Within Law's comment is a veiled presupposition that academic stature automatically grants philosophical superiority to those who have studied their way to the top of secular academic positions. Do you believe that academic stature alone gives a person a free ticket to avoid logical arguments in a pretense of intellectual and philosophical superiority? I don't.
There are three basic positions with regard to discourse and rhetoric:
1. Ethos-based rhetoric: a person believes that academic stature offers the most convincing support.
2. Logos-based rhetoric: a person believes that logical arguments offer the most convincing support.
3. Pathos-based rhetoric: a person believes that emotions and yelling offer the most convincing support.
Which category does Stephen Law fall into? Well, based on my interactions with him listed here, the first category. Law's recent comment deletion stems from three questions he has refused to answer.
Three Questions Stephen Law Won't Answer
1. Is the central argument of the God Delusion logically framed with a sense of logical consequence?
Before comment-linking was mysteriously disabled at Law's blog, I had politely asked Law several times whether or not he believed that Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion was logical. He did not give me a straightforward answer, so I asked one more time:
"So you are basically unwilling to plainly comment on whether or not Dawkins' argument outline in the God delusion offers logical consequence not." (October 7, 2012 at 10:27 AM)
Amazingly, Law was still unwilling to plainly state whether or not he believed the central argument of Dawkins' God Delusion was logical or not:
"I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed..." (October 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM)
2. Will you acknowledge that you failed to address Richard Dawkins' six-point central argument in your 1.5 hour critique of The God Delusion?
In the course of the previous exchange, Law had claimed that his lecture during "The God Delusion Weekend" in 2010 addressed my question about whether or not The God Delusion argument was logical.
"Rick you are aware I did a whole hour long videod lecture on Dawkins' argument, filmed at Oxford University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3fGJq04rUc&feature=relmfu
Maybe you should watch it? It answers your questions." (October 6, 2012 at 10:11 PM)
Law's lecture, however, 1) Never questions the use of logic in The God Delusion and 2) Never even identifies the six-point central argument as Dawkins defines it! This has been pointed out in another article. These facts led me to present a brief logical argument at his blog, which Law summarily deleted, as outlined in point three.
3. Can you point out a flaw in the following argument?
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
After my argument was typed in, I pasted a link to the context of my logical argument, as noted in the webclip. However, the following comment (as shown in the embedded image) was deleted by Stephen Law:
Instead of addressing my logical and brief challenge, Law deleted my comment and claimed the following:
"Rick's previous post deleted as it was just an extended advert for his website." (March 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM)
I had been attempting to engage in a civilized debate with Law. My very first comment at that post addressed the title, "Tricks of the Mind event CFI, March 30th." This tied directly into the subject of spiritual blindness, described in scripture as mental blindness.
Come and hear some of the world’s leading experts explain how our minds can distort and deceive...
- That's very interesting, I just wrote a post touching on this very subject at my blog. It's entitled,
"How Logic Helps to Reveal Spiritual Blindness"
As we engaged in debate, instead of attempting to logically disprove my claim that Law is in a state of mental and spiritual denial, Law helped to confirm my point by appealing to academic authority and not logic in his argumentation. I had given Law the benefit of the doubt, giving him an opportunity to point out where he may have addressed Dawkins' central six-point argument:
"In any event, are you willing to admit, Stephen, that throughout the course of a 1.5 hour presentation on the strengths and weaknesses of The God Delusion you did not once address Dawkins' "central argument" as defined by Dawkins himself?
"This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points."
Can you admit that? Or, can you provide a reference to a point in the recorded video when you did assess Dawkins' six point central argument?"(March 4, 2013 at 5:11 PM)
His reply was neither adequate not professional:
"No Rick you can sod off." (March 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM)
When a philosophical blogger avoids logical questions at all costs, then it is understandable why posting logical arguments would be considered spam. At the end of my deleted comment I had written the following: "So, any takers at all? Or is it back to somnambulism and Dawkins fawning?" Amazingly, a few posts later, Law posted a video clip of him talking with Dawkins on the very stage where Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig. Recreational Dawkins fawning at its best! Dawkins fawning has apparently become a recreational pastime for academic militant atheists, as opposed to engaging in logical debates. Some good showmanship never hurt anyone. Besides, debates can be a little stressful and unpleasant at times.
