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?

[ThatGirlAgain]

...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.

Still concentrating on absolutes I see. Human consciousness is a useful illusion. That is why it exists - those who had it were more likely to survive and pass it on to descendents. What you call epistemic justification is a useful illusion as well. Use it but do not demand it has cosmic significance. The realm of Platonic Ideal Forms is in our heads. They work just fine there. But do not go looking for them anywhere else. It leads to the need for profligate and problematic assumptions. And that is not logical.

But as I recall we are not debating this anymore. Just a one time response to a one time (right?) reference to me.

[Filthy Tugboat]

...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.

Perhaps you could present an example of this occurring, especially the "attacking of 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."

I think that's kind of what I asked in my first post on this thread.

...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.

After reading her response, it became immediately clear that she didn't say that they were, she merely commented on the potentiality that they are. She also disagrees with you on what makes something epistemically justifiable. All of this however is besides the point, how is that in any way a violation of the principle of charity? She did evaluate your argument as it was intended did she not? You may not like her response but she did not devalue your argument and argue against an unreasonable or weak form of your 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.

Ok, read through This and tell me how your example applies to this topic. I don't see it, are you complaining that her counter-argument is invalid or are you suggesting it is a violation of the principle of charity?

[EduChris]

...Perhaps you could present an example of this occurring, especially the "attacking of the messenger"...

I'm not allowed to mention names; that would be deemed uncivil, apparently.

...how is that in any way a violation of the principle of charity? She did evaluate your argument as it was intended did she not? You may not like her response but she did not devalue your argument and argue against an unreasonable or weak form of your argument...

TGA is not one of the offenders of the principle of charity, and in fact I have awarded her MPG points for her sincere efforts. In this particular case, however, you asked for a strong argument which has not been refuted, and I provided an example of such. I have not provided a link to any "attack the messenger" post or to any specific violation of the principle of charity because, apparently, it would be deemed uncivil of me to do so.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

...
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 the only "educated" Christians those who share EduChris's beliefs?

I think this is important to point out due to the implication that differences here would indicate one isn't "educated".

Who is so "educated" that they can say others ain't?

If a Christian "stumbles upon" a belief shared by EduChris, are they then "educated"? If they happen to disagree, are they then not "educated"?

EduChris seems to think his "Volitional Ultimate Reality" argument is a "winner", and God love 'im for it. Does this then mean that those self-professed Christians who happen to disagree about it being such a "killer argument" are no longer "educated"?

It is my contention this use of the term "educated" is, to use OP's words, an "under the mod-er-radar" slam against those who don't hold EduChris' high opinion of his arguments, and points to the rather commonly held notion of "compartmentalizing" that goes on in much of theistic thought or belief.

[JoeyKnothead]

...Perhaps you could present an example of this occurring, especially the "attacking of the messenger"...

I'm not allowed to mention names; that would be deemed uncivil, apparently.

Since some of what is mentioned in this OP was presented directly to me in another thread, I certainly would not consider it uncivil if EduChris were to offer me up as an example.

I would consider it to be no more offensive than a "teaching moment", and would appreciate the chance to learn the error of my real or perceived ways.

I'm always willing to learn, even if learning is not my strongest suit.

[Filthy Tugboat]

...Perhaps you could present an example of this occurring, especially the "attacking of the messenger"...

I'm not allowed to mention names; that would be deemed uncivil, apparently.

Well without examples I can't really say that what you're saying occurs in any meaningful manner. I am excluding people who have just joined or people who joined the website for a brief period of time. There are millions of idiots out there that will join, be idiots or trolls and then leave, they are of no import and hold no value to a discussion such as this. I do not see regular attendants of these forums "attack" people that decline supporting arguments that are presented in a new thread by an atheist. So until I do see this, I guess we will have to remain at odds on this issue.

...how is that in any way a violation of the principle of charity? She did evaluate your argument as it was intended did she not? You may not like her response but she did not devalue your argument and argue against an unreasonable or weak form of your argument...

