Principle of Charity

[EduChris]

The 'principle of charity' states that interpreters should seek to maximize the rationality of others' arguments and claims by rendering them in the strongest way reasonable...it's generally a good idea to cast the arguments of one's opponents in the strongest possible light, because if one can defeat the strong version of their argument, then one can certainly defeat the weaker version (The Philosopher's Toolkit, pp. 112-114).

However, on this forum, many if not most of the vocal anti-Christians repeatedly violate this principle. Rather than attacking the Christian's strongest arguments, they attack the weakest arguments--arguments which are rejected by a consensus of degreed Christian scholars and either debunked or ignored at the majority of Christian graduate schools and seminaries.

Moreover, when educated Christians point out that the anti-Christian has committed a violation of the logical principle of charity, the offender then typically responds by attacking the messenger (ever-so-slightly under the mod-er-radar).

Questions for debate:

1) Is it reasonable to expect debaters on this forum to abide by the logical principle of charity? Why is this principle of logic so routinely violated here on this forum? Do these anti-Christians fear that they cannot defeat the stronger positions? Do they fear they will be unable to understand these positions well enough to attack them? Is it just too fun to pick on the weakest arguments? Or what?

2) Is it reasonable to respond with scorn and derision when one has been caught in the act of violating the logical principle of charity? If not, what can be done to stop such practice?

[AquinasD]

They can only seem sharp by pointing out things which are dull.

[Angel]

I'd agree with EduChris charge against many non-theist until I realized he's just as guilty..

In an OP being asked to explain how God killing 'innocent' people squared with biblical morals, you chose to attack only one part of my argument which did not even help your case. I had to bring it to your attention what you were doing before you decided to put more effort into justifying your God instead of just trying to make America look just as bad as him.

Please refer to the following posts between you and I...

...Does America execute BABIES or PURPOSELY execute the innocent (KNOWING that they are innocent) with the guilty?...

Yes, ever since 1973.

So if you agree that America (since 1973) and God has executed the innocent, how does this help the case for God?

I know at least in the US, there's a debate as far as when life becomes a person or sentient so there's some unknowns here. If people were certain that it was a 'person' they were killing in the womb at the early stages of development then I'm sure some abortion advocates would reverse their position. Whereas, in God's decisions, that answer was known since he was not only ordering for pregnant women to be killed but also babies already born.

I'd be happy if you can answer for the greater scheme of the OP rather than nitpicking on one point which really didn't help the Christian case.

Your abortion comment to me was in response to a comment I made to someone else so I'll provide the full context. This is also all in the context of the OP which was about God not following his own morals:

From Pg. 3, post #28

You are taking my point the wrong way. I'm not claiming if the morals of the Bible are true or not. I'm judging Bible followers using THEIR OWN moral standards and not some outside standard. Those standards still exist to those people and to Israel back then even if they weren't objective - they're just non-objective standards that people and a society followed.

Israel was a theocracy, and levitical law was legislated in order to govern a country not a church. America executes people all of the time, and god didn't tell us to do it. btw. you are refering to Judaism, not Christianity.

Whether the wrong occurred in the NT era or in the OT era, it's still a WRONG. So examining God's past is just as relevant as his modern-day actions, if we are talking about how he and his followers have acted in the context of their moral standards.

You bring up executions in America. Does America execute BABIES or PURPOSELY execute the innocent (KNOWING that they are innocent) with the guilty?

[EduChris]

...you chose to attack only one part of my argument which did not even help your case...

I hadn't even wanted to state a case at that point; I simply wanted to mention that we in the USA do routinely kill innocent babies. We are not required to include every possible point in any single post.

...I had to bring it to your attention what you were doing before you decided to put more effort into justifying your God...

I didn't shirk my duty. I made numerous substantive posts (see below) and the one post you objected to won me some MPG points donated by a non-believer. So, your claim that I have commited the fallacy of failing to adhere to the logical principle of charity on your thread seems entirely frivolous.