Though Law did once debate William Lane Craig, it was pointed out that Law basically ignored WL Craigs arguments and tried to change the subject of the debate from "Does God Exists?" to "Is God Necessarily Good?" Law basically ignored Craig's logical arguments for God's existence and went off on his own tangent. J.W. Wartik has offered a valuable summary of that debate.
There are increasing signs that Law is morphing into a dedicated militant atheist with an inclination to prefer atheist hegemony and censorship over reasonable and logical debate. In a post entitled, "Atheism is pretentious and cowardly" Law identified his classification as a militant atheist and was not opposed to the label: "I'm sure I'd be classed as "militant" - yet I don't argue religion is more a force for evil than good. Just, for the most part, a load of cobblers."
It's ironic that the theist "cobblers" are the ones presenting the logical arguments as secular atheist authority figures are busy making excuses for not engaging in discourse while patting each other on the back for their supposed superiority. Call it entertainment. Call it showmanship. But please don't attempt to call it academic advancement. This type of attitude is sending academia back to pre-Socratic days. Socrates and the Socratic method affirmed that the process of debating and asking questions is one of the most basic methods of seeking truth and affirming true premises and conclusions. Secularists today, however, prefer hegemony and censorship over questions and debate. In stark contrast to today's secular academic delusions and pretensions, scripture outlines how Jesus and the scriptures welcome difficult and challenging questions as a standard for Christians.
Three examples of how Jesus and the scriptures welcome difficult questions:
1. Jesus welcomed Thomas and his doubtful attitude with grace and patience. Jesus welcomed Thomas' questions.
"Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”[John 20.26-29 NIV]
2. The Apostle Paul welcomed challenges and tests of his own teachings in his praise of the Bereans.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17.11 NIV]
3. Isaiah in the Old Testament advocated reason and discourse with nonbelievers.
"Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.[Isaiah 1.18 NIV]
Unlike these three examples in scripture, militant atheists today avoid difficult questions and polite attempts to engage in civilized discourse. Instead of engaging in difficult questions head on, such atheists engage in their culture war with relativistic ends-jusifies-the-means tactics. You can eschew logic and delete logical arguments, but the timeless truth of God's existence remains nonetheless.
I would welcome a debate with Law if he ever decides that he is willing to address difficult questions in a civilized manner. However, the fact is, Law and all the atheists at my blog have failed to address my related argument, "A Logical Proof that Law failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion" and for Law to admit this mistake would be a bitter pill to swallow. It would cut to the heart of his perceived value as a published secular authority figure corrected by a "cobbler" who is not formally published.
Addenda:
In his video-taped assessment, Stephen Law basically ignored half of Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion and did not once comment on the logic of the argument structure. So far, in defending Law's assessment, we have the following excuses from atheists at my blog:
1. Law was not obligated to list and address Dawkins' six-point argument because fitting six summarized points onto one slide screen would be inconvenient (therefore the latter three points may be completely ignored).
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363957570510#c5996788530541390607
2. Law did not need to include three premises out of six because they were unquestionably and obviously true points.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363971553614#c6758844226743334739
3. Law was only obligated to list and evaluate the premises that he personally felt were questionable, the rest he was justified in ignoring.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363986594699#c3315182043451265643
I posted a comment at Professor Law's blog and offered him a fair opportunity to defend his assessment and he ignored my comment:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=1862177871830595660&page=1&token=1364043227246
This is much the same as he ignored my question back in October 2012 on whether or not Dawkins offered a logical argument in The God Delusion, as quoted in the following post:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html
Romans 1.18 pretty much spells it out: people who have already made up their mind about God's existence are more interested in suppressing truth than seeking it.
