIf there exists a statement A in article Y, upon which the conclusion of article Y rests, and which is unsupported or significantly challenged without response, then article Y is discredited. He claims that P1 has been "unsupported"
P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of ideas.
C. Therefore, top atheist apologists are probably not very interested in the truth of ideas.
His examples include Stephen Law, who repeatedly avoided addressing my questions and could not offer any type of logical summary of his favorite philosophical defense of atheism, the EGC. And Sam Harris, who likes to write books but tends to avoid the use of logical principles.
As already noted by the Stanford Encyclopedia, normal everyday language is inferior for making logical deductions, "Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic." Ordinary language, the type claims is equally valid, is apparently a bit too ambiguous for clearly discerning logical consequence. And the syllogistic form is not considered the only valid formal system, "very many different formal systems that each propose different relations of logical consequence."
Imnotandrei continues to claim that simply discussing other people's formal logic is part and parcel with "using" logic and logical principles. There is no reason to believe that discussing another person's logic should require any valid logical principles whatsoever, or that a valid logical consequence should result. Therefore, he has not challenged premise P1 of my article that he claims has been discredited. It seems Imnotandrei is at the bottom of his excuse barrel, as he is beginning to simply repeat himself and claim he is right.
His examples include Stephen Law, who repeatedly avoided addressing my questions and could not offer any type of logical summary of his favorite philosophical defense of atheism, the EGC. And Sam Harris, who likes to write books but tends to avoid the use of logical principles.
DeleteAnd Daniel Dennett, cited below.
Though the citing of Sam Harris here is deceiving -- I cited the Sam Harris article as a *different* example of a discredited article, not as an example of a "top atheist apologist" using logic. See here:
And I have provided examples for statement As in both the article about Stephen Law, and the article regarding Sam Harris -- hence, "articles", plural, "discredited".
Or, to break it down:
If there is a statement A that has been challenged and not sufficiently supported in article Y, that article is discredited.
I have provided statement B that fits the criterion of Statement A for the article about Stephen Law (my comment about the Miller/Urey experiments -- this whole bit about your retroactive definition of "top apologists" and your narrow definition of "using logic" is a sidetrack *you* started)
There are many examples of statement C that fit the criterion of Statement A for the article about Sam Harris.
To return to your narrow criterion of "top apologists who use logic:" Not to mention -- refusing to answer your questions, Rick, is not, no matter how much you wish it was, a sign that one does not use logic. It may well be a sign that one considers you a pest.
normal everyday language is inferior for making logical deductions,
And yet it's what you use again and again in your "syllogisms" -- you use natural language, and when called upon it, complain that it's just a "summary". By the standard you're using here, *you* avoid the use of logic, even in your own most "logical" posts.
Imnotandrei continues to claim that simply discussing other people's formal logic is part and parcel with "using" logic and logical principles.
Nompe; but discussing their logical flaws in doing so *is*. Refuting someone else's bad logic through logical analysis is using logic.
It seems Imnotandrei is at the bottom of his excuse barrel, as he is beginning to simply repeat himself and claim he is right.
I believe this qualifies as "projection", given that you repeat the same assertion, whether or not it's relevant. At least now you've given up your attempts at acquiring an apology.
And you didn't answer why you suddeny switched persons in regards to me -- is it some odd attempt to act as if you're not addressing me, but rather the "audience"?
Oh, and while we're at it -- do you care to address the two examples I gave of people in your top-25 list using logic? Or are you going to close your eyes and pretend they're not there, since they're a refutation of your refined claim?
Delete(I waited until 10:10 PST to post this, since Rick usually responds before that time, and I wanted to be sure I was giving him fair time -- but since he's not posted anything in at least 2 hours, I figure he's had his chance.)
Part 1.
DeleteOn September 5, Imnotandrei correctly surmised:
"If there exists a statement A in article Y, upon which the conclusion of article Y rests, and which is unsupported or significantly challenged without response, then article Y is discredited."
Unable to produce any valid criticisms of key points, however, Imnotandei has changed the goal poats:
"If there is a statement A that has been challenged and not sufficiently supported in article Y, that article is discredited."
Even if it were true that an ancillary point were considered by a person to be Insufficiently supported, the fact that a point is ancillary and not critical to the argument implies that the main conclusion of the article has not been discredited by such an ancillary point.
Imnotandrei has yet to admit that the use mere conversational language is not of the same caliber as an argument that uses logical principles and recognized reliable forms of logic.
1. The Stanford Encyclopedia outlines how normal language must be translated into a more logically verifiable format in order to determine more accurately the logical consequence of ideas.
2. Imnotandrei offers that the use of more structured logical arguments is a mere subjective "preference" implying that there is no advantage offered in determining logical consequence: "Your *preferences* are not binding on other people."
3. I am not offering my *preference* or my subjective opinion, but the opinion of a reputable source. The burden of proof is on Imnotadrei to show that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is wrong.
4. If Imnotandei cannot provide such evidence, then we may assume that a structured language and the use of logical principles are required for a more precise determination of logical consequence.
5. And because such structured language and logical principles do in fact offer an advantage in determining logical consequence, those highly revered atheist apologists who prefer to write books and articles simply using everyday language to promote their arguments, when practical tools are available for elucidating true logical consequences, may be said to be avoiding such tools.
Part 2
DeleteThus being the case, it has been documented that the primary "top" atheist apologists today do in fact generally avoid such tools. Richard Dawkins, the most popular atheist apologist in the world at large, avoids such tools. PZ Myers, the most popular atheist apologist of the Internet, avoids these tools. Sam Harris, considered by many atheists to be the top atheist debater today, generally avoids such tools in his books and debates. Stephen Law, considered by some to be an example of a top atheist with logical arguments, avoids such tools.
Instead of changing the goal posts of his criticisms, Imnotandrei should probably admit that he has made a mistake in claiming that an article with a true conclusion has been "discredited" by his nit picking on ancillary points not critical to the argument at large. It is becoming evident, however, that he will probably never admit this because such an admission would probably be just too painful for Imnotandrei and pain is one of the strongest factors in keeping a person is in a state of classic denial.
Rick, you accusing someone of moving goalposts is rather like Usain Bolt accusing someone of being fast.
DeleteEven if it were true that an ancillary point were considered by a person to be Insufficiently supported, the fact that a point is ancillary and not critical to the argument implies that the main conclusion of the article has not been discredited by such an ancillary point.
You know what -- fine; it's an "ancillary" point that you put forward a challenge that had already been met by other people, insisting that only your preferred target could meet it. Of course, it's also indicative of your thought, but it's theoretically "ancillary."
Of course, while having this argument, we've discredited the article in its main points, so that's rather to the side.
Imnotandrei has yet to admit that the use mere conversational language is not of the same caliber as an argument that uses logical principles and recognized reliable forms of logic.
It's a different *sort* of argument, Rick. For a different audience.