Post 33 - Post 38 - Post 43 - Post 46 - Post 49 - Post 51 - Post 59 - Post 61 - Post 71 - Post 75 -
Post 77

[Angel]

...you chose to attack only one part of my argument which did not even help your case...

I hadn't even wanted to state a case at that point; I simply wanted to mention that we in the USA do routinely kill innocent babies. We are not required to include every possible point in any single post.

At that point? I suppose non -theists were also doing the same just as you for those issues you debate with them.

...I had to bring it to your attention what you were doing before you decided to put more effort into justifying your God...

I didn't shirk my duty. I made numerous substantive posts (see below) and the one post you objected to won me some MPG points donated by a non-believer. So, your claim that I have commited the fallacy of failing to adhere to the logical principle of charity on your thread seems entirely frivolous.

Post 33 - Post 38 - Post 43 - Post 46 - Post 49 - Post 51 - Post 59 - Post 61 - Post 71 - Post 75 -
Post 77

Yes, AFTER I brought it up to your attention, then and only then did you start putting up some more explanations. Some of those explanations, I disagreed with but that's not the point here. The point is you picking what you perceived as a weak point in my argument and to ONLY challenge that rather than to take on the whole context of the argument. The people can look at the chronology of the posts and how ONLY AFTEr I mentioned what you did then you tried to address the full argument.

Since you want to accuse non-theists of such then I believe bringing to the table what you've done is fair game. And also, someone donating tokens does not win your argument or change these facts.

[Slopeshoulder]

I don't think it corrolates with nontheism. I've been hitting the report button so often against a certain kind of christian that I'm going to need a new mouse soon! I routinely have my best arguments distorted, dismissed, misread and misrepresented by these theists. Plus my faith is denied and I'm called satanic in various ways. Nice, huh? It's disheartening and really shocking.
And yes, of course certain atheists do it as well. It's kind fo a game.
And for a few theists I know, I'm currently on probation (for somethin' or other), and you educhris are one of our more pugilistic debators.
So I'm confused. This thread seems rather inflammatory from the get go. And not charitable in principal or practice.
So there, matey.

[Janx]

The 'principle of charity' states that interpreters should seek to maximize the rationality of others' arguments and claims by rendering them in the strongest way reasonable...it's generally a good idea to cast the arguments of one's opponents in the strongest possible light, because if one can defeat the strong version of their argument, then one can certainly defeat the weaker version (The Philosopher's Toolkit, pp. 112-114).

However, on this forum, many if not most of the vocal anti-Christians repeatedly violate this principle. Rather than attacking the Christian's strongest arguments, they attack the weakest arguments--arguments which are rejected by a consensus of degreed Christian scholars and either debunked or ignored at the majority of Christian graduate schools and seminaries.

Moreover, when educated Christians point out that the anti-Christian has committed a violation of the logical principle of charity, the offender then typically responds by attacking the messenger (ever-so-slightly under the mod-er-radar).

Questions for debate:

1) Is it reasonable to expect debaters on this forum to abide by the logical principle of charity? Why is this principle of logic so routinely violated here on this forum? Do these anti-Christians fear that they cannot defeat the stronger positions? Do they fear they will be unable to understand these positions well enough to attack them? Is it just too fun to pick on the weakest arguments? Or what?

2) Is it reasonable to respond with scorn and derision when one has been caught in the act of violating the logical principle of charity? If not, what can be done to stop such practice?

Hi EduChris,

If there is a consensus among Christian scholars I really wish they'd send out a memo. Perhaps the reason you find non-theists attacking weak arguments time and again is because these are the arguments used by majority of Christians to justify their faith.

I don't bother attacking strong arguments for God because what passes for a strong arguments now days is defining God to the absurd or abstract and calling it a day.