Tags: Atheist culture war (law children), atheist hegemony, Stephen law changes debate subject with William Lane Craig, Stephen Law militant atheist, Jesus welcomed Thomas' questions. Doubting Thomas Bible verse, Isaiah advocated reason and discourse, Apostle Paul welcomed challenges and tests,
It seems you still fail to understand that you fall perfectly into the definition of a spamer, you still fail to understand what Dawkins central argument is and you keep slandering people. And you still fail to understand that even if a single atribute of god is proven false (I.e. god is not good) the whole concept falls apart. Well, nothing new, even the smallest progress that was made in the previous thread seems gone 8)
ReplyDelete>It seems you still fail to understand that you fall perfectly into the definition of a spamer,
Delete- Definition of SPAM
: unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spam
Let me see...
A) My comments at Law's blog did not include invitations to buy Viagra or any other commercial product or serve.
B) My comments were not cookie cutter generalized comments but were specifically related to the subject of the article.
C) The reason links were posted at his blog was to allow for people to see the context of very short logical arguments and to allow anyone actually interested in debating to do so.
>you still fail to understand what Dawkins central argument.
- Um, no. I am the one who actually pointed out to Law and you that the central argument was a six-point argument. Both you and Law have failed to address my argument:
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
>and you keep slandering people.
You don't seem to know what slander is:
The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
I have plainly outlined how Stephen Law avoids logical principles in his professional work and in his commentary. If you, Law Imnotandrei or anyone else does not agree, then do point out, for example, what point specifically in the 5-point argument I just presented you believe there is an error.
Your main problem, Anonymos, is that Law bases his authority on academic stature, not on demonstrable logical arguments. Logical principles, however, are objective and cannot merely be dismissed and ignored off hand as you, Law and Imnotandrei wish they could be.
>And you still fail to understand that even if a single atribute of god is proven false (I.e. god is not good) the whole concept falls apart.
- I'm not sure which *God* you are referring to. Is it Dawkins' straw man version? Go ahead and shoot it down. That act means absolutely nothing.
>Well, nothing new, even the smallest progress that was made in the previous thread seems gone 8)
- Progress? I didn't notice any. Find one fault in the above argument that is off or admit that Law's professional assessment of The God Delusion was inadequate to put it mildly.
The perceived academic stature that Law stands upon is nothing but subjective sand, but the principles of logic are objective and timeless, the rock-solid truth of God that supports all creation. Progress in understanding the nature of reality will begin for you when you begin to acknowledge God's existence. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
R:My comments at Law's blog did not include invitations to buy Viagra or any other commercial product or serve.
DeleteNotice the word "usually". You do not need to push forward comercial products to be a spamer.
R:My comments were not cookie cutter generalized comments but were specifically related to the subject of the article.
Oh! So no an immaterial concept such as "spirit" is tied to a completely material concept such as the brain? Nice flip-flop.
R:The reason links were posted at his blog was to allow for people to see the context of very short logical arguments and to allow anyone actually interested in debating to do so.
And the reason why some spamers post links to their sites after "Wow! Αt laѕt I got а blog from wherе I be cаpable of really take valuable іnformatiоn concerning mу ѕtudy and knοwleԁgе." Is to show how your article helps them to learn about Italian restorants.
R:Um, no. I am the one who actually pointed out to Law and you that the central argument was a six-point argument. Both you and Law have failed to address my argument
Imnotandrei has already dealt with that point.
R:The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Hm... Accusing a person of valueing academic credentials above the content of the discussion is not slander? Notice you never provided any evidence of that, you just "feel" it is this way.
And to quote imnotandrei on the subject:
"He then goes on to say not, as you imply, that published status implies superiority, but that if your arguments are as strong as you think, you should submit them to journals -- indeed, he even suggests one -- rather than wasting your time on blog posts".
R:I'm not sure which *God* you are referring to.
In the debate CraigVSLaw they were discussin precisely the god of the bible.
R:Is it Dawkins' straw man version?
Oh! So you deny that god is superhuman, i.e. having or showing exceptional ability or powers? Well, it looks like you flip-floped again, denying your beloved pet omnipotency, which is definitely an exceptional ability.
R:Progress? I didn't notice any.
Yep, my bad. I was too optimistic and overestimated your intellectual capacities as always.
And we already discussed the point about Law allegedely not addressing Dawkins central argument. If does not do it in the way you like, that does not mean he does not do it at all.
>Oh! So no an immaterial concept such as "spirit" is tied to a completely material concept such as the brain? Nice flip-flop.