TGA is not one of the offenders of the principle of charity, and in fact I have awarded her MPG points for her sincere efforts.

Glad to hear it, she definitely deserves it.

In this particular case, however, you asked for a strong argument which has not been refuted, and I provided an example of such.

I did not ask for a "strong argument" that has not been refuted, I asked for any argument that has not been responded to. This entire thread is about either the violation of the principle of charity or the lack of response to "strong argument's" v. the abundance of responses to "weak argument's". I am not sure if you meant to put both of those issues forward or just the one but they certainly both came out. So, if you would like to continue to make a case for; "a large portion of "anti-Christian's" violate the principal of charity," and/or "a large portion of "anti-Christian's" ignore "strong Christian arguments" in favor of "weak Christian arguments"," then you need to provide examples of these things occurring.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...Perhaps you could present an example of this occurring, especially the "attacking of the messenger"...

I'm not allowed to mention names; that would be deemed uncivil, apparently.

...how is that in any way a violation of the principle of charity? She did evaluate your argument as it was intended did she not? You may not like her response but she did not devalue your argument and argue against an unreasonable or weak form of your argument...

TGA is not one of the offenders of the principle of charity, and in fact I have awarded her MPG points for her sincere efforts. In this particular case, however, you asked for a strong argument which has not been refuted, and I provided an example of such. I have not provided a link to any "attack the messenger" post or to any specific violation of the principle of charity because, apparently, it would be deemed uncivil of me to do so.

For the record: I happen to agree with EduChris that there is a frequent problem around here with what I would call 'missing the point', seemingly by intent. And I did not think EduChris was calling me a charity principle violator. We disagree in very fundamental ways but I believe I have always tried to address his main points as he has mine. Where it may have sometimes seemed I was missing the mark, it was due to not understanding what he was saying and not any debating trickery.

[Slopeshoulder]

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 agree that weak arguments are common; I attack them too. But regarding strong arguments, consider your own argument:

Abstract: Nowadays must then include the ancient traditions of buddhism, hinduism, daosim, christian and jewish mysticism, sufism, etc. That makes no sense. Or could it be that you are committed to a weak concretizations of god (e.g. literalized myth, symbols, and poetry) so as best to attack it? That sort of creates a lose-lose situation.

Absurd: how so??

Calling it a day: who dat??

Seems like the principle of charity is being sacrficed on the straw man alter...

[EduChris]

...Are the only "educated" Christians those who share EduChris's beliefs?...

Since Joey has graciously given permission for me to point out (at least some of) his offenses, the above quote from him is a classic case of "attacking the messenger" (by name).

Nowhere have I claimed that Christians are only "educated" if they share my beliefs. Instead, I have consistently talked about a "consensus of scholarly Christian opinion," and at times I have referenced scholarly books.

Slopeshoulder will certainly vouch for the fact that much of the American 19th century fundamentalist beliefs that are so often bandied about on this forum are considered, by a broad consensus of contemporary Christian scholarship, to be entirely off the mark and an embarrassment to the global Church.

An uneducated Christian (or an uneducated anti-Christian) is one who does not know that (or perhaps better, know why) the consensus of contemporary Christian scholarship falls squarely against much of 19th century American fundamentalist doctrine.

[Janx]

...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.

Indeed. Slopeshoulder has kindly given me reading material.

I don't remember the last time I've attacked a good argument on this forum for the simple reason that they are rarely given.

...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.[/quote]

My claim is anecdotal and based on personal experience. Yet it does not stem from fundamentalist sources. The majority of Christians I've encountered lack a good argument for their faith.

Not that I fault them. Faith in the divine has never required justification among believers.

...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.[/quote]

Buried on page 9 of a Poll thread...I have no idea how I missed this pinnacle of apologetic thought. I'll see if I can get to it good sir.

Cheers until then.