Cheers

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The 'principle of charity' states that interpreters should seek to maximize the rationality of others' arguments and claims by rendering them in the strongest way reasonable...it's generally a good idea to cast the arguments of one's opponents in the strongest possible light, because if one can defeat the strong version of their argument, then one can certainly defeat the weaker version (The Philosopher's Toolkit, pp. 112-114).

Charity's for the Sally and other like-minded organizations. I address arguments as they are presented, expecting the claimant to offer clarifications when necessary. I don't dare try to guess what goes on in the minds of theists.

However, on this forum, many if not most of the vocal anti-Christians repeatedly violate this principle. Rather than attacking the Christian's strongest arguments, they attack the weakest arguments--arguments which are rejected by a consensus of degreed Christian scholars and either debunked or ignored at the majority of Christian graduate schools and seminaries.

It can't possibly be the fault of those Christians who present "weak" arguments to begin with, can it?

Moreover, when educated Christians...

Is an "educated" Christian one who believes as EduChris does?

I propose that maybe "educated" Christians need to help out their "non-educated" Christian brethren, rather than complain about how folks respond to these "non-educated" claims.

Moreover, when educated Christians point out that the anti-Christian has committed a violation of the logical principle of charity, the offender then typically responds by attacking the messenger (ever-so-slightly under the mod-er-radar).

I propose that instead of complaining about "ever-so-slightly under the mod-er-rader" posts, if one'd report the offending post, then it would suddenly show up on that "mod-er-radar".

I'll say it again, pretty much just the same as I said it the first time EduChris complained to me personally about this...

I will challenge each and every claim I seek to challenge, regardless of the discomfort it may bring the claimant, until such time I'm prevented from doing so.

1) Is it reasonable to expect debaters on this forum to abide by the logical principle of charity?

No. If one doesn't wish their claims or statements to be challenged, they ought'n be makin' 'em.

I dropped out of school in the eighth grade, due to my fascination with eating. I do not have the "educated" angle of so many of my debating peers. Therefore, I debate what is written, expecting the claimant to offer clarifications. I don't dare try to guess what goes on in the minds of Christians.

Why is this principle of logic so routinely violated here on this forum?

Some ain't "educated"?

Do these anti-Christians fear that they cannot defeat the stronger positions?

Is a "stronger" position only what EduChris deems it to be?

How can we tell if an argument is "strong" unless we challenge it?

Do they fear they will be unable to understand these positions well enough to attack them?

I fear no Christian argument, but find typically a bunch of word play and not much substance - my opinion, of course.

Is it just too fun to pick on the weakest arguments?

How can we know an argument is "weakest" unless we challenge it?

Or what?

Or, it could be that some folks have such a high notion of themselves and their "strong, educated" arguments that they can't see just how "weak" and "uneducated" those arguments actually are.

2) Is it reasonable to respond with scorn and derision when one has been caught in the act of violating the logical principle of charity?

To each his own.

If not, what can be done to stop such practice?

Report offending posts to the moderators?

Realize that maybe one ain't as "educated" as they think they are?

[JoeyKnothead]

They can only seem sharp by pointing out things which are dull.

I propose that when given "dull" claims of bodies hoppin' up from a three day dead, any response is apt to be considered "sharp".

[EduChris]

...The point is you picking what you perceived as a weak point in my argument...

I saw an assumption on your part that was egregiously contrary-to-fact. I pointed out the obvious error, and made no further comment on, or assessment of, your overall argument.

...and to ONLY challenge that rather than to take on the whole context of the argument...

My concern was focused on one single matter (your egregiously contrary-to-fact assumption). No poster is required to address all points in any one post.

...you tried to address the full argument...

And that makes the difference: when challenged by you, I did present numerous substantive points. I did not shirk my duty, nor did I sink to the level of attacking the messenger.

It is the continual and repeated shirking of duty, along with the continual and repeated "attack the messenger" patterns that I object to. I would never attempt to accuse someone of violating the principle of charity on the basis of a single post which was obviously directed to one single, specific matter.