That's something you fail, repeatedly, to understand. People are not obliged to put arguments in the form you prefer, or, indeed, that the Stanford Encyclopedia considers "strongest", if, by doing so, they feel they would be alienating part of their audience.
And Stephen Law, for example, does not owe you the time to put his arguments in *your* preferred form, just because you asked him to. I think you'd agree that as "one of the top" atheist apologists, he has a much broader audience than, say, you do -- many more people who might have claims on his time in this matter -- and yet, for example, you do not feel, I suspect, that you do not "use evidence" because when you are asked to give evidence for your claims, you refuse (or, more likely, simply ignore the request.)
3. I am not offering my *preference* or my subjective opinion, but the opinion of a reputable source. The burden of proof is on Imnotadrei to show that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is wrong.
Wrong -- you are offering the SEP's definition as a sign that one thing is stronger than another. One does not always have to use the strongest tool in one's toolbox in order to make one's point -- and, indeed, what is *logically* strongest may not be the best for explaining things to others. That is what I mean by your preference.
4. If Imnotandei cannot provide such evidence, then we may assume that a structured language and the use of logical principles are required for a more precise determination of logical consequence.
Well, considering that you repeatedly fail this test yourself, as I pointed out here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1346936509507#c4000983171228553487
Your own use of "logical form" is slipshod and inaccurate. Indeed, it is so bad, by the standards of true formal logic, that one could easily come to the conclusion that you were using the shell of formal logic to add the appearance of validity to your claims; you repeatedly backtrack when called upon your assertions and state that they were "summaries", or insist that things "probably" mean other things, without any formal use of any of the treatments of probability reasoning in formal logic.
You're attempting to insist other people use standards you don't even follow except in so slipshod a manner as to render them useless. Heck, you even insist in discussion that 'natural language" definitions are fine, when if you look at the work real logicians do, and people who properly use full-bore formal logic, there are questions about what "is" and "not" mean that are subjects of debate in natural language.
(con't.)
5. And because such structured language and logical principles do in fact offer an advantage in determining logical consequence,
DeleteI notice you combined the language and the principles here -- as if to imply that saying "since it has to be either one or the other" is not "using a logical principle" while saying "By the law of the excluded middle, it must be either A or B" *is*.
This is, to put it mildly, fallacious, and undercuts the rest of your argument.
may be said to be avoiding such tools.
But, as has been repeatedly stated, and which is what undermines your article -- indeed, discredits it -- is that "not using such tools" is not the same as "avoiding logic".
Thus being the case, it has been documented that the primary "top" atheist apologists today do in fact generally avoid such tools. Richard Dawkins, the most popular atheist apologist in the world at large, avoids such tools. PZ Myers, the most popular atheist apologist of the Internet, avoids these tools.
When you start claiming things as "documented", Rick, it's better to cite primary sources than the post you're trying to support. Though, given that many of your links are not "they aren't using logic" but "they reached different conclusions than I did", I can see why you wouldn't want to cite original sources.
Sam Harris, considered by many atheists to be the top atheist debater today, generally avoids such tools in his books and debates.
Funny -- when I cited Stephen Law using those tools in a response, you did not consider that "acceptable" -- but here you are citing debates as a space where such tools may be used.
Stephen Law, considered by some to be an example of a top atheist with logical arguments, avoids such tools.
And Daniel Dennett does not, as cited before in this thread. Therefore, your point, unless you wish to amend it to:
"Some Top Atheist Apologists Don't Structure Their Arguments The Way I Like",
is invalid.
Instead of changing the goal posts of his criticisms, Imnotandrei should probably admit that he has made a mistake in claiming that an article with a true conclusion has been "discredited" by his nit picking on ancillary points not critical to the argument at large.
Were it a true article, I would. However, the core of the article has been discussed here, and, indeed, by the criterion you used here: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346585389023#c2416325742418094726
1. Provide one example of a top atheist apologist today who demonstrates the use of logical laws and principles in his arguments.
I've done so -- Dennett.
Now, Rick, look at this next paragraph, and consider how it might apply to your situation: It is becoming evident, however, that he will probably never admit this because such an admission would probably be just too painful for Rick and pain is one of the strongest factors in keeping a person is in a state of classic denial.
Your article has been discredited, Rick. Learn from it and move on, or stay in your circle of denial and defensiveness.
Just for the record: "An article was discredited" is not the end of your reputation; people have articles discredited all the time. Heck, Bertrand Russell had a major claim of his largest life's work discredited by Kurt Gödel, and he remains a major and important thinker.
So, Rick, by saying "this article has been discredited", I mean, simply, you're wrong here. You can either accept that and move on, or you can continue trying to defend yourself, drawing more and more attention to your problem and spending more and more time on it.
Your choice.
>Of course, while having this argument, we've discredited the article in its main points, so that's rather to the side.
Delete- Firstly, according to Imnotandrei, discussing the subject of formal logic is considered adequately "using logic" however, as I've already recently pointed out in our exchange, this simply isn't true:
"There is no reason to believe that discussing another person's logic should require any valid logical principles whatsoever, or that a valid logical consequence should result. "
- Secondly, in this exchange the noted article has not been "discredited." On the contrary, this exchange is helping to elucidate Imnotandre's false rationale on many fronts. Even if any new evidence was provided, Imnotandrei made the claim August 28th that an article had been discredited, in the past tense. Yet, all he seems to be doing is attempting to find some new reason why he believes it is discredited in general. This is quite disingenuous. This underscores the fact that his original claim was a false one.
Let's put some key points into a more formal logical form:
1. Imnotandrei claimed on August 28th that my article had been discredited (past tense).
2. In order to prove my article had been discredited, Imnotandrei must show that a key point or statement had been posted before his claim was made.
3. Imnotandrei has not posted any key point or statement that was made prior to August 28th that could be considered a discrediting comment.
4. Therefore, Imnotandrei's comment on August 28th that my article had been discredited is false.
And another example:
1. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers and Stephen Law tend not to use a summary of premies and recognized formal logical principles in their arguments.
2. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers and Stephen Law may be considered "top atheist apologists" today.
3. Therefore, top atheist apologists tend not to use logical principles in their arguments.
Although Imnotandrei could spend endless days discussing logic and pretending that he is being logical, it seems more effective to use a more formal summary in order to get to the root of the main issues.
- Firstly, according to Imnotandrei, discussing the subject of formal logic is considered adequately "using logic"
DeleteCite where I claimed that "discussing it" is "using logic". -- I cited places where people were using logical principles -- they just weren't using your preferred *form*.
"There is no reason to believe that discussing another person's logic should require any valid logical principles whatsoever, or that a valid logical consequence should result. "
This is actually true, but irrelevant. To demonstrate why, let's look at this logically:
Predicate P: "One discusses another person's logic"
Predicate Q: "One is using logical principles."
Now, you're asserting: "P does not imply Q."
Or, more precisely: "There exist conditions where P is true and Q is not."