Delete-You need to work on your reading comprehension. Law's article referred to the mind, not the brain. And that has spiritual implications, as noted in my article:
"I had been attempting to engage in a civilized debate with Law. My very first comment at that post addressed the title, "Tricks of the Mind event CFI, March 30th." This tied directly into the subject of spiritual blindness, described in scripture as mental blindness."
> Is to show how your article helps them to learn about Italian restorants.
- Actually, a discussion on how to learn about italian restaurants would be more likely at Law's blog, rather then serious discussions and questions about logic. :)
>Imnotandrei has already dealt with that point.
I did not notice anywhere that Imnotandrei offered a relevant challenge to the following argument. Do post a link.
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Part II
Delete>Hm... Accusing a person of valueing academic credentials above the content of the discussion is not slander? Notice you never provided any evidence of that, you just "feel" it is this way.
- So, apparently, in your opinion Law is not so much concerned about my academic stature and should be willing to discuss his logic. That is reassuring. Perhaps I will bring up my argument again at his blog.
- In the mean time, my opinion is a little different. If Law valued logic over atheist academic stature, he would most likely have A) Questioned the logic of The God Delusion argument, B) Offered a logical outline of his own favorite argument. C) Answered my challenges regarding his use of logic. D) Not suggested that I need to be published before he would take me seriously. There is plenty of evidence that Law did NONE of the above, therefore, your claim is ridiculous.
>if your arguments are as strong as you think, you should submit them to journals.
- Arguments are not strong because a person "thinks' they are or because they are published in journals. An article is strong if and only if it has a valid form and true premises. Period. Again, a weak appreciation of the objective necessary value of logic has been displayed and underscored. Thank you.
>In the debate CraigVSLaw they were discussin precisely the god of the bible.
- We discussing the *God* of the God Delusion. That is how this subject came up.
Part III
Delete>Oh! So you deny that god is superhuman, i.e….
- Sigh. The lights are on but…
OK, time to repost from a previous article comment:
Your definitons are not accurate because you and Dawkins conflate "superhuman" with the multifaceted perfection of God. Can you understand that there is nothing "superior" to penultimate perfection?
The following points outline how Dawkins commits a Fallacy of Degrees in his assessment of God based on Dawkins' approach to the question:
1. Superior designs emanate from a superior minds.
2. However, the mind of God is not simply superior, it is omniscient, perfect and eternal.
3. There is no mind superior to an omniscient, perfect and eternal mind.
4. Therefore, there is no need for (or possibility of) God having a superior designer.
As I pointed out above, confirming God's eternal perfection, omnipotence and omniscience is not a case of special pleading. These are widely accepted characteristics of God's nature. The four points I presented outline why God does not logically require any designer.
Is there any point of the four "Fallacy of Degrees" argument that you care to challenge?(March 16, 2013 at 8:18 AM)
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-logic-reveals-spiritual-blindess.html?showComment=1363447132786#c973372965742399275
>I was too optimistic and overestimated your intellectual capacities as always.
- It's not so much a question of subjective measurements of intellect. It's about the unchanging and objective principles of logic. I have offered an objective logical argument and you have failed to point out one premise that is false and why the conclusionn should be considered untrue. Perhaps I will take your
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
>If does not do it in the way you like, that does not mean he does not do it at all.
- There are very basic objective considerations when evaluating an argument. Do point out which premise you disagree with.
R:You need to work on your reading comprehension. Law's article referred to the mind, not the brain. And that has spiritual implications, as noted in my article
DeleteSo a purely biological phenomena has spiritual implication? Not that you or anyone else even managed to offer a valid definition of your "spiritual" concept in the first place.
R:I did not notice anywhere that Imnotandrei offered a relevant challenge to the following argument. Do post a link
Look below at his recent comment.
R:Perhaps I will bring up my argument again at his blog.
And you will likely be ignored again, since you post off-topic and slander him.
R:Questioned the logic of The God Delusion argument
He offered a 1.5 hour long lecture on the subject, where he did analyze the validity of Dawkins argument. If you unable to understand it, that is your own problem.
