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?
Principle of Charity
Moderator: Moderators
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #31
Yes, I can vouch for that. EC's right about that.EduChris wrote: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).JoeyKnothead wrote:...Are the only "educated" Christians those who share EduChris's beliefs?...
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.
Given limited time and personal passions, I put more focus on fightin' back them fundamentalists, and EduChris focuses more on stompin' atheists. And while we respectfully come down with somewhat different orientations, we agree on, are familiar with, and understand the historical dynamics he references. Sometimes our opponents miss that because we can both get a little hot under the collar. But hey, God forgives us!!! Ain't that right EduChris?? Oh yeah, who's your daddy?!?
Shameless plug: check out the new thread on Plantinga and theism as a basic belief.
Post #32
Either God forgives us, or else nothing really matters beyond a simple here-and-now hedonism...Slopeshoulder wrote:...God forgives us!!! Ain't that right EduChris??...
Oops, there go them fightin' words again!
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #33
From Post 29:
In light of this, and our past confrontations, I would hope that this post is seen as an honest take on the issue, not meant to inflame, but meant to seriously challenge or address the issues. Any inflammatory language on my part is purely unintentional, more owing to my and EduChris' differences of opinion on the issue.
As to the comment above, I think EduChris misses my point, even if I'm missing his...
When we say such as "educated Christian", who gets to deterimine what constitutes "educated"? If I mention EduChris by name, it's only because EduChris is the only one who presented the statement. It is not an overt attempt to besmirch his character, even if that's the end result in the observers' minds. It is a question that I contend is legitimate, and only inflammatory insofar as it causes discomfort in the claimant.
We must consider that there's debate across the entire spectrum of Christianity, from "agnostic" Christians to "theistic" Christians, from "fundamentalist" Christians, to "liberal" Christians, and so many others I've failed to mention here.
When I see a poster ostensibly declare that theirs is an "educated" position, my immediate response is to wonder who gets to determine what constitutes "educated" when it comes to Christian doctrine and such. As EduChris was the one to broach the subject, I contend it is EduChris we gotta ask to sort this out.
As I asked in my Post 24...
If a Christian "stumbles upon" a belief shared by >insert those who declare their position "educated"<, are they then "educated"? If they happen to disagree, are they then not "educated"? Simple questions meant to determine the "education" of the claimant himself. That such causes discomfort is, I contend, not my fault. That the observer may consider this an "attack" is not my fault. That the observer may consider that the questions are insufficiently answered, or that there's just complaining about how unfair the questions are is not my fault.
Then there's the issue of a "strong" argument versus a "weak" argument, and again, it was EduChris who broached this topic, therefore, I addressed my questions to EduChris.
Does the argument, or the questions related to it, really change if I do like I did above and use >insert so and so<?
I contend that the only inflammation caused by my asking the claimant about their position, is that the claimant has found himself in an otherwise untenable situation, where they can't support their position, and so we have the attendant discomfort such a situation may birth.
If a claimant can't be addressed by name, then what's the point of the quote function?
I never, in my "heart of hearts", sought to "attack the messenger" near as much as I sought to address the messenger, and of course more specifically that messenger's claims. I can't help if using a person's name is going to cause them offense. I contend that it is a legitimate point of debate to address the claimant by name, in order that the observer can better understand the message, as well as to make some consideration regarding the messenger's credibility.
If I, JoeyKnothead, call my position "educated", do I not personally bear some responsibility for the claims I make? Do I, JoeyKnothead, not open myself up to folks wondering about my own credibility?
I did give permission, and I 'preciate that we can have this discussion.EduChris wrote: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).JoeyKnothead wrote: ...Are the only "educated" Christians those who share EduChris's beliefs?...
In light of this, and our past confrontations, I would hope that this post is seen as an honest take on the issue, not meant to inflame, but meant to seriously challenge or address the issues. Any inflammatory language on my part is purely unintentional, more owing to my and EduChris' differences of opinion on the issue.
As to the comment above, I think EduChris misses my point, even if I'm missing his...
When we say such as "educated Christian", who gets to deterimine what constitutes "educated"? If I mention EduChris by name, it's only because EduChris is the only one who presented the statement. It is not an overt attempt to besmirch his character, even if that's the end result in the observers' minds. It is a question that I contend is legitimate, and only inflammatory insofar as it causes discomfort in the claimant.
We must consider that there's debate across the entire spectrum of Christianity, from "agnostic" Christians to "theistic" Christians, from "fundamentalist" Christians, to "liberal" Christians, and so many others I've failed to mention here.