However, what you are trying to use this to mean is, instead:
"If P, then not Q"
Or, more precisely: "The existence of P means that Q is not present."
While the correct statement, here, is:
"If P, then Q or ~Q"
The existence of P does not require or prohibit Q.
In other words, a discussion of another person's logic does not mean that logic is being used, but it also does not mean that logic is *not* being used -- which is what you've tried, repeatedly, to claim.
Just because the examples given of Stephen Law's work are discussing someone else's logic does not mean absent evidence that logic is or isn't being used -- you have to actually look at what's being said.
And, with Law, Dennett, and other examples given here, you have to be blind not to see logic at work. Whether that's willfully blind or just dim, I can't say.
Even if any new evidence was provided, Imnotandrei made the claim August 28th that an article had been discredited, in the past tense. Yet, all he seems to be doing is attempting to find some new reason why he believes it is discredited in general. This is quite disingenuous. This underscores the fact that his original claim was a false one.
You're the one who presented after that a specific challenge, which has since been answered -- so your sudden reversion to "on August 28th" is disingenuous, to put it mildly.
Here's the link, since you love them so:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346584924325#c1435487902084144860
Your continued dodging of evidence presented in contradiction to your point is truly impressive. Now, apparently, you've decided that the best way to respond to evidence that you were wrong is to claim that it wasn't presented to you in time.
As to your syllogism, you need to rewrite #3 -- "...has not posted any key point or statement that was made prior to August 28th that *I* consider a discrediting comment." Because I posted several; then, when you presented a new challenge on Sept. 2nd, I switched my attention to that.
(Continued, with a demonstration of your fallacious logic)
And now, to show how you use "logical structure" to lie:
DeleteLet's rewrite your 2nd syllogism a bit more precisely:
1: There exist people A, B, C, and D who do not do Q.
2: A, B, C, and D are part of E
3: Therefore, E do not use Q.
Now, aside from any errors in your statements, there are problems with your structure.
Specifically, you go from asserting "There exist E who do not Q" to "Therefore, E do not do Q". (I note you use the weasel-word "tend", which has no place in this sort of logical argument.)
(To expand, since this is the critical point: statement 2 can be more precisely written as:
A, B, C, and D possess a quality G -- that of being a "top atheist apologist" (I.E. A, B, C, and D are part of the set G)
And your statement 3 is:
"Set G possesses quality Q" -- that of "not using a summary of premises, etc."
Note that you are generalizing from 4 members of a set to the entirety of a set.
Your A, B, C, and D in this structure are Dawkins, Harris, Myers, and Law, your set G is "top atheist apologists", and your Q is "not using a summary of premises."
Say, however, your A, B, C, and D were moas, kiwis, ostriches, and penguins., your set G is "birds", and your Q is "cannot fly."
Premise 1 becomes: moas, kiwis, ostriches, and penguins cannot fly.
Premise 2 becomes: moas, kiwis, ostriches, and penguins are birds.
By the same construction as you used above, the conclusion becomes:
Therefore, birds tend not to be able to fly.)
Your logic is flawed, when taken out of your natural-language formation and put into something more formal and rigorous.
So, it seems more effective to use a more formal summary in order to get to the root of the main issues.
Indeed; I have done so, and demonstrated the lack of *formal* validity of your argument.
In his follow-up comments, Imnotandrei has failed to address my logical argument demonstrating that he has made a false claim about my article, as outlined:
Delete1. Imnotandrei claimed on August 28th that my article had been discredited (past tense).
2. In order to prove my article had been discredited, Imnotandrei must show that a key point or statement had been posted before his claim was made.
3. Imnotandrei has not posted any key point or statement that was made prior to August 28th that could be considered a discrediting comment.
4. Therefore, Imnotandrei's comment on August 28th that my article had been discredited is false.
Instead of addressing cogent points, Imnotandei begins to meander off on a tangent, apparently struck with a case of amnesia
"Cite where I claimed that "discussing it" is "using logic". "
Apparently he is forgetful of his recent assertion: [Stephen Law discussing William Lane Craig's logical argument] "is s a logical argument, using examples, but it is not structured in your simple "P1 P2 C" structure."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346607071919#c6147308633356093523
He then begins to meander off into other brambles.
Let's have it this way. Show that my summarized argument regarding your false claim is in error, and then I'll address your meandering tangents.
Wow, Rick, that's some impressive denial there.
DeleteShow that my summarized argument regarding your false claim is in error,
I notice that this went from a "formal logical form" to a "summarized argument" after I pointed out the formal logical flaw in your second argument -- the one that you used to support your discredited article. Funny, that -- when you're called on logical fallacies, you suddenly shift what you claim were trying to say; precisely the sort of dishonesty I was pointing out in your second syllogism.
And I notice that your challenge here: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346585389023#c2416325742418094726 is once again disappearing down the memory hole -- how Orwellian of you.
Therefore, Imnotandrei's comment on August 28th that my article had been discredited is false.
Heh. If I accept that I was in error then -- which I am not acknowledging now, I'm just asking for discussion's sake -- would you accept that it has been discredited by later discussion? Since I notice you've stopped arguing that point at all.
"Cite where I claimed that "discussing it" is "using logic". "
Apparently he is forgetful of his recent assertion: [Stephen Law discussing William Lane Craig's logical argument] "is s a logical argument, using examples, but it is not structured in your simple "P1 P2 C" structure."
Right -- he made a logical argument, he was not merely "discussing logic". Learn to read, Rick.
He then begins to meander off into other brambles.
Directly addressing one of your points and demonstrating that it is logically fallacious is "meandering off into other brambles", is it? Then perhaps you ought not to post your syllogisms, if you're not interested in comment upon them.
I'm done chasing your moving goalposts, Rick. I've demonstrated in several different ways why your article is incorrect, including ways you've demanded of me, and then demanded new evidence (or, in this case, old evidence) when that was presented. I've demonstrated the flaws in the logic you believe underpins your argument, *formally*, and it's utterly clear that you'll do or say anything, ignore anything, and repeat assertions for as long as it takes.
It has become most evident that Imnotandrei has been unable to provide any comment or quote showing that my article had been "discredited" before August 28th, as he had stated it had been. So now Imnotandrei has resorted to plea bargaining:
Delete"If I accept that I was in error then -- which I am not acknowledging now, I'm just asking for discussion's sake -- would you accept that it has been discredited by later discussion?"
This is a fine example of moral relativism in action. Imnotandrei has made an unqualified slanderous claim in the past and he wants to avoid making any confession of this mistake unless a certain event occurs in the future.
So now Imnotandrei has resorted to plea bargaining:
DeleteNo, now I'm going "Hey, Rick, are you going to engage with anything, or are you so caught up in the idea that someone might have misused one word that it's more important than anything else?"
Imnotandrei has made an unqualified slanderous claim in the past and he wants to avoid making any confession of this mistake unless a certain event occurs in the future.
Unlike you, who have made numerous repeated errors of logic, of fact, and of reading comprehension, and will go to any length to avoid acknowledging them, whatsoever.
