Evaluate this statement for logic

[themusicteacher]

I will preface this by saying that I've read most of this guys blog and he makes many, many good points. He says he is all about rationality, scientific thinking and skepticism and there is evidence all over his blog that points to just that. I fact, I've had a few e-mail conversations with him and he is as candid in those as he is in his blog. He is very well-read and only talks about things he has studied or in areas of obvious breaches of logic and pseudoscience.

I'm going to post a link and I want you to read the entire entry before commenting on the last part of the quote at the end which reads:

* If you think God is a myth, you're an atheist.
* If you think God might exist, but that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating public opinion, you can win others to atheism, you're an unethical sleazeball, but you're not a magician.
* But if you think that by twisting the evidence, getting key arguments excluded and making specious arguments, you can make God not exist, you believe in magic.

I'm just not real sure what he's getting at here. He makes some very good points above:

* If you think OJ was innocent, you're just gullible, or grossly uninformed.
* If you think he was guilty but that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating the jury, you can get him off, you're an unethical sleazeball, but you're not a magician.
* But if you think that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded and making specious arguments, you can make him innocent, you believe in magic.

The rhetoric of the legal system provides abundant evidence that there are lawyers and clients in the first group, many in the second group, and a huge number in the third group. And they're not alone. Evidence of this sort of magical thinking is all around us.

* If you think global warming or energy shortages are myths, you're just gullible, or grossly uninformed.
* If you think global warming or energy shortages are real, but that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating public opinion, you can stonewall enough for the problem not to impact your life, you're an unethical sleazeball, but you're not a magician.
* But if you think that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded and making specious arguments, you can make global warming or energy shortages go away, you believe in magic.

It seems that he's making some sort of leap here but I will say that if you search around his blog he quite eloquently lays out why science and religion need not be in conflict and that they are, in fact, not in conflict. He does come out as religious but is not a Bible literalist.

Thoughts?

 

[HansMustermann]

My thoughts? "Who cares?" just about sums it up.

 

[Nonpareil]

Everything that he says is true, with the possible exception of his definition of atheism. However, the jury is still out as to whether or not there are any "key pieces of evidence" to exclude when it comes to theism.

EDIT: Everything in that triplet, I mean. I only skimmed his blog post.

 

[Garrette]

I read the entire entry, but my response to your quoted portion remains the same: It's a false trichotomy. There are other options, probably more common and certainly more valid.

Regarding the rest of his blog entry, it is interesting, but he makes several errors. The one that jumped out at me was his assumption of a literal meaning to comments obviously meant metaphorically, specifically when atheist say of someone recently deceased that "they live on in our memories." We know he's dead; we're using the shortcuts of language.

On the other hand, I tend toward his stance when he talks about the problem that evil presents for atheists as opposed to theists and his apparent agreement with D'Sousa. But he is one-sided in his agreement and his condemnation of atheists who seek purpose or meaning or morality. If there is no purpose and if there is no reason to assume one position or behavior or belief is superior to another, then there is absolutely nothing inferior about assuming one behavior is superior.

All in all, it's good thinking stopped short.

 

[drkitten]

I will preface this by saying that I've read most of this guys blog and he makes many, many good points. He says he is all about rationality, scientific thinking and skepticism and there is evidence all over his blog that points to just that. I fact, I've had a few e-mail conversations with him and he is as candid in those as he is in his blog. He is very well-read and only talks about things he has studied or in areas of obvious breaches of logic and pseudoscience.

[snip]

It seems that he's making some sort of leap here but I will say that if you search around his blog he quite eloquently lays out why science and religion need not be in conflict and that they are, in fact, not in conflict. He does come out as religious but is not a Bible literalist.

Re-read the section on "consolatory religion." He's basically taking the position that a lot of so-called atheists -- or believers, for that matter -- pick and choose among the attributes of God in order to provide themselves with something that they are comfortable taking the stand they have chosen beforehand.

Which of course is ridiculous; if God exists, He is what He is, regardless of how you choose to think about Him. Which suggests that the "choice" is more of an attempt at self-deception than it is an actual way of addressing the evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thoughts?