When I see a poster ostensibly declare that theirs is an "educated" position, my immediate response is to wonder who gets to determine what constitutes "educated" when it comes to Christian doctrine and such. As EduChris was the one to broach the subject, I contend it is EduChris we gotta ask to sort this out.
As I asked in my Post 24...
If a Christian "stumbles upon" a belief shared by >insert those who declare their position "educated"<, are they then "educated"? If they happen to disagree, are they then not "educated"? Simple questions meant to determine the "education" of the claimant himself. That such causes discomfort is, I contend, not my fault. That the observer may consider this an "attack" is not my fault. That the observer may consider that the questions are insufficiently answered, or that there's just complaining about how unfair the questions are is not my fault.
Then there's the issue of a "strong" argument versus a "weak" argument, and again, it was EduChris who broached this topic, therefore, I addressed my questions to EduChris.
Does the argument, or the questions related to it, really change if I do like I did above and use >insert so and so<?
I contend that the only inflammation caused by my asking the claimant about their position, is that the claimant has found himself in an otherwise untenable situation, where they can't support their position, and so we have the attendant discomfort such a situation may birth.
If a claimant can't be addressed by name, then what's the point of the quote function?
I never, in my "heart of hearts", sought to "attack the messenger" near as much as I sought to address the messenger, and of course more specifically that messenger's claims. I can't help if using a person's name is going to cause them offense. I contend that it is a legitimate point of debate to address the claimant by name, in order that the observer can better understand the message, as well as to make some consideration regarding the messenger's credibility.
If I, JoeyKnothead, call my position "educated", do I not personally bear some responsibility for the claims I make? Do I, JoeyKnothead, not open myself up to folks wondering about my own credibility?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #34
An "educated" statement (in any field of human knowledge and inquiry) falls in line with (or demonstrates critical awareness of) the broad consensus of contemporary, accredited, degreed scholarship devoted to that particular field. What else could it mean?JoeyKnothead wrote:...who gets to deterimine what constitutes "educated"?...
-
ThatGirlAgain
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: New York City
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #35
While I agree that your definition is correct, the label "educated" might be construed as too snobbish. I know a person, a Missouri Synod Lutheran minister, who holds a ThD, reads Hebrew and classical Greek and can quote everything from KJV to Thomas Aquinas from memory. Yet he holds to six day creationism on a Bishop Ussher timescale, believes in a literal worldwide flood and has been known to argue for geocentrism, although I suspect that one was just for debating practice. Is he therefore uneducated because he diverges from the broad consensus of Christian thinking?EduChris wrote:An "educated" statement (in any field of human knowledge and inquiry) falls in line with (or demonstrates critical awareness of) the broad consensus of contemporary, accredited, degreed scholarship devoted to that particular field. What else could it mean?JoeyKnothead wrote:...who gets to deterimine what constitutes "educated"?...
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #36
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm getting at.ThatGirlAgain wrote:While I agree that your definition is correct, the label "educated" might be construed as too snobbish. I know a person, a Missouri Synod Lutheran minister, who holds a ThD, reads Hebrew and classical Greek and can quote everything from KJV to Thomas Aquinas from memory. Yet he holds to six day creationism on a Bishop Ussher timescale, believes in a literal worldwide flood and has been known to argue for geocentrism, although I suspect that one was just for debating practice. Is he therefore uneducated because he diverges from the broad consensus of Christian thinking?EduChris wrote:An "educated" statement (in any field of human knowledge and inquiry) falls in line with (or demonstrates critical awareness of) the broad consensus of contemporary, accredited, degreed scholarship devoted to that particular field. What else could it mean?JoeyKnothead wrote:...who gets to deterimine what constitutes "educated"?...
I don't doubt that EduChris is himself a highly educated individual, and especially highly educated as to religion. My concern though is at what point in how one perceives a bit of Christian doctrine can we say (or imply) they ain't "educated".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #37
If he demonstrates a critical awareness of broad contemporary consensus (meaning he understands what the consensus is and why it currently enjoys that consensus) then he is educated.ThatGirlAgain wrote:...I know a...Missouri Synod Lutheran minister...who holds a ThD, reads Hebrew and classical Greek and...he holds to six day creationism...Is he therefore uneducated because he diverges from the broad consensus of Christian thinking?
I do not claim that the scholarly consensus is always correct, or that a person always need follow the consensus; but if a person doesn't know what the consensus is or why it has achieved success among contemporary scholarship, then that person cannot be viewed as educated (at least in that particular field of human inquiry).