Your article is discredited, Rick. Period. You can try and hide and go "It wasn't discredited on August the 28th, therefore you're slandering me" all you like. But your article is based on faulty reasoning, lack of reading comprehension, and dishonest arguing.
If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited. It had been informally discredited, but not formally so.
Now it has been. My initial claim, that you rely on, and cite without acknowledgment, discredited articles, is true.
So, Rick, going to respond to the points made about your logic here:
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347127761920#c2255364792472355947
or are you going to let them sit as a monument to your failures of either rigor, honesty, or both?
>And now, to show how you use "logical structure" to lie:
DeleteHow sad that Imnotandrei feels the need to continuously slander. Let's see, what happened with that approach recently?
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/reg-hyde-rode-up-mountain-atheist-and.html?showComment=1347299089986#c5543685253938505466
Sigh.
In his struggle to justify his fallen heroes, Imnotandrei continues to grasp for straws.
Imnotandrei has presented an analogy:
Premise 1 becomes: moas, kiwis, ostriches, and penguins cannot fly.
Premise 2 becomes: moas, kiwis, ostriches, and penguins are birds.
By the same construction as you used above, the conclusion becomes:
Therefore, birds tend not to be able to fly.)
As supposedly derived from the following argument:
1. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers and Stephen Law tend not to use a summary of premies and recognized formal logical principles in their arguments.
2. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers and Stephen Law may be considered "top atheist apologists" today.
3. Therefore, top atheist apologists tend not to use logical principles in their arguments.
Some obvious problems with Innotandrei's analogy:
1. Flying for these birds is not a matter of choice, whereas logical principles are readily available for the noted atheist apologists if they had a desire to use them. Therefore, flying or not flying could not be considered matter of tendency.
2. Imnotandrei includes a category of all birds. In accordance with the analogy, that would be analogous of me including a category of all atheists, which I did not ever incorporate in my argument. He concluded,
"Therefore, birds tend not to be able to fly"
That would be likened to a concluding claim, "All atheists refuse to use logical principles." But that is not what I am claiming at all. Nowhere am I making a claim about *all atheists*. Why is it that Venn diagrams seem to be the only means of communication that works with my critics? These may be considered the most relevant sets: 1. "The most popular defenders of atheism today" 2. "people who avoid the use of logical laws and principles" - So, Imnotandrei has claimed I am lying and using a flawed analogy to try and back up his slander. So sad.
Ah, I see we're back to "logic 101" for Rick.
DeleteI notice in describing my example, you carefully remove the entire analysis of your logical structure, from here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347127761920#c2255364792472355947
Thereby allowing you to try and quibble with my choice of analogy, rather than the flaws in your own logic.
If you take your original argument, substitute my list of flightless birds for your list of atheists, the category "birds" for the category "top atheist apologists", you get the conclusion birds tend not to be able to fly.
You didn't argue with either of my premises, and by your own repeated assertion here, if the premises are true, and the logic is valid, the conclusion must be true. However:
1) Argument A states if P, then Q.
2) ~Q
3) P
4) Therefore, Argument A is invalid, because P and ~Q.
You can try and restate your argument, Rick, but in the form you give above, it is, simply, logically invalid, because you make an assertion of the form "Some X are Y, therefore X tend to be Y."
You can make a Venn diagram of your point all you want -- but it won't change its invalidity.
And that, Rick, is why I accuse you of lying -- because when confronted with the fact that your logic is invalid, you attack the analogy rather than admit your mistake. This is beyond the range of honest error, and into deliberate blindness and mendaciousness.
(Oh, and your Venn diagram can only assert "There exist A who are B" or "All A are B" -- there's no way to express "A tend to be B" in a proper Venn diagram. So it won't solve your problem -- it'll only make your error clearer.)
Remember, Rick -- if the premises are valid (and you did not challenge my premises) and the logic is valid, the conclusion is true. Since my conclusion, based on the exact logical structure you used, is false -- what does this say about your logic?
Oh, and Rick, here's another bit of Logic 101: define your term clearly.
DeleteThere are two ways (at least) to use the word "tend":
"X tends to Y" if X is a thinking person, and chooses often to Y.
"X tends to Y" if, for a given sample of X, the odds of it Ying are large (even this is vague, since some people would argue that in a logical context, it should be "X tends to Y if the odds are that, for any given X, Y is more likely to be true than not.")
So, your talk about "Therefore, flying or not flying could not be considered matter of tendency." implies you are using definition #1.
However, you do not make this clear anywhere else, and using definition #1 makes your statement:
A, B, C, and D do Y
A, B, C, and D, are people of type X
Therefore, some people of type X do Y.
As opposed to:
A, B, C, and D do Y
A, B, C, and D are people of type X
Therefore, people of type X are more likely to do Y than not.
Is your first claim the one you're making? If so, you're exposing another problem with your claimed use of "logical principles" -- the first one,w when phrased in natural language as "Top Atheist Apologists Do X" drops out the "some", making it seem like you are making a much stronger claim than your logic actually supports.
If you'd posted your article as "Some Atheist Apologists don't use logic the way I think the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy says is best", people might have argued with you, but no one would be accusing you of *deception* or arguing in bad faith.
Imnotandrei's has failed to acknowledge his example is flawed.
DeleteAs i had already pointed out, Imotandrei has a missing category that is not included in my own example.
In my example "Top atheist apologists" would be likened to a certain kind of birds, not all birds.
These birds are unique in that they claim they have superior flying ability, yet they very rarely,if ever, use their wings, Therefore, their boasting is illogical and smacks of deceitfulness, as outlined in the following argument:
1) L>C = S
2) If R then V
3) If A then S
4) R
5) A
6) Therefore, S
5)
1) Logical laws and principles are greater than normal language for clarifying sound reasoning.
2) If 1 is true, then L and S should be acknowledged and desired by those seeking sound reasoning and C should be taken more lightly.
3) If top atheist apologists claim they have S in their boasting but avoid L in their formal arguments, then they are acting illogically and perhaps deceitfully.
4) Because 1, 2, and 3 are true, then S is true, top atheist apologists are acting illogically and perhaps deceitfully.
Imnotandrei's has failed to acknowledge his example is flawed.
DeleteThat's because it isn't. You argued, structurally:
1: A, B, C, and D possess quality X.
2: A, B, C, and D are in group G.
3: Therefore, group G tends to possess quality X.
That's the logical structure you used. If it is valid, then for given true premises 1 and 2, no matter whether they are exact parallels in terms of wording, statement 3 should be true. Got it? That's the concept of "validity" you've used before to claim "If the premises are true, and the reasoning is valid ,the conclusion is true."
Now; which of my premises do you find untrue? If you don't disagree with either of them, you either have to accept my conclusion or accept that your logic is invalid. Your choice.
(Alternately, you could try and provide a different translation of your initial assertion, but I don't think you can that uses logical principles and doesn't smuggle in natural-language assumptions.)
