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?

[David 2.0]

I think the principle of charity is a useful tool for both sides...
(Not projecting just saying.)

For me its not about believer or non-believer, good advice is good advice..

Sometimes I am frustrated by the (perceived) lack of it here....

I spend much time reading or commenting on threads that really never get off the ground....

You know cause Gods a slaver, or christians hate women....

As fascinating as an endless chorus of God is evil may be for some, it doesn't make for very interesting debate for me...

My feeling is I can improve...

[EduChris]

...If there is a consensus among Christian scholars I really wish they'd send out a memo...

If you want to know the general contours of scholarly Christian consensus, you will need to read books written by actual Christian scholars (rather than just accept what the average person-on-the-street says). If you want help with this, I'm sure Slopeshoulder would be happy to give you some names and publishers. If you aren't interested in reading scholarly books, then you have no business attacking the messengers here who have read such books and who utilize the arguments of such books on this forum.

...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...

Are we here to learn? Or are we here just to take candy from babies? And even given your premise, why so much "attacking the messenger" here?

And what do you mean by "majority of Christians"? I suspect you are talking about the majority of fundamentalist Christians--who are not the majority of global Christianity.

...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...

I have shown that Volitional Ultimate Reality is the only epistemically justified explanation for our selves and our universe. Yes, that is abstract, but it constitutes the common core of theistic belief for all of today's major world theisms. It is now up to the non-theists to either refute VUR as an epistemically justified explanation, or else accept it for the sake of argument and then see where it leads.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment


There have been a number of reports of posts in this thead. Here are a couple of comments to the OP and in response to the reports.

At this point, it is certainly not part of the rules that members must follow the Principle of Charity as outlined by EduChris in the OP. Members can certainly follow it on their own if they wish. I would say it is also OK to bring it up as part of a discussion. However, it would not be fair to berate others for not following it.

Part of debate is pointing out fallacies in the arguments of others. To the extent that another member attacks a weaker argument than was actually offered, it could be pointed out they are committing a straw man argument.

On the other hand, I am not sure blanket condemnations of a large group of forum members for habitually committing a certain type of fallacy is very helpful. If EduChris wants to make that case, I would say he should be careful to maintain civility and avoid inflammatory rhetoric. He should also avoid discussion of the moderation.


Finally, while we all tend to want to characterize ourselves as winning a debate, one cannot expect other members to accept our view of a debate or a critique of the various arguments. So, for example, when EduChris claims his argument regarding the VUR is unrefuted, and suggests non-theists must "refute VUR as an epistemically justified explanation, or else accept it for the sake of argument and then see where it leads," he must be aware he has no mechanism to enforce this suggestion and that the moderators are not going to step in to enforce this either. That is a matter for debate.



As this thread proceeds, I would simply ask everyone to maintain civility and avoiding making personal comments or inflammatory statements.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[McCulloch]

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?

It is probably not reasonable to expect all debaters to adhere to debating best practices. However, I think that it might be better if the questions were posed in a slightly less biased way. Yes, many anti-theists attack the weaker theist positions, but then again so do some of the theists. Furthermore, it is not because attacking the weaker positions are more fun, but that the most dangerous theist positions are the ones held by the less educated more literal minded fundamentalists. Humanists and liberal Christians may not agree on metaphysics, but we do agree on many issues which have an impact on the way society works. There is less benefit for me in debating one than the other.

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?

I find little value in stopping less effective practices of my debating opponents. I will coach my allies to behave better. But when those on the other side do something stupid, who am I to take offense?

[Angel]

...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.

Out of all of my arguments, you chose to focus on the weakest point and attack me there, and I might add, with a point that did not even help the Christian case.
So technically, you did NOT debate in the way that you so boldly explain in your OP which is what my responses here is about. I understand that you just wanted to pick-and-choose what to respond to, the weakest part of my argument, and then run off, but that still constitutes you doing CONTRARY to what you preach in the OP.

...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.

Your concern and response was on a single matter which was one of the weak points in my argument. So by that alone you're also guilty of focusing only on the weakest parts of a person's argument.