The specific problem that arises repeatedly on this forum is that someone (usually an anti-Christian) advances some stupid "doctrine" without any awareness that said "doctrine" is broadly and soundly rejected by contemporary Christian scholarship. Then, when someone else points out the fact that said "doctrine" is rejected by contemporary scholarship, the anti-Christian instigator denounces the messenger as "elitist" or whatever, and insists that the only option for Christians is either to defend the stupid "doctrine" or else abandon the title of Christian.
-
ThatGirlAgain
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: New York City
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #38
Yes, I agree with all that. Those ignorant of mainstream thinking are ipso facto uneducated. Agreeing with the mainstream is a separate issue. Makes sense.EduChris wrote:If he demonstrates a critical awareness of broad contemporary consensus (meaning he understands what the consensus is and why it currently enjoys that consensus) then he is educated.ThatGirlAgain wrote:...I know a...Missouri Synod Lutheran minister...who holds a ThD, reads Hebrew and classical Greek and...he holds to six day creationism...Is he therefore uneducated because he diverges from the broad consensus of Christian thinking?
I do not claim that the scholarly consensus is always correct, or that a person always need follow the consensus; but if a person doesn't know what the consensus is or why it has achieved success among contemporary scholarship, then that person cannot be viewed as educated (at least in that particular field of human inquiry).
The specific problem that arises repeatedly on this forum is that someone (usually an anti-Christian) advances some stupid "doctrine" without any awareness that said "doctrine" is broadly and soundly rejected by contemporary Christian scholarship. Then, when someone else points out the fact that said "doctrine" is rejected by contemporary scholarship, the anti-Christian instigator denounces the messenger as "elitist" or whatever, and insists that the only option for Christians is either to defend the stupid "doctrine" or else abandon the title of Christian.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #39
Who then defines what constitutes "mainstream"?ThatGirlAgain wrote:Yes, I agree with all that. Those ignorant of mainstream thinking are ipso facto uneducated. Agreeing with the mainstream is a separate issue. Makes sense.EduChris wrote:If he demonstrates a critical awareness of broad contemporary consensus (meaning he understands what the consensus is and why it currently enjoys that consensus) then he is educated.ThatGirlAgain wrote:...I know a...Missouri Synod Lutheran minister...who holds a ThD, reads Hebrew and classical Greek and...he holds to six day creationism...Is he therefore uneducated because he diverges from the broad consensus of Christian thinking?
I do not claim that the scholarly consensus is always correct, or that a person always need follow the consensus; but if a person doesn't know what the consensus is or why it has achieved success among contemporary scholarship, then that person cannot be viewed as educated (at least in that particular field of human inquiry).
The specific problem that arises repeatedly on this forum is that someone (usually an anti-Christian) advances some stupid "doctrine" without any awareness that said "doctrine" is broadly and soundly rejected by contemporary Christian scholarship. Then, when someone else points out the fact that said "doctrine" is rejected by contemporary scholarship, the anti-Christian instigator denounces the messenger as "elitist" or whatever, and insists that the only option for Christians is either to defend the stupid "doctrine" or else abandon the title of Christian.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
ThatGirlAgain
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: New York City
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #40
A substantial majority. To be ignorant of what a substantial majority of workers in a field are thinking is to be uneducated. Why is this a problem?JoeyKnothead wrote:Who then defines what constitutes "mainstream"?ThatGirlAgain wrote:Yes, I agree with all that. Those ignorant of mainstream thinking are ipso facto uneducated. Agreeing with the mainstream is a separate issue. Makes sense.EduChris wrote:If he demonstrates a critical awareness of broad contemporary consensus (meaning he understands what the consensus is and why it currently enjoys that consensus) then he is educated.ThatGirlAgain wrote:...I know a...Missouri Synod Lutheran minister...who holds a ThD, reads Hebrew and classical Greek and...he holds to six day creationism...Is he therefore uneducated because he diverges from the broad consensus of Christian thinking?
I do not claim that the scholarly consensus is always correct, or that a person always need follow the consensus; but if a person doesn't know what the consensus is or why it has achieved success among contemporary scholarship, then that person cannot be viewed as educated (at least in that particular field of human inquiry).
The specific problem that arises repeatedly on this forum is that someone (usually an anti-Christian) advances some stupid "doctrine" without any awareness that said "doctrine" is broadly and soundly rejected by contemporary Christian scholarship. Then, when someone else points out the fact that said "doctrine" is rejected by contemporary scholarship, the anti-Christian instigator denounces the messenger as "elitist" or whatever, and insists that the only option for Christians is either to defend the stupid "doctrine" or else abandon the title of Christian.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