I notice that you fail, once again, to admit your original argument was flawed -- because my argument was an exact parallel to yours, and produced an obviously false result.
As i had already pointed out, Imotandrei has a missing category that is not included in my own example.
Rick -- my argument was not meant to be a precise parallel in the real world -- it was meant to be a *logical* parallel, to demonstrate the error in your logic. Until you realize this, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Now, to look at your new "reasoning".
Premise 1:
1) L>C = S
1) Logical laws and principles are greater than normal language for clarifying sound reasoning.
And from the start you begin with a premise so full of assumptions it's ludicrous.
"Logical laws and principles" means what? They use a "summarized argument with accurate logical consequence?" Then say that, Rick. Don't try and dress up your assertions with language that means more than you can actually claim in order to make your natural-language summaries more rhetorically effective.
And your form here is made up, to put it mildly. You're using the equals sign to mean "For the purposes of", which is certainly an idiosyncratic usage, to put it *mildly*.
2) What's V in your "logical argument"? Indeed, statement 2 of your "logic" is irrelevant to your claimed conclusion.
Statement 2 of your natural-language reasoning, which by your own reasoning is the weaker form, is, again laden with assumptions. For example, that "clarifying" sound reasoning is the only value -- that should be maximized at all costs.
3) And here we get undefined variables -- "top atheist apologists", "boasting", and the presumption of deceit. (And back to the undefined "A", if this tracks at all.) Again, this isn't logical argument in any formal sense -- this is natural-language argument dressing up as logical argument to claim a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
By your own natural-language argument, Rick, since you're avoiding the use of proper logical construction and usage, you're acting illogically and, perhaps, deceitfully, by your own standards.
Go take Logic 101, Rick, before you embarrass yourself further.
>"Logical laws and principles" means what?
DeleteIt would be better phrased as, "The use of logical laws and principles in formal structures..."
Most people familiar with logic recognize what that implies.
>because my argument was an exact parallel to yours, and produced an obviously false result.
Delete- It is so far off as an analogy that it is not even useful.
>And here we get undefined variables -- "top atheist apologists",
- That happens to be the group in question. The nature of what this means has been discussed in out conversation several times already.
It would be better phrased as, "The use of logical laws and principles in formal structures..."
DeleteThen perhaps you should phrase it that way, instead of the way you did. This is, again, the weakness of the natural-language "summaries" you claim are formal logical statements.
- It is so far off as an analogy that it is not even useful.
And you continue to fail to address the point in any way other than to say "It's wrong."
While I demonstrate, again and again, why it isn't -- and offer you ways to support your claim other than saying "It's wrong." Which you refuse to utilize. This leads one to suspect it's because you can't.
What you're doing is the text-based equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "No, no, no, it's not true."
I presented you an argument using your own logical structure -- that "argument from formal logical principles" you love so much -- demonstrating that either birds tend not to fly, or your reasoning was invalid. You have failed to present either a problem with my premises, or acceptance of my conclusion, or an admission of the invalidity of your reasoning. Pick one of three -- you have no other choice, by the very arguments you've presented in this blog multiple times -- "If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, the conclusion is true."
So: Which is it? The conclusion is untrue, the premises are untrue, or the reasoning is invalid? And if the latter, can you show that the *reasoning*, as opposed to the premises, is any different than the reasoning you used?
And remember, Rick: saying "Your premises are different than mine, therefore it's not a valid example" is untrue. You have to demonstrate why the *reasoning* is different, not the premises.
- That happens to be the group in question. The nature of what this means has been discussed in out conversation several times already.
And several different answers have come up. That's why you need to define your terms precisely if you want people to respect your claim to logical certainty.
Otherwise, you're just dressing up your natural-language arguments with a few logical terms and structures, and claiming false credibility for them.
Since you had time to publish a new post, shall I take your absence of response here as concession that the logics you used to claim "Top Atheist Apologists Tend Not To Use Logic" were both flawed, and therefore you have no grounds to make your claim?
DeletePart 1
DeleteBecause I have posted a new article before addressing Imnotandrei's recent comments, he has apparently jumped to the conclusion that I may agree with his false assessments and views. Considering his recent behavior Imnotandrei should be content if I address his comments at all at any time. Many bloggers will discontinue a discourse after a commenter continues along the lines of slander. After a prolonged game of cat and mouse, Imnotandrei finally admitted September 10 to just that:
"If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited."
Even though he admitted this at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar
With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution.
This seemed to work well with a commenter named Havok who repeatedly claimed that I either ignored cogent comments or made "illogical" replies to comments in my article "How Identity Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence." When asked to provide one such example, he repeatedly ignored the request and eventually stopped posting at my blog.
Part 2
DeleteThe following is a brief outline of some of the time wasted on dealing with Imnotandrei's false slander:
On August 28, Imnotandrei, claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited. When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I addressed all of Imnotandrei's points and informed him of this on 09/01/12. Imnotandrei again refused to offer any quotes or links to back up his claim, but stated,
"I have backed it up (his supposed refutation) -- that you are unable to go back and read does not make my evidence invalid."
After days of squirming and denial, I posted the following logical outline in order to pin him down:
1. Imnotandrei claimed on August 28th that my article had been discredited (past tense).
2. In order to prove my article had been discredited, Imnotandrei must show that a key point or statement had been posted before his claim was made.
3. Imnotandrei has not posted any key point or statement that was made prior to August 28th that could be considered a discrediting comment.
4. Therefore, Imnotandrei's comment on August 28th that my article had been discredited is false.
Only then, on September 10, did Imnotandrei finally admit that his slanderous claim was a false one. If Inotandrei desires a discourse, he should first probably begin by apologizing for his slander. Then he should discontinue his continuous habit of unjustified slander, then he should perhaps be a bit less arrogant in attempting to arrange other people's blogging priorities.
You know, for someone who complains about time-wasting, you could simply have answered "No". ;) That's why I phrased it as a question. You can't deny you have a habit of abandoning threads with no warning or notification, so seeing a new post makes it worth asking if you're abandoning unanswered questions.
DeleteAs for the rest, Rick, I called you a liar in that other thread because you had been lying. Pointing out one mistake I made does not invalidate every other point I make -- that would be the argument ad hominem, which you explicitly disclaim -- and would put *you* in a long-since-dismissable position.
Now, since you've done this in two threads, do you have any actual *comment* about what I said, or are you going to persist in doing nothing but complaining about how your feelings were hurt?
I am quite prepared to let my challenges to your errors and falsehoods stand unanswered -- spamming this after every post I make will not undercut my points at all, but rather leave them unanswered.
I also see that you replaced your request for "No ad hominem attacks" with a complaint about "atheist slanderers". Since you've decided that the ad hominem attack is your only defense, I suppose that's consistent.
Delete>Hey, Rick -- go back and look here...In which you will find two links to atheist/agnostic positions put in the language of formal logic, such as you requested -- *before* you posted this.