You also say that you don't have to make all of your points in one post which implies you were going to respond later on to address the stronger points. The 1st sentence in this response of yours contradict that when you say, "my concern was focused on one 'single' matter." In fact, you did not mention any other points until AFTER I mentioned that you needed to and why. In other words, you would not have dealt with the stronger parts of my argument or cast it in the stronger light, as you say in the OP, until after I brought it to your attention and WHY.

...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.

Violating the principle in your OP just one time would constitute a violation. Who knows, perhaps this is a pattern for you, as well. Most of what you've tried to explain here for your actions could be used by non-theists, as well. Maybe you should've presented evidence in your OP of such actions being done by non-theists just so we'll know you're not exagerrating.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

However, on this forum, many if not most of the vocal anti-Christians repeatedly violate this principle.

I find that many people are at fault for these and that those people are of a very diverse background.

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.

Hang on, this is no longer about the Principle of charity, there's a difference between viewing a presented argument in it's strongest possible light opposed to a weaker or less reasonable perspective and responding to two different arguments. Are you advocating that arguments that are considered weak should be ignored? Is this based on our own opinions or do you want to make a list that details what arguments should be ignored?

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).

Although I certainly see many Ad-hom's, I see far more coming from Christians than non-Christians, hell, the OP of this thread appears to largely be based on an Ad-hom. Now how many from which group is presenting ad-hom's is irrelevant, the fact is, they are presented on all sides but not by all individuals. Drawing attention to it and then accusing "anti-Christian's" of it is not overly productive. I also rarely see this behavior from posters that have maintained their presence on this forum for a long time.

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

Certainly not, there are too many people who are ready to commit ad-hom fallacies on the internet and many of them sign up here. Hell, a lot of people use ad-hom's as a debating strategy from what I've seen.

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

Perhaps we're reading different source material, I do not see it from the more constant posters on this website, if you are directing this at the flow of people that come and go very quickly I don't think this thread has any productive goal in mind.

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

Oh, we're back on the anti-Christian band-wagon then? What stronger positions? I haven't seen any argument go unanswered on this website, perhaps you could link me to one?

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

You might need to provide examples of ignored arguments or arguments that have been viewed in a less reasonable light than they could have been viewed?

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

Are you talking about two different arguments or arguments that are viewed and framed from a less than reasonable angle?

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?

I'm not entirely sure you're talking about the principle of charity. In light of this, this whole OP could be making little to no sense. Some examples might help because even if you are referring to the principle of charity, without examples of the principle being violated, this could be a large pile of bs.

[EduChris]

...it is not because attacking the weaker positions are more fun, but that the most dangerous theist positions are the ones held by the less educated...

That is a good point. However, this doesn't explain why there is such a high degree of "attacking the messenger" when it is pointed out that the non-theist has refuted a weaker argument rather than a stronger argument.

...I will coach my allies to behave better...

Please do. If you can succeed in this endeavor, it will raise the overall level of debate here.

[nursebenjamin]

Quick question-Can anyone give me a few examples of a "strong" argument for the existence of the Christian God, or the existence of any god(s)?

[EduChris]

...Are you advocating that arguments that are considered weak should be ignored?...

No. I am suggesting that when an anti-Christian starts a new thread which assumes that Christians generally defend some absurd argument, and when a Christian responds by saying that the absurd argument presented in the OP is not in fact defended by a consensus of Christian scholarship, then the anti-Christian should do something more than simply attack the messenger. One appropriate response might be, "Okay, if that's not an argument defended by educated Christians, then please provide an example of a stronger argument which is defended by educated Christians."

...Are you advocating that arguments that are considered weak should be ignored?...I haven't seen any argument go unanswered on this website, perhaps you could link me to one?...

See here. TGA "refuted" my argument by saying that our thoughts, our consciousness, our reason, and our volition are merely illusions--essentially eliminating any possibility of ever finding epistemic justification for any argument. If there is some valid refutation of my argument, it will need to be something which doesn't cut off the face to spite the nose.

[JoeyKnothead]

Quick question-Can anyone give me a few examples of a "strong" argument for the existence of the Christian God, or the existence of any god(s)?

Exactly.

Who determines what constitutes a "strong" argument?

Who determines what constitutes a "weak" argument?

How can we ever know which is which unless we go to debating all these arguments?

Personally, I've yet to find a "strong" argument for the existence of a god. "Volitional Ultimate Reality" included.