tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post8555008705389905852..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: The Shook Distraction (2)Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60684667758327090592010-09-30T21:32:35.410+10:002010-09-30T21:32:35.410+10:00"Ah well, but there is a certain difference b..."Ah well, but there is a certain difference between jumping into that discussion with something like the pizza argument, or pointing out that no matter how abstruse you make your theology, your fairies can still not be vegan and carnivorous at the same time, and you are only committed to showing that they can manage that feat because of some even more abstruse interpretation in an old book that has no credibility to start with. I may be mistaken, but the latter seems to be what you originally seemed to criticize."<br /><br />Considering that the questions of what "substance" and "essence" are supposed to be are not directly related to whether the Trinity is illogical, I would think that it was obvious that the former was at issue.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75335528682572024042010-09-30T13:37:47.703+10:002010-09-30T13:37:47.703+10:00Ah well, but there is a certain difference between...Ah well, but there is a certain difference between jumping into that discussion with something like the pizza argument, or pointing out that no matter how abstruse you make your theology, your fairies can still not be vegan and carnivorous at the same time, and you are only committed to showing that they can manage that feat because of some even more abstruse interpretation in an old book that has no credibility to start with. I may be mistaken, but the latter seems to be what you originally seemed to criticize. If Dawkins derides these discussions, I would not understand him to take one side, but to consider them all as a complete waste of time, words and paper.<br /><br />And yes, RB, if all theology were history of religion, or a part of sociology, I would certainly consider it a worthwhile undertaking, though somewhat less fascinating than the botany I choose to spend my time with. Unfortunately, as we all know, these days it is still sold as theology, and their Spiderman is presupposed to actually jump around somewhere and thwart crimes.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4048307178802532072010-09-29T23:19:59.482+10:002010-09-29T23:19:59.482+10:00Alex SL: "you actually think I cannot, withou...Alex SL: "you actually think I cannot, without studying tomes and tomes published on physiology and culture of the elven races and their relatives, mock fairyologists' discussion about fairy dietary preferences as a complete waste of time?"<br /><br />Of course you can mock it as a waste of time. What you cannot do (or at least shouldn't do) is make an argument such as "It's stupid of you to think that fairies would prefer pizza over bread and milk because their digestive systems couldn't handle it" without knowing what the fairyologists believe about what fairies can eat and why. If you make arguments that sidestep the need for detailed knowledge, that's fine. You still haven't violated the rule about not mocking what you don't understand, since you're avoiding the parts that you don't understand. Once you mock the details, though, you have to understand those details.<br /><br />By the way, all that had been said before in an earlier post above, in the part where I quoted Heard saying, "If he's going to attack specific dogmas, though, he should show that he actually understands what the proponents of those dogmas mean when they affirm and attempt to explain those dogmas."J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77584569473084655302010-09-29T16:28:16.929+10:002010-09-29T16:28:16.929+10:00Well, I could spend hours working out the apparent...Well, I could spend hours working out the apparent ages of characters within the Marvel Comics diegesis. Only this morning I decided that Spider-Man is currently being presented (in his own comics, as opposed to the movies or any other version) as 27 rather than 26. However, although this is amusing it's not something I'd live my life by. It's something I'd want to have clear in my mind if I were writing those characters, and it's kind of interesting for readers to see how consistently they are handled, but there's obviously a rather low limit to the importance of such questions.<br /><br />Seriously, there's something to be gained from studying myth as myth (or fairy stories as fairy stories), and from studying it in its historical, soiological, and cultural context, but there's not so much to be gained from studying it as actual history. As long as theologians are doing the former, good luck to them.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16897824698333774622010-09-29T16:01:48.069+10:002010-09-29T16:01:48.069+10:00Ramsey,
you actually think I cannot, without stud...Ramsey,<br /><br />you actually think I cannot, without studying tomes and tomes published on physiology and culture of the elven races and their relatives, mock fairyologists' discussion about fairy dietary preferences as a complete waste of time? Based on the all too often overlooked but indisputable fact that fairies do not, in all actuality, in the here and now, seem to exist? Is that seriously what you are saying?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54407732289778047372010-09-29T06:48:03.701+10:002010-09-29T06:48:03.701+10:00How is one to reconcile the HuffPo rant deriding &...How is one to reconcile the HuffPo rant deriding "the “know-nothing” wing of the so-called New Atheism", who are "reveling in their ignorance", with his piece, six days later on the CFI blog, where he bluntly states,<br /><br />"Only common sense sanity, of the sort we normally expect from adults and even teenagers, is sufficient to show why God-belief is irrational."<br /><br />On HuffPo, one must be fluent and up-to-date on current, sophisticated theology in order to criticize God-belief, yet six days later on CFI the common sense of a teenager is all that's needed. No matter how you slice it these views directly contradict each other. Perhaps anything goes when you're trying to sell a book, but to a casual observer it seems that he is merely pandering to his perceived audience on whatever forum he's writing for. It makes it hard to take anything he says very seriously.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19365432616620886802010-09-28T22:52:22.406+10:002010-09-28T22:52:22.406+10:00Alex SL: "Actually, I have a hard time unders...Alex SL: "Actually, I have a hard time understanding where you are going with that."<br /><br />Simple. Once you mock something, you have an obligation to understand what you are mocking.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7071805927939253122010-09-28T13:53:37.610+10:002010-09-28T13:53:37.610+10:00Ramsey:
Actually, I have a hard time understandin...Ramsey:<br /><br />Actually, I have a hard time understanding where you are going with that. Until there is some reason to assume that some kind of god exists, trinitarian discussions <i>are</i> a complete waste of time, and they are <i>precisely</i> as silly and unbecoming of grown-ups not under the influence of mind-altering drugs as would be a discussion on the dietary requirements of fairies.<br /><br />We don't need to care whether someone can arrive at a complicated argument why fairies are at the same time carnivorous and vegan (as good a model for the trinity as any) if it is abundantly clear that they were only motivated to formulate that justification through their a priori commitment to an obviously entirely invented, well, fairytale.<br /><br />And yes, the trinity is a ridiculous idea for somebody who claims to be a monotheist. It is not only atheists who have drawn that conclusion, but all other monotheists are just as unimpressed by the doctrine. But perhaps it is less fashionable to tell Muslims that they should brush up on Catholic theology than to say the same to atheists.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50168571085375416462010-09-28T12:20:19.712+10:002010-09-28T12:20:19.712+10:00"This suggests his recent article isn't d..."This suggests his recent article isn't directed at the major New Atheist authors."<br /><br />On the other hand, Dawkins has been <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/12/dawkins_stock_reply.php" rel="nofollow">criticized</a> for his "stock reply" comparing theology and fairyology, which came off as a glib excuse for not boning up on the very subject matter that he's discussing. In the blog post to which I linked, one commenter, Christopher Heard, had pointed out that Dawkins had derided Trinitarian debates about "substance" and "essence" without learning "what theologians think they're saying when they talk about the 'substance' or 'essence' of the Trinity." As he put it, <br /><br />"In the abstract, there's no reason why Dawkins should be required or expected to be well-read in specific dogmas--and few specific dogmas are inherent in the generic God Hypothesis. If he's going to attack specific dogmas, though, he should show that he actually understands what the proponents of those dogmas mean when they affirm and attempt to explain those dogmas."<br /><br />Dawkins in some places comes off as if he isn't trying very hard to know what he's talking about. That's a problem that's even extended beyond theology, as for example, when he <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/01/thomas_jefferson_and_richard_d.php#comment-319626" rel="nofollow">repeated a quote mine of John Adams</a>.<br /><br />Moving a bit away from Dawkins ...<br /><br />When I was looking at PZ Myers' latest cutesy desecration, I found this <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/sunday_sacrilege_a_funeral_for.php#comment-2820387" rel="nofollow">bit from an anonymous commenter</a>: "Religion is absurd on its face and needs no further discussion, beyond perhaps insisting that its practitioners first prove the existence of a supernatural realm." Yeah, I can just see Pascal Boyer or Scott Atran agreeing to <i>that</i>. One might make the case (and perhaps Shook does elsewhere) that such a "know-nothing" attitude was abetted by the problems I mentioned above. <br /><br />Also, Myers himself comes off as a bit of a know-nothing. In his bit about why he was giving a Bible and a Qu'ran a burial, he kept writing as if those books were one-dimensionally negative, even comparing them to <i>The Protocols of the Elders of Zion</i>. Indeed, if he had, say, been burying certain specific books of the Bible, especially the <i>Song of Solomon</i> or <i>Ecclesiastes</i>, his comments about "replacing the follies of dead men with the wisdom of worms" would look more obviously ignorant and arrogant.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-35614842243102904472010-09-28T10:22:12.938+10:002010-09-28T10:22:12.938+10:00This is an excellent, well-reasoned, balanced post...This is an excellent, well-reasoned, balanced post that presents some good points. (In other words, a typical Blackford post.) There is a tension between being a think tank and being an advocacy organization. We at CFI recognize this. But recognizing this tension is easier than resolving it a manner that will preclude all potential complications. If we place too many restrictions on the scholars/writers who work for us, we will not have any, or at least not any with the skills we require. Re use of identifying titles in a blog such as Huffpo, no policy has been developed to date, perhaps because it’s rare to obtain such prominent placement for an article by one of our staff. But we will be reviewing this matter.Ronald A. Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03560211320277851181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87043812889955660212010-09-28T00:26:34.009+10:002010-09-28T00:26:34.009+10:00Certain recent criticisms of the Gnu Atheists from...Certain recent criticisms of the Gnu Atheists from fellow rationalists seem to be notably short on specifics on who is allegedly being stupid or over-the-top or whatever, and in what way -- which makes such criticisms inflammatory but useless. I speak as one who prefers nuanced argument, and an environment a little calmer than say, what sometimes happens at Pharyngula. So I would likely be on-side with something that makes a case for "That was wrong, here is why, here's a better way to say that" -- but I can't do that if it's always couched in terms of some generic Naughty Children who remain unidentified.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73784146916361390362010-09-27T18:52:32.135+10:002010-09-27T18:52:32.135+10:00Maybe he'll turn up and tell us who he had in ...Maybe he'll turn up and tell us who he had in mind, but I bet most people would take him as referring to some or all of the "New Atheists", especially when he uses such expressions as "strident atheism".<br /><br />Still, that's very interesting information.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-20993675616229285512010-09-27T18:00:25.662+10:002010-09-27T18:00:25.662+10:00Although it doesn't change the tone of Shook&#...Although it doesn't change the tone of Shook's latest article, you may be interested in this quote from <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/an_atheists_guide_to_what_you_need_to_know_about_theology/" rel="nofollow">a previous article</a> written in June:<br /><br />"These arguments get complicated but they can be refuted, so learn some theology, and some corresponding atheology, for effective rational argument why one should be skeptical about God. Books by Dawkins and Dennett, for example, offer some atheology — reasons why arguments for God are failures."<br /><br />This suggests his recent article isn't directed at the major New Atheist authors. Of course, it still doesn't clarify who he is actually criticizing.Friend of Icelosnoreply@blogger.com