ReplyDelete- On September 4th Imnotandrei claimed that a comment made on September 3rd is valid support for his claim on August 28th that a previous article I had written had been "discredited" supposedly by someone who had commented at my blog.
Unless Imnotandrei or another commenter at my blog is capable of time-travel, his comment is illogical.
Illogical and invalid comments notwithstanding, Imsotandrei's examples don't pass muster. An agnostic is not an atheist, so that kills his first example. And Quentin Smith is not considered "a top atheist apologist" in society. He was not even found ranked on a list of the top 25 most influential living atheists:
http://www.superscholar.org/features/influential-atheists/
A top apologist, by definition, would have to be an influential one. If people have generally never heard of him, then he must not be very influential. So, as it stands, people considered to be the most influential and revered atheist apologists in society tend to avoid logic, just as my article on the subject states. Will Imnotandrei ever be able to admit his error?
- On September 4th Imnotandrei claimed that a comment made on September 3rd is valid support for his claim on August 28th that a previous article I had written had been "discredited" supposedly by someone who had commented at my blog.
DeleteUnless Imnotandrei or another commenter at my blog is capable of time-travel, his comment is illogical.
On Sept. 4th I claimed that I had made links on September 3rd that you were *ignoring* on September 4th, when you commented as if they did not exist. See? No time-travel required. Just reading comprehension.
He was not even found ranked on a list of the top 25 most influential living atheists:
1) That's a very strange list, when it claims things like Steven Weinberg as the "premier living Nobel laureate physicist".
2) I notice that you expect everyone, as before, to participate in your precise manner -- some of the people on that list are literary agents and stage magicians -- yet you hold them to the standard of "philosophical apologists".
I also note that you are looking only for online links; I suspect, though I cannot at the moment prove, because his books are not online, that Kai Nielsen, from your list, would meet your standard of rigor.
tend to avoid logic,
Tend to avoid your preferred presentation of logic -- far from the same thing.
As we've noted, responding with logic to someone else's logical presentation is still "avoiding logic". This is a nonsensical definition.
I don't think anyone reading the following would accuse either party of "avoiding logic", even if only one of them lays out a premise-conclusion argument.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen4.html
So, no admission of error, since there is no error.
Oh, and while we're at it:
Deletehttp://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/backdraw.htm
nterpretivism is, inter alia, the view that, strictly speaking, we don't really have beliefs and desires.
Where do they get this? Well, logic teaches us that exactly one of the following two propositions is true: beliefs are real or it is not the case that beliefs are real. In other words, they conclude, "strictly speaking" ya gotta be a Realist or an Eliminativist--take your pick. They decide (not surprisingly, given that ultimatum) that Interpretivism falls in the Eliminativist quarter. Then they lower the boom:
Interpretivism is, inter alia, the view that, strictly speaking, we don't really have beliefs and desires. But, one supposes, what a creature doesn't really have can't help it much in its struggle for survival.
So much, then, for an evolutionary account of belief and desire if one is an Interpretivist. Well, consider an exactly parallel argument regarding centers of gravity. When it comes to centers of gravity, which are you--a Realist or an Eliminativist? Suppose you jump to the right, on the grounds that centers of gravity are "Interpretivist" or "Instrumentalist" posits, not real things like atoms or electrons.
Interpretivism is, inter alia, the view that, strictly speaking, nothing really has a center of gravity. But, one supposes, what a sailboat doesn't really have (e.g., a low center of gravity) can't help it much in its struggle against capsizing.
Persuasive? I trust you feel the urge to back up a step or two and challenge the drawing and quartering that led to this embarrassing conclusion.
The only thing missing from this particular argument is that it doesn't have your P: and C: in front of it; it's a perfectly reasonably structured logical argument.
That would be person #4 on your list, Rick.
Q.E.D.
R:I have never stated that the syllogistic format is the only valid format, though it is preferable to arguments in common everyday language
ReplyDeleteLiar, from your own article about Stephen Law: "As presented, Law's argument does not actually have any summarized syntax, premises or conclusion. In other words, it avoids recognized standards for a logical argument. Off the mark, we may call it a logically invalid argument according to the bare-minimum of formal logical standards."
Not to mention you did nothing to refute Stephen Law s claim that most theodicies that explain why God is all powerful and good can be flipped to explain why god is all powerful and evil. You just asserted it cannot be done.
Claiming that an infinitely wise being should also be an infinitely good being is quite false, since "goodness" is a subjective term (god could be good for ants, but bad for humans). You also falselly align god and truth in the same category even if you have no basis to do that. And like Stepnen Law s made the point, exactly the same arguments can be made for an evil god.
R:Ordinary language, the type of presentation Stephen Law chooses, is apparently a bit too ambiguous for clearly discerning logical consequence.
Rick, if you are too lazy, too ignorant and too stupid to understand the logical arguments of Stephen Law, that does not mean he has none. Read some his books first, then you might have a chance not to look like a complete bible zombie.
R:Illogical and invalid comments notwithstanding, Imsotandrei's examples don't pass muster. An agnostic is not an atheist, so that kills his first example. And Quentin Smith is not considered "a top atheist apologist" in society
Denial is not a river in Egypt. And I do find it hillarious that you are trying to undermine atheism by criticising individuals instead of the concept itself.
>R:I have never stated that the syllogistic format is the only valid format... Liar?
DeleteRead the primary definition of syllogism at Webster's:
a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in “every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogism
As noted, I never stated that a valid argument only has this type of structure, though it is probably the best and most reliable example.
Despite this, regular conversational language is noted as inferior to all other forms of formal logical summation, as I noted recently:
- I have never stated that the syllogistic format is the only valid format, though it is preferable to arguments in common everyday language. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy outlines why some forms of logical presentation are superior to others, "Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic." Ordinary language, the type of presentation Stephen Law chooses, is apparently a bit too ambiguous for clearly discerning logical consequence. And the syllogistic form is not considered the only valid formal system, "very many different formal systems that each propose different relations of logical consequence." So, in accordance with a reputable source, it is evident that Stephen Law has chosen a rather ambiguous method for presenting his favorite argument when there are clearly more reliable methods.
R:As noted, I never stated that a valid argument only has this type of structure, though it is probably the best and most reliable example
Delete1. You called the arguments of Stephen Law "logically invalid argument according to the bare-minimum of formal logical standards", which is blatantly false.
2. You also claimed his position is illogical. Even if the only thing you did is browse his website and read a small digest of his position instead of reading one of his books.
3. You failed to disprove any of his arguments about an evil god, which are completely logical.
Conclusion - Rick is a liar for claiming atheist do not use logic (I have no knowledge of any famous atheist that do not use logic)
>You called the arguments of Stephen Law "logically invalid argument according to the bare-minimum of formal logical standards", which is blatantly false.