If you have hooves and look like a horse, you may well be a horse.
If you have hooves and wings and look like a horse, you may well be a Pegasus.
But if you have hooves, look like a horse, have a horn on your forehead, are coloured pink, and nobody can see you, then you're an invisible pink unicorn.

Anything wrong with the logic of that statement?

Dave

 

[DC]

I think he believes his god is a narcissist.

 

[I Am The Scum]

* If you think God is a myth, you're an atheist.
* If you think God might exist, but that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating public opinion, you can win others to atheism, you're an unethical sleazeball, but you're not a magician.
* But if you think that by twisting the evidence, getting key arguments excluded and making specious arguments, you can make God not exist, you believe in magic.

#1 is false. There are lots of people who believe the Christian god is a myth, yet believe in other gods.
#2 is true.
#3 is true, but I'm honestly curious how prevalent this is. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone state that their beliefs shape reality. If anything, this guy should be critiquing idealism^WP, not making vague allusions to the rare individual to whom idealism might apply.

I'm honestly surprised this guy didn't make any mention of prayer. That is a glaring omission.

 

[dlorde]

Yes, clever stuff, but it smells.

I agree with his description of magical thinking, in general.

His rhetoric is short of understanding, without nuance. He paints everything black or white - no grey, no colour.

I think he's mistaken in criticising the saying "They continue to live in our memories". It's a metaphor - it doesn't imply a supernatural afterlife, just a rich memory. To me it's quite a reasonable sentiment, and if you asked Douglas Hofstadter, I think he'd agree. I suspect he realises this, and is using it to establish a mood or style.

I don't agree when he says:

When the last person who knew you dies and the last record of your existence disappears, it won't matter at all what your life was like. Most atheists, pressed on this point, will say that it "still matters," as if there's some kind of Cosmic Consciousness out there that keeps score even if you're not there to remember it.

Who knows, but if most atheists do say that(do they?), it sounds to me less a belief in a Cosmic Accountant than an admission that their life is/was like matters to them, as in "I'd like to think I will have made a contribution, even if it is forgotten". It sounds like a straw man to put atheism in a negative light.

I don't agree with his implication that a 'true' atheist would be without wishful thinking or sentimentality.

The final quote about atheists, god, and myths - is a transparent misdirection. A major 'Fail' for me, I'm afraid.

I think the article itself, with it's false dichotomies, misdirection, and conceptual legerdemain, is an example of an attempt at 'magical' persuasion.

 

[themusicteacher]

Yes, clever stuff, but it smells.

I agree with his description of magical thinking, in general.

His rhetoric is short of understanding, without nuance. He paints everything black or white - no grey, no colour.

I think he's mistaken in criticising the saying "They continue to live in our memories". It's a metaphor - it doesn't imply a supernatural afterlife, just a rich memory. To me it's quite a reasonable sentiment, and if you asked Douglas Hofstadter, I think he'd agree. I suspect he realises this, and is using it to establish a mood or style.

I don't agree when he says:
Who knows, but if most atheists do say that(do they?), it sounds to me less a belief in a Cosmic Accountant than an admission that their life is/was like matters to them, as in "I'd like to think I will have made a contribution, even if it is forgotten". It sounds like a straw man to put atheism in a negative light.

I don't agree with his implication that a 'true' atheist would be without wishful thinking or sentimentality.

The final quote about atheists, god, and myths - is a transparent misdirection. A major 'Fail' for me, I'm afraid.

I think the article itself, with it's false dichotomies, misdirection, and conceptual legerdemain, is an example of an attempt at 'magical' persuasion.

I think he did make some huge assumptions and glossed over the fact that saying something like "they live on in our memory" is, most often, shortening "they may be unequivocally dead but we will continue to remember them fondly." It seems as though he takes the leap between "true" atheism (by his definition) and nihilism: a true atheist wouldn't care about anything so we need something beyond this life to hold us to ultimate accountability; if an atheist (or anyone) thinks there is no cosmic scorecard, they have no reason to behave.