R:Offered a logical outline of his own favorite argument.
He did this in numerous papers and lectures. Again, if you are too lazy to look it up or unable to understand this in the first place, that is your own problem.
R:Answered my challenges regarding his use of logic.
He has no obligation to do that.
R:Not suggested that I need to be published before he would take me seriously.
"He then goes on to say not, as you imply, that published status implies superiority, but that if your arguments are as strong as you think, you should submit them to journals -- indeed, he even suggests one -- rather than wasting your time on blog posts."
R:An article is strong if and only if it has a valid form and true premises. Period
No objections here. However, by publishing it in a decent journal after scrupoulous peer review, you would have some evidence it has valid form and true premises.
R:We discussing the *God* of the God Delusion. That is how this subject came up.
You claim that Law tried to change the subject of the debate with Craig discussing if God is good or not. For the god of the bible it is a relevant subject and hence your accusation is false.
R:Can you understand that there is nothing "superior" to penultimate perfection?
Sigh...Maybe an analogy will help?
Every human is mammal
Not every mammal is human
Any questions? Calling a human being a mammal is NOT a mistake, the same way it is NOT a mistake to call an omni being superhuman.
Any omni being is superhuman
Not every superhuman is an omni being.
Do you disagree with anything here? And omni being is SUPERIOR to a human. Hence, their have superhuman abilities. Any objections?
Yes, there could be nothing superior to penultimate perfection, but penultimate perfection is superior to non-penultimate perfection.
R:The following points outline how Dawkins commits a Fallacy of Degrees
First of all, Dawkins rejects the 1st premise of yours: "This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution"
Secondly, you need to prove that your god is omni and not just assert this.
Thirdly, you claim that nothing comes into being without a cause. However, you also need to prove that god never came into being and not just assert it like you do now.
Without proving your premises, excluding god from physical laws is special pleading. It does not matter if that definition is widely accepted.
R:I have offered an objective logical argument and you have failed to point out one premise that is false and why the conclusionn should be considered untrue
Imnotandrei has pointed that out before. You need to prove those premises of yours and not just assert them. You need to prove that god has those properties (or that even a being with such properties is possible in the first place) and not just define your deity with those characteristics.
R:I have offered an objective logical argument and you have failed to point out one premise that is false and why the conclusionn should be considered untrue.
DeleteHow long did we discuss the issue in the previous topic? You are even unable to understand the simple fact that all humans are mammals even if not all mammals are human. I am a little tired of repeating myself, so I will just quote imnotandrei:
"1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
No; logical syllogisms are defined that way. Formal philosophical arguments *can* be structured that way, but arguing that they all are is not a given.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
This is the place where you usually fail, but I am willing to accept this, if by this you are discussing the formal validity of a formal argument; in informal argument, you do not always have this connection.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
Actually, his *summary* of his position contains them. A summary, by definition, is not the complete argument. It leaves out details and connective tissue. So, if you place it to the challenge of a formal proof, it will probably fail, as much of the detail required to make a proof (or a formal argument) *valid* is contained within the summary.
Indeed, you've often complained when people judged your summaries harshly, claiming that you did not want to write a book. Now, you're complaining because Dawkins did write a book, but you're judging it based on a summary.
I am deleting your point 4, because I am not prepared to dive down that rabbit hole.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Given that statements 1, 2, and 3 do not rise to the level of logical proof you claim, there is no reason to accept your statement #5. Your argument fails."
Hey, Rick:
ReplyDeleteNot responding to challenges?
That's what you do. Repeatedly.
Do you believe that academic stature alone gives a person a free ticket to avoid logical arguments in a pretense of intellectual and philosophical superiority? I don't.
No. On the other hand, considering that you have repeatedly badgered and maligned him, I can see why he wouldn't want to engage with you -- he is claiming, at worst, the same privilege you claim when you won't engage with people who dispute your points.
Matthew, 7:5, Rick.
On a few more detailed points:
Law's lecture, however, 1) Never questions the use of logic in The God Delusion. 2) Never even identifies the six-point central argument as Dawkins defines it! This has been pointed out in another article. These facts led me to present a brief logical argument at his blog, which Law summarily deleted, as outlined in point three.