Delete- Can you outline something for me? What do "formal logical standards" consist of according to your understanding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
DeleteAnonyrus, your link does not have any section entitled, "Formal Logic." The following link does focus on- and expand on the subject and definition of formal logic:
DeleteFormal logic
Formal logic is a set of rules for making deductions that seem self evident. Syllogisms like the following occur in every day conversation.
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html
So, in what manner does Stephen Law utilize "a set of rules" in formulating his philosophical deduction in his favorite argument, The Evil God Challenge (EGC)?
Sigh...Let us start with your syllogism:
DeleteR:Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers and Stephen Law tend not to use a summary of premies and recognized formal logical principles in their arguments.
First of all, you are trying to smuggle the word "tend" when you initially claimed that the position of top atheists is just illogical (first flip-flop). Secondly, all the arguments of Dawkins and others can be presented in the format of mathematical logic. Thirdly, almost no living human being uses formal logical systems to present arguments since they are artificial to the human language and difficult to grasp immediately.
3. Therefore, top atheist apologists tend not to use logical principles in their arguments
That is an unproven claim. Remeber that not using a mathematical logic system is not the same as not using logic. You are bickering about the presentation and not about the arguments themselve.
R:So, in what manner does Stephen Law utilize "a set of rules" in formulating his philosophical deduction in his favorite argument, The Evil God Challenge (EGC)?
His arguments do follow the rules of logic. I have not read any of his books, but I did watch his debate with Craig. His main reasoning would the following:
1) Most theodicies can be used in exactly the same way to explain an evil god.
2) The explanation of an evil god is ridiculous
3) If the explanation for an evil god is ridiculous, the same explanation for a good god should be ridiculous as well, since they are based on the same principles.
Rick, this is getting annoying: Why do you continuously keep mis-spelling Anonymous' handle?
DeleteAnonyRus,
Delete>all the arguments of Dawkins and others can be presented in the format of mathematical logic.
- Please demonstrate a valid example of such logic in a valid form.
>Remeber that not using a mathematical logic system is not the same as not using logic.
- Both you and Imnotandrei seem to believe that anytime an atheist writes a book or an article that logical principles are in there somewhere. Here's the problem. Using natural language does not elucidate the form of the argument and its structure and this form and structure is very important with regard to logical consequence.
In his book, the God Delusion, Rich Dawkins actually does present a summary of his argument points and conclusion. However, as William Lane Craig pointed out, Richard Dawkins apparently misunderstands that a conclusion is supposed to follow from a sequence of logical points. Dawkins has a good idea (use a summary of your points) but he misuses the concept and it backfires on him revealing to anyone informed that his entire book does not have a logical conclusion. I made this point is in the article that Imnotandrei claims has been discredited:
"Therefore God almost certainly does not exist," doesn't follow from the previous statements even if we concede that each of them is true."[3]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
1. Reputable sources, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, outline how natural language is inferior to the use of formal principles and structures in formulating a strong argument.
2. It has been demonstrated that, when they do attempt to use logical principles, top atheist apologists have a misunderstanding of the importance of formal structural principles and logical consequences in their writings.
3. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that their books are laden with valid logical principles that we are not aware of.
>His arguments do follow the rules of logic. His main reasoning would the following....:
- Is that summary you've offered a summary by Law, or is that a summary you created, or is a summary you just found on the internet?
(Reynold - Anonymous is from Russia, and the Rus addition helps me to keep track of his posts.)
R:Please demonstrate a valid example of such logic in a valid form.
DeleteI just did with Stephen Law. I do not intend to replicate every single argument from famous atheists. Not to mention, you ommit such people as Betrand Russel or David Hume who are much more prominent atheist apologists than the modern ones. Your claim that atheism tends to avoid logic is even more ridiculous if you take them into account.
R:Using natural language does not elucidate the form of the argument and its structure and this form and structure is very important with regard to logical consequence.
Yet, the majority even in scientific papers prefer to use natural language to make an argument for a number of reasons I explained before. Most people are not that intellectually challenged as to not being able to reproduce the arguments in a mathematical format.
R:"Therefore God almost certainly does not exist," doesn't follow from the previous statements even if we concede that each of them is true."[3]
That would make it an assertion, do provide some arguments instead of just passing judgement. I did not read Craig s book, but if he uses there the same arguments as in his debates and lectures, than it would make his reasoning fallacious at best.
R:Reputable sources, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, outline how natural language is inferior to the use of formal principles and structures in formulating a strong argument.
False dychotomy fallacy. The use of natural language does not imply the absence of logic. Nowhere does the Standford Encyclopedia states that the use of natural language is inferior to mathematical logic in formulating a strong argument.
R:It has been demonstrated that, when they do attempt to use logical principles, top atheist apologists have a misunderstanding of the importance of formal structural principles and logical consequences in their writings.
Bold assertion. Demonstrate this, do not just assert it.
R:Therefore, there is no reason to believe that their books are laden with valid logical principles that we are not aware of.
If you refuse to understand them because of vested interest, that is your own problem.
P.S. And it is blatantly dishonest of you, Rick, to try to disredit the idea of atheism by attacking atheists instead of attacking the idea itself.
Delete- Both you and Imnotandrei seem to believe that anytime an atheist writes a book or an article that logical principles are in there somewhere. Here's the problem. Using natural language does not elucidate the form of the argument and its structure and this form and structure is very important with regard to logical consequence.
DeleteWhile using natural language in a "logical form" can often hide mistaken assumptions and logical flaws, as demonstrated here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347127761920#c2255364792472355947
"Therefore God almost certainly does not exist," doesn't follow from the previous statements even if we concede that each of them is true."[3]
Again -- Craig's assertion is not enough to support the idea that Dawkins didn't use logic. If that were so, then my assertion "Rick's article was discredited" would be enough to show that your article was discredited. ;) That's all the evidence you supplied.
To then follow that up with another one of your mock-logical structures is risible, to put it mildly.
A suggestion, Rick: try and state your "premises" simply; right now, what you have is a natural-language mess dressed up in logical clothes by putting numbers in front of it and saying "therefore."
And, BTW -- Rick, take a look here:
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/evil-god-challenge-forthcoming-in.html
There's the ECG, laid out with responses considered, at a level of formality at least equal to any you use.
and here:
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/plantingas-belief-cum-desire-argument.html
For a further example of using formal logic in discussion.
And you'll see you've lost again.
AnonyRus,
Delete>R:Please demonstrate a valid example of such logic in a valid form...I just did with Stephen Law.
You just did? You had stated,
"all the arguments of Dawkins and others can be presented in the format of mathematical logic."
Please offer a quote showing this valid "mathematical logic"
I hope you are not referring to Dawkins' God Delusion. As Craig has pointed out,
"What does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence."
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion#ixzz2640t94Pb
R:You just did?