I do wonder, though, if I'm misinterpreting what he's saying. Could it be that he's just saying: if you have evidence of God but you choose to ignore it and then say, "There is no God" you are engaging in magical thinking? This guy does some pretty impressive take-downs of creationists, truthers, warming deniers and many other woo and/or pseudoscientific purveyors. I'm thinking maybe he just poorly worded what he said in this instance or that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

 

[themusicteacher]

#1 is false. There are lots of people who believe the Christian god is a myth, yet believe in other gods.
#2 is true.
#3 is true, but I'm honestly curious how prevalent this is. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone state that their beliefs shape reality. If anything, this guy should be critiquing idealism^WP, not making vague allusions to the rare individual to whom idealism might apply.

I'm honestly surprised this guy didn't make any mention of prayer. That is a glaring omission.

I think he does take this on at the bottom, speaking about Perception. There are many people who think everything is a matter of perception

 

[themusicteacher]

Re-read the section on "consolatory religion." He's basically taking the position that a lot of so-called atheists -- or believers, for that matter -- pick and choose among the attributes of God in order to provide themselves with something that they are comfortable taking the stand they have chosen beforehand.

Which of course is ridiculous; if God exists, He is what He is, regardless of how you choose to think about Him. Which suggests that the "choice" is more of an attempt at self-deception than it is an actual way of addressing the evidence.

I agree. He even says so much about what you "choose to believe." He upbraids those who think they can just pick and choose which parts of their religion they will take literally and which ones they believe are up for discussion or omission.

 

[dlorde]

I do wonder, though, if I'm misinterpreting what he's saying. Could it be that he's just saying: if you have evidence of God but you choose to ignore it and then say, "There is no God" you are engaging in magical thinking?

If he means that, then why not say it? Like I said, it smells.

This guy does some pretty impressive take-downs of creationists, truthers, warming deniers and many other woo and/or pseudoscientific purveyors. I'm thinking maybe he just poorly worded what he said in this instance or that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

Read it again - is it poorly worded or carefully worded? Do you really think he is he only aiming it at really clever people (who, one would imagine, already know what to think)? Does he have to tell clever people that creationists, truthers, warming deniers, etc., are wrong?

OTOH perhaps he has a very specific agenda, or maybe he wants to be seen as unbiased... it reads to me as either or both of the above.

 

[gnome]

Even the legal example is off target.

Lawyers don't prove someone innocent (usually)... they prove that the defendant is not guilty under the law. In the case of OJ it's possible for him to commit the crime but be not guilty, for example in the case of prosecution malfeasance.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I will preface this by saying that I've read most of this guys blog and he makes many, many good points. He says he is all about rationality, scientific thinking and skepticism and there is evidence all over his blog that points to just that. I fact, I've had a few e-mail conversations with him and he is as candid in those as he is in his blog. He is very well-read and only talks about things he has studied or in areas of obvious breaches of logic and pseudoscience.

I'm going to post a link and I want you to read the entire entry before commenting on the last part of the quote at the end which reads:


I'm just not real sure what he's getting at here. He makes some very good points above:



It seems that he's making some sort of leap here but I will say that if you search around his blog he quite eloquently lays out why science and religion need not be in conflict and that they are, in fact, not in conflict. He does come out as religious but is not a Bible literalist.

Thoughts?

When I read it, I assumed it was written by a college sophomore. I wrote the same type of thing when I was a sophomore. I was somewhat surprised to find out he is a professor. But of geology.

The web page has some well written thoughts, but tends to wander around quite a bit. I seems like some well-thought out thoughts that put together are not well thought out. It is difficult to determine exactly what his point is.

An example is the passages you quoted. I’m not sure what they are supposed to represents. Essentially he seems to be saying that under “secular magic” there can be “evidence manipulation” that results in:

1. Believing something is false that is actually true.
2. Believing something is false but using persuasion to convince people that it is true.
3. Believing something is false but using persuasion to make it true.

Other than #2, I don’t see “evidence manipulation”. And even in that I don’t see anything that could be referred to as “magic”. Scenario #3 is “magic”, and is based on “evidence manipulation”, but I don’t see how it could be “secular”, and I can’t think of an example of this (Perhaps “The Secret” or Richard Bach’s “Illusions”). I don’t think this is where he is going.