In other words, Law's lecture doesn't do what you want, in the way you want it. Law is under no responsibility to answer you in the precise form you want.
Or, if he is, you are under the same responsibility, and we can go back and look at the masses of unanswered questions and points you leave all over your blog. If your points are relevant to him, my points are relevant to you, as the poster.
>Come and hear some of the world’s leading experts explain how our minds can distort and deceive...
- That's very interesting, I just wrote a post touching on this very subject at my blog. It's entitled,
"How Logic Helps to Reveal Spiritual Blindness" (March 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM)
Have you noticed the comments on your blog, the ones from "Anonymous", that go "Hey, that was really interesting! Come look at my blog here!"
That's comment spam. And your post, that you quoted *above*, is of precisely the same form.
Having read further, he uses *precisely* the same form that you claim is valid on your part:
(ii) while perhaps naive, muddled and/or amateurish, the person making the comment is clearly a decent chap engaged in a largely open-minded and honest pursuit of the truth.
After previous interactions with you, Rick, I have come to the conclusion you fail to meet either of these criteria. Indeed, I think you are both a bit of a lightweight and not very pleasant. So I'll decline.
In other words, he thinks you're the way you feel "atheist slanderers" and "uncivilized blog abusers" are. And he refuses to interact with them, just as you refuse to interact with people you put in that category.
He then goes on to say not, as you imply, that published status implies superiority, but that if your arguments are as strong as you think, you should submit them to journals -- indeed, he even suggests one -- rather than wasting your time on blog posts.
Indeed, Rick, if your arguments are so good, why don't you do that? Instead of wasting your time chasing people in blog comments?
(Oh, and as a side note, since you're so fond of dictionary definitions -- you repeatedly misuse "cobblers" in your argument. Law was using a form of rhyming slang that apparently you missed. He didn't refer to theist apologists as cobblers; he referred to religion as a load of nonsense. ;))
So, Rick; which of the following is true:
A) You have no business complaining about how Stephen Law is treating you.
B) You have been mistreating commenters on your own blog.
C) Both.
You get to pick one, but since you're doing at *best* the same thing to Law that you have done to me.
Imnotandrei
Delete>Hey, Rick: Not responding to challenges? That's what you do. Repeatedly.
You, Imnotandrei, have already proven yourself to be a chronic slanderer. This has been well documented here at the following link, and, as as noted in the article,
"A common tact with regard to comment slander and Internet etiquette is to simply ignore this kind of abuse. While I do generally take this approach, once in a while I will throw in a summary of the person's actual documented comments to help set the record straight."
The documentation of your repetitive slander is all there.
Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams: Adventures in Internet Apologetics
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html
Unlike your unsubstantiated slander, my polite challenges to Stephen Law focus on documented facts.
Have a nice day.
"A common tact with regard to comment slander and Internet etiquette is to simply ignore this kind of abuse.
DeleteSo, in other words, you're choosing "A" (You have no business complaining about how Stephen Law is treating you) from my list above -- since you assert, by this, that a blog-owner has no obligation to engage with their critics once they've decided they're not an appropriate person.
Unlike your unsubstantiated slander, my polite challenges to Stephen Law focus on documented facts.
Stephen Law finds you rude and "uncivilized", and therefore, by your own premise above, is allowed to blow you off. If you, Rick, can set yourself up as judge and executioner on your own blog, so can Stephen on his.
That's the standard you set up, Rick; and so whatever you claim about your politeness is *irrelevant*.
(Though, for the record -- going on a professional philosopher's blog to link back to your blog for articles about how they "don't use logic" would be the equivalent of me saying, not that you were discredited -- the "slander" you complain about so bitterly (and the single example you've ever been able to document) -- but that "Rick Warden has such a bad relationship to trustworthiness (e.g. he'll say whatever he thinks is to his advantage) that he'd make a lousy home inspector, because you can't trust him not to say whatever is best for whoever is paying him, regardless of its veracity." I don't believe that's true - that you're a bad home inspector because of what you say here -- but it's the equivalent assertion against your professional competence that you're making against Law; so remember that when you claim to be "polite". and object to others' "slander".)