DeleteReading disability detected.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347121403517#c9172643793415570831
Though, since then imnotandrei has provided direct links to some of his argument
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/evil-god-challenge-forthcoming-in.html
and
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/plantingas-belief-cum-desire-argument.html
R:I hope you are not referring to Dawkins' God Delusion. As Craig has pointed out
The arguments of Dawkins from the God delusion are completely sound. Indeed, creationism was always one of the central arguments for god s existance (and that is an argument you use yourself). It is not the problem of atheists that theists constantly redefine the concept of god to cling to their outdated belief.
The theists have the burden of proof here to justify their belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. So far it has been failure after failure (be it the argument from design, the cosmological argument, historical "evidence" or the argument from morality).
Rick's got a marvelous case of elective blindness -- he can't see anything that doesn't support his arguments. He's demonstrated it all over this thread, and over many others.
DeleteAnonymous,
Delete>Reading disability detected.
Yes, on your part.
I asked for an example showing how Stephen Law offers his arguments in a valid logical form and you have posted no such actual example or outline.
Show an actual quote or example of this said valid logical structure and form in an argument from Law's blog. Simply writing, "Oh, it's here in this article he wrote" is not an example of the kind of valid logical structure that elicits logical consequence.
Funny, Rick, for you posting a link to something is sufficient, but for those opposing you? Oh, no, you can't be bothered to follow a link and look at it, you need a quote handed to you on a plate.
DeleteBecause Stephen Law is rigorous, I was not able to pluck out a short example -- there are better ones at the link, but you have this 4096 character limit. ;)
Consider the question: what particular set of desires would a species need to evolve in order for the beliefs generated by such an unreliable mechanism to result in generally adaptive behaviour? Let’s look at some examples, beginning with the cognitive faculty of reason.
Example one: the FAC
Consider the fallacy of affirming the consequent (FAC). The FAC is an unreliable form of inference. It sometimes produces true conclusions, but often false.
Suppose evolution hard-wires a species of hominid H to be highly prone to the FAC. Suppose a member of this species, H1, concludes using the FAC that jumping out of planes is not safe. Another member, H2, concludes using the FAC that jumping off tall buildings is safe. They might reason like so:
H1’s inference:
If jumping out of planes is not safe, jumping out of balloons is not safe
Jumping out of balloons is not safe
Jumping out of planes is not safe
H2’s inference:
If jumping out of planes is safe, then jumping out of planes wearing a parachute is safe
Jumping out of planes wearing a parachute is safe
Jumping out of planes is safe
If evolution hard-wires a desire into species H to make H2’s resulting belief that jumping out of planes is safe adaptive – e.g. a powerful desire to commit suicide - that same hard-wired desire will result in the likely death of H1.
What set of desires must evolution instil in species H to render adaptive the potentially-mal-adaptive consequences of applying the FAC? There is no such set of desires!
The FAC sometimes produces false beliefs, but sometimes true. Is that the reason why evolution cannot render the FAC adaptive? Could a method of inference that consistently produced false conclusions from true premises be made adaptive by pairing it with an appropriate set of desires? No, as I explain below.
R:I asked for an example showing how Stephen Law offers his arguments in a valid logical form and you have posted no such actual example or outline
DeleteOk, since I am generous I will repost Law s argument in your prefered syllogism format. After all, your mental capacities seem unable to do it without my help.
1) Most theodicies can be used in exactly the same way to explain an evil god.
2) The explanation of an evil god is invalid
3) If the explanation for an evil god is invalid, the same explanation for a good god should be invalid as well, since it is based on the same principles
4) If the explanation for an omnibenevolent god is invalid, the concept of a Christian god is invalid
- Is that really Stephen Law's argument, or is it yours?
DeleteI had asked you this question before, but I did not see your answer:
"Is that summary you've offered a summary by Law, or is that a summary you created, or is a summary you just found on the internet?"
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347187900616#c1012801892838753245
As I told you before, syllogism can easily be constructed from arguments in natural language. It is based on his debate with Craig and his post on his blog about the evil god challenge.
DeleteHey, Rick -- I gave you an example, quoted, from Stephen Law's site, since you wouldn't read the posts. Care to reply?
Delete>As I told you before, syllogism can easily be constructed from arguments in natural language.
Delete- You still have not answered my simple question:
"Is that summary you've offered a summary by Law, or is that a summary you created, or is a summary you just found on the internet?"
It is my summary of law s argument
Delete>It is my summary of law s argument.
Delete- And what makes you so sure that the wording and premises you offer in your summary of Law's argument are a completely accurate reflection of his argument? What makes you so sure that he would not offer a different summary of the same text? Can you be certain that Law would offer 100% agreement with your summary? He seems quite reluctant to support any summaries of his arguments.
In my article, I noted that I found a summary of Law's EGC argument:
"3. When I did find a version on the Internet and asked if he considered it a valid one, he did not reply."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html
DeleteIn my article, I noted that I found a summary of Law's EGC argument:
"3. When I did find a version on the Internet and asked if he considered it a valid one, he did not reply."
That's because you're a pest, Rick. You demand other people's time, and then, when other people ask for responses from you, you ignore them.
Indeed, right now, you're doing a great Stephen Law-to-Rick Warden impression with regards to me right now -- I don't know how many comments you're leaving dangling.
So, why should we hold Stephen Law to any higher standard than you hold yourself, Rick?
Both Imnotandrei and AnonyRus claim that Stephen Law uses logical principles and laws in his arguments. Anonymous has admitted that he has created his own summary premises of law's arguments, which may or may not be accurate.
DeleteImnotandrei has posted a quote by Stephen Law describing the FAC, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. But does Law actually use this or any such tools in his own arguments for atheism? No. No such example has been offered.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347298390707#c4861354268669748036
R: And what makes you so sure that the wording and premises you offer in the summary of Law s argument are a complete accurate reflection of his argument?
DeleteSince I do not suffer from a reading disability and the majority of people present similar syllogisms of his argument, I can be pretty sure of its accuracy. As sure as the color red is red.
R: But does Law actually use this or any such tools in his own arguments for atheism? No. No such example has been offered.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. It was explained to you a dozen of times that the use of natural language without syllogism, does not imply the absence of logic. You were offered links to his article where his arguments were presented, but you chose to ignore it. The reason why atheism is logical would be that theism does not meet its burden of proof.
You claimed that you do not consider syllogisms as the only valid format of logic, but you only accept syllogism as proof of atheists using logic.
imnotandrei has posted a quote by Stephen Law describing the FAC, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. But does Law actually use this or any such tools in his own arguments for atheism? No. No such example has been offered.
DeleteAnd there go the goalposts again. You asked for an example of an argument; I gave you one, a specific subsection of a larger argument, in which Law does not just "describe" the FAC, but explains why a mind using it does not support Plantinga's position.
All you seem to accept as "logic", as has been repeatedly pointed out, are simple syllogisms, because anything requiring *context* or *complication* is clearly beyond you.
Oh - and showing a prominent apologists' logic is flawed is a perfectly valid "argument for atheism", so there's your example *again*, Rick.
Oh! And to answer your challenge about the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html?showComment=1335397520257#c5566725110143638860