He seems to be saying that in the third scenario, with secular magic evidence manipulation, people convince themselves of untruths. He seems to imply that people do this so that they can execute the second scenario with good a conscience. This wanders off a bit into why people may not agree with his beliefs on certain issues rather than a genuine discussion of how magical thought relates to secular thought and manipulation of evidence. The rest of the web page is similar in staring with well written thought on magical think that jump off into opinions. That’s why I assumed it was written by a college student.

Most of it just doesn’t go anywhere, so it is difficult to address it with any serious consideration.

 

[FireGarden]

I'm honestly surprised this guy didn't make any mention of prayer. That is a glaring omission.

He does, kind of: "It includes the notion that individuals can manipulate or bargain with the supernatural world (after all, gods should be able to cut deals with their equals)."

Though the words, "pray" and "prayer" aren't in the article.



Religion is rooted in magic, but he doesn't seem willing to accept that. He wants to concentrate on the pragmatic aspects, such as the call to charity or anything which gets things done rather than wishing it done. These things are certainly part of religion, but not the only part.

"Judaism and Christianity fight a constant rear-guard action against creeping magic." And by this he means the calls they make to actually commit in a meaningful way rather than 'sit on a pew for an hour on a Sunday', or sacrifice animals, etc. I can see those influences. But that doesn't really shore up his opening line:

"If there is one paramount contribution the Judaeo-Christian world-view has made to science it is this: throughout their history both Judaism and Christianity have been implacably opposed to magic."

I don't think so. Perhaps to some of the types of magic he mentions. But if faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, isn't that stating the will can over power reality?

 

[FireGarden]

* If you think God is a myth, you're an atheist.
* If you think God might exist, but that by twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating public opinion, you can win others to atheism, you're an unethical sleazeball, but you're not a magician.
* But if you think that by twisting the evidence, getting key arguments excluded and making specious arguments, you can make God not exist, you believe in magic.

I would say:
* If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist. (Possibly also an agnostic)
* If you use specious arguments and ignore evidence to bring people to the same conclusion you've reached, then I have to ask: Are these the arguments which brought you to your own conclusions? Because, if so, you are either not too bright or are intellectually dishonest; if not, then you don't seem to have much faith in the arguments you keep to yourself -- so I'd say you're not too bright and are intellectually dishonest.
*If you think you are The One, then I hope you have a better script than Keanu Reeves.

 

[Cavemonster]

I am an agnostic atheist, but I can concede that a god might exist in the same broad philosophical way that we might all be brains floating in vats.

I don't consider any arguments I make twisting evidence.
I don't think I choose to ignore any key evidence.
I don't think I make any specious arguments.

But those are all very hard concepts to show objectively, and I guarantee you a theist may well disagree with me on all three.

Manipulation of public opinion is just a loaded way of saying "Changing people's minds" .

So by many definitions, I would fit into his second category, but I don't believe I'm deserving of the dire judgment he attaches to it.

 

[tsig]

I will preface this by saying that I've read most of this guys blog and he makes many, many good points. He says he is all about rationality, scientific thinking and skepticism and there is evidence all over his blog that points to just that. I fact, I've had a few e-mail conversations with him and he is as candid in those as he is in his blog. He is very well-read and only talks about things he has studied or in areas of obvious breaches of logic and pseudoscience.

I'm going to post a link and I want you to read the entire entry before commenting on the last part of the quote at the end which reads:


I'm just not real sure what he's getting at here. He makes some very good points above:



It seems that he's making some sort of leap here but I will say that if you search around his blog he quite eloquently lays out why science and religion need not be in conflict and that they are, in fact, not in conflict. He does come out as religious but is not a Bible literalist.

Thoughts?

He's trying to sell you an ID bracelet.

 

[FireGarden]

I am an agnostic atheist, but I can concede that a god might exist in the same broad philosophical way that we might all be brains floating in vats.

I don't consider any arguments I make twisting evidence.
I don't think I choose to ignore any key evidence.
I don't think I make any specious arguments.

But those are all very hard concepts to show objectively, and I guarantee you a theist may well disagree with me on all three.

Manipulation of public opinion is just a loaded way of saying "Changing people's minds" .

So by many definitions, I would fit into his second category, but I don't believe I'm deserving of the dire judgment he attaches to it.

I think he means: do you intentionally use specious arguments? That's the way I read it and responded.