Or,to be concise: You don't get to say "My rules apply to my blog, and my rules apply to Stephen's blog." If you can define who's OK to comment, so can he -- even if that means you're not OK to comment on his blog.
Delete
ReplyDeleteOh, and since you invoked me by name:
Logical principles, however, are objective and cannot merely be dismissed and ignored off hand as you, Law and Imnotandrei wish they could be.
Yet you're the one who repeatedly fails to accept the use of logical principles in any means other than your single preferred form, and still haven't admitted to your own misuse when you claimed (paraphrased, since I am not going to bother to go back to find the original citation now:)
1) Myers, Dawkins and Law are top atheist apologists.
2) Myers, Dawkins, and Law don't use logical principles
therefore:
3) Top atheist apologists tend not to use logical principles.
Not only is premise 2 invalid, your argument follows the same pattern as:
1) Kiwis, emus, and penguins are birds.
2) Kiwis, emus, and penguins don't fly.
therefore:
3) Birds tend not to fly.
Your argument, and yet you persist in insisting that a) your original argument was valid, and b) you somehow have more respect for logical principles than those you argue against, when you repeatedly fail to use them validly.
Oh, and while we're at it:
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
No; logical syllogisms are defined that way. Formal philosophical arguments *can* be structured that way, but arguing that they all are is not a given.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
This is the place where you usually fail, but I am willing to accept this, if by this you are discussing the formal validity of a formal argument; in informal argument, you do not always have this connection.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
Actually, his *summary* of his position contains them. A summary, by definition, is not the complete argument. It leaves out details and connective tissue. So, if you place it to the challenge of a formal proof, it will probably fail, as much of the detail required to make a proof (or a formal argument) *valid* is contained within the summary.
Indeed, you've often complained when people judged your summaries harshly, claiming that you did not want to write a book. Now, you're complaining because Dawkins did write a book, but you're judging it based on a summary.
I am deleting your point 4, because I am not prepared to dive down that rabbit hole.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Given that statements 1, 2, and 3 do not rise to the level of logical proof you claim, there is no reason to accept your statement #5. Your argument fails.
I don't entirely know why I try, but I do.
ReplyDelete>if your arguments are as strong as you think, you should submit them to journals.
- Arguments are not strong because a person "thinks' they are or because they are published in journals. An article is strong if and only if it has a valid form and true premises. Period. Again, a weak appreciation of the objective necessary value of logic has been displayed and underscored. Thank you.
Arguments aren't strong because they're published in journals. Arguments that are published in journals received a lot of tests, which helps determine their strength.
It's like cryptographic algorithms; a good algorithm should be broadcast and tested by lots of people, so that any hidden flaws can be found.
Errors in arguments can be subtle, and saying "I find this argument valid, please challenge it" is useful if you want to correct your own errors. And for that, having more than 1-2 commentators on your blog is advisable.
So, no; being published in a hournal doesn't make an argument good; what it means is it's more likely to be tested fully.
Got it?
I don't entirely know why I try, but I do.
Delete- And you probably also don't know why you make irrelevant comments about me at other blogs.
You should probably think a little before you go around offering "evidence" which is really no relevant evidence at all.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=3299919369546729724
March 18, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Got it?
- And you probably also don't know why you make irrelevant comments about me at other blogs.
DeleteOh, pointing out your double standards and hypocrisy is entirely relevant.
On your blog, you feel that you get to decide who's a worthwhile interlocutor, and that ignoring their posts does not affect you.
On Stephen Law's blog, you feel that if he doesn't respond to your points, it's an indicator that you're right, and he's hiding from logical principles.
So, if I follow your principles as espoused on Stephen Law's blog, I can conclude that I'm right, and you're hiding from logical principles, because you don't respond to my points.
Indeed, you also tell a lie by omission in your comment on Law's blog: And, to date, no one has offered to point out a fault in the following logical argument:
I pointed out several; another poster here then copied them into his comment, since you refuse to answer mine.
It's possible that your lie by omission is because you did a careless copy-and-paste; acknowledge that you erred, and it's not more evidence of a callous disregard for truth and consistency.
Got it?
Got you, that is. ;)