“The gentleman in the red shirt” shows us a simple lesson in why you should think through what your argument entails before you state it on national television and in front of a live audience.
Too often we get tied up in knots trying to answer all the objections hurled at us, especially the specious ones. The tactic of turning the argument back on your opponent, holding them to the very standard they have laid down, is very simple and very powerful.
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
:rotfl:
:mock: Dipak Patel.
The timing and that Deepak actually got it are what make this work.
Most who utter bad arguments do so because they cannot reason so are unlikely to realise their mistakes even when they are clearly exposed.
Cheap tactic. These sorts of arguments – and they are common – all only seem to work because people are incapable of distinguishing between “beliefs about the world” and “beliefs about beliefs.” To put it another way, a person makes a claim about metaphysics, and the cheap tactic user tries to apply this claim to epistemology. Watch out for this cheap shot – it seems powerful until you realise what is going on…
There’s no equivocation here.
No, Max….this is *not* a cheap shot. It forces Chopra et al. to think through what they are saying. If D.C. had said “Many beliefs…” instead of “All beliefs…” then Mr. Red Shirt’s comment would have had no purchase. (Even better, perhaps D.C. should have provided some criteria by which to distinguish beliefs masking insecurity from those that don’t. Perhaps one of that set of criteria could be your proposed ‘beliefs about beliefs’ vice ‘beliefs about the world.) Not to mention the dubious distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. The two intertwine in all kinds of ways!
DC should have confined his assertion to “all certain beliefs in the supernatural”.
But wouldn’t a belief about “all certain beliefs in the supernatural” be indirectly a certain belief in the supernatural (or the absence thereof)?
Anyone got a link to the original video? I’d be curious to know what happened after this.
I Guess Some Belief Systems are More Equal than Others…
The look on Mr. Chopra’s face is priceless. I’m not sure he knew what had just happened. (H/T: MandM)…
Yep – as i thought a hard distinction for people to grasp. It is statements about the world vs. statements about other statements, or sets of objects and sets of sets. A lot of pseudo-paradoxes and bad (usually sceptical) reasoning arises from the inability of people to understand such distinctions. Interesting. I am not saying Deepak is right – although actually watching this in context might make that clearer to you – but he commits no fallacy here.
I await Matt’s response with baited breath.
You’re right Max, that if one makes a statement of beliefs about only certain beliefs, then there’s no self contradiction, just an assertion that has as much credibility as an assertion about “all beliefs I don’t happen to like”.
It is like when someone says you should be skeptical of all claims strangers make to you – and then the person replies ”
so I should be skeptical about that claim?” Its a good joke – but bad philosophy – but amazingly something I hear far too often.
But if a stranger made that claim to me, then joking aside, I should be skeptical of it. So I don’t think that’s a very good example for your argument.
It seems to me as though someone is creating a somewhat arbitrary double standard to exempt their own belief system from the same critique that they apply to that of others. Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why certain beliefs would be exempt, it’s bad philosophy (but amazingly something I hear far too often)
To take your example, a reasonable counter argument might be “In cases where the stranger has nothing to benefit from the claim they’re making, then skepticism is not necessary”
Now, what rationale might you have for the double standard you’re proposing?
Sets of objects. Sets of sets. That’s all I gotta say on the matter.
apparently. But not in a good way.
I concur.
I would love to have heard their response. Is this available?
Incidentally I find it baffling that Max doesn’t see the self-defeating position he finds himself in.
OK – I will take the bait. Why, pray tell, am I in a self defeating position?
Hi, its really nice post and having great information. I will defiantly get back on it.