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?

[EduChris]

...Who then defines what constitutes "mainstream"?

Academic accreditation agencies. Specifically, accreditation of graduate-level institutions and coursework that enables transfer of graduate-level academic credit between institutions, whether secular or religious.

For example, I attended two accredited Christian seminaries. Because of that accreditation, my graduatel level credits will transfer to public or private universities in the USA or around the world.

In contrast, there are various pseudo-accreditation agencies, which mean absolutely nothing as far as transfer of academic credit is concerned. Such accreditation is not counted as proper accreditation, since the course credits do not transfer universally.

Folks who hold earned graduate degress from properly accredited graduate schools and seminaries constitute the mainstream (if their views are held by a majority of their peers). Folks who do not hold graduate level degrees, or whose degrees are not properly accredited, do not constitute the mainstream.

Based on these considerations, a person can be in the mainstream, or at least be critically aware of mainstream ideas, without having an accredited degree. But without a properly accredited degree, a person cannot "constitute" the mainstream of contemporary scholarship.

[100%atheist]

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?

Of course not. It is not your typical moderated university debate, it is an open public internet forum allowing for essentially any (relatively civil) group of people to participate regardless of their education level or beliefs.

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

Because there are probably very few (including yourself) who cares.

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

I am not sure who are THESE anti-Christians, but I don't think that the fear of not being able to defeat the opponent's position is something that inherently belongs to "anti-Christians". I'd rather say the opposite is more common (just per my personal observation).

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

This really sounds weird. I mean your suggestion implies here some seriously troubled mind, which major purpose is to attack others' positions. My answer is no in part because, such troubled minds would primarily be a result of a specific education or environment that would in turn rather provide enough knowledge to understand the positions that are to be attacked. Others will largely don't care enough in order to experience fear.

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

It maybe fun, right. Isn't it a good thing after all to attack weak arguments (provided the attack on the argument is not a personal attack) in order to strengthen our perception of the world?

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?

No, because this will likely be a personal attack (, which can be due to the fear of not being able to defeat the opponent).

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

Forgetaboutit. I think it is a great weakness to attempt to silence someone going after your weak arguments. If strong arguments are the only arguments that are to be debated then Christians would have a very tough time in debates.

P.S.:
Question: Do you EduChris affirm that you make every attempt to follow the principle of charity?

[Filthy Tugboat]

...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).

I think it's been clarified that his question was asked in earnest and is therefore not an example of "attacking the messenger".

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.

Have you had any success in finding some examples that support the notions you present in the OP especially as it pertains to "anti-Christians"?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

...Who then defines what constitutes "mainstream"?

Academic accreditation agencies. Specifically, accreditation of graduate-level institutions and coursework that enables transfer of graduate-level academic credit between institutions, whether secular or religious.

What then of those schools who are accredited by the same agencies, but who espouse a different brand of Christianity than you?

For example, I attended two accredited Christian seminaries. Because of that accreditation, my graduatel level credits will transfer to public or private universities in the USA or around the world.

As I've said, I don't doubt, and have evidence to support the notion, that you're a very intelligent individual. But again the question comes: What of those who have the same level of education, but espouse a different brand of Christianity than yourself or your attended schools?

In contrast, there are various pseudo-accreditation agencies, which mean absolutely nothing as far as transfer of academic credit is concerned. Such accreditation is not counted as proper accreditation, since the course credits do not transfer universally.

Not a good time to mention my Sears & Roebuck degree in dooficity, is it? Who determines if these agencies are good enough to rise to the level of accreditation your schools enjoy, if not folks who have decided for themselves that they have the correct read on the Bible?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but the question remains, per your OP...

Who is so "educated" that they can imply another'n ain't, and especially as it relates to religion?

When you use the term "educated Christians", how can you not be implying that those Christians who disagree with you, no matter how learned, are then "not educated"?

Take me for example. If a school was putting forth the notion that Jesus rose from the dead, using your terminology, I'm compelled to say they ain't "educated" or worthy of accreditation, due to there being insufficient evidence to conclude a dead body can be reanimated (if only in my opinion). But that's not what Christianity is, is it?

So we see that at least in the area of religion that accreditation, and even education, are relative. Using your argument, how can I, in good conscious, consider any Christian who thinks a dead body can come back to life to be "educated" or for their schools to be accreditation worthy?

Folks who hold earned graduate degress from properly accredited graduate schools and seminaries constitute the mainstream (if their views are held by a majority of their peers). Folks who do not hold graduate level degrees, or whose degrees are not properly accredited, do not constitute the mainstream.

Says who?

Based on these considerations, a person can be in the mainstream, or at least be critically aware of mainstream ideas, without having an accredited degree. But without a properly accredited degree, a person cannot "constitute" the mainstream of contemporary scholarship.

And the question remains...

Who is so "mainstream" that they can decide who ain't?

[EduChris]

...What then of those schools who are accredited by the same agencies, but who espouse a different brand of Christianity than you?...

Accreditation is based on rigorous academic criteria; not on theological stance. If a graduate school or seminary is accredited, then credits will transfer to any other institution of higher learning, public or private, secular or religious.

...Who determines if these agencies are good enough to rise to the level of accreditation your schools enjoy, if not folks who have decided for themselves that they have the correct read on the Bible?...

Religious litmus tests are not considered in academic accreditation. If it were, then the graduate level credits would not transfer to secular universities. It is possible for a seminary to seek some sort of additional religious imprimatur, but that would be peripheral as far as academic accreditation is concerned.

...Take me for example. If a school was putting forth the notion that Jesus rose from the dead, using your terminology, I'm compelled to say they ain't "educated" or worthy of accreditation...

If you were adequately educated according to contemporary scholarly criteria, you would understand that the issue is not so much what a person happens to believe, but how well a person can justify a particular claim within the context of current scholarly discourse.

...Says who?...Who is so "mainstream" that they can decide who ain't?...

Suffrage is extended to those possessing proper academic credentials. "Mainstream status" is accorded to those whose views enjoy majority support among their academic peers.

[JoeyKnothead]

...What then of those schools who are accredited by the same agencies, but who espouse a different brand of Christianity than you?...

Accreditation is based on rigorous academic criteria; not on theological stance. If a graduate school or seminary is accredited, then credits will transfer to any other institution of higher learning, public or private, secular or religious.

I think this, and the remainder of the post, clears up some of my misunderstandings. I 'preciate your taking the time to school me.

I'd also hope that you may come to see that although I'm not as sophisticated as some, I do seek to learn, and that my challenging "you", or your claims, is not by nefarious intent - even as I lack the ability to remain civil, or to phrase things in a fashion that ensures no offense is offered or taken.

[EduChris]

...I do seek to learn, and that my challenging "you", or your claims, is not by nefarious intent - even as I lack the ability to remain civil, or to phrase things in a fashion that ensures no offense is offered or taken.

Sounds good. I suspect that most of the long-timers around here, you and I included, seldom intend incivility; but given the nature of the topics and the impersonality of the venue, perceptions of incivility are bound to occur more often than any of us would like.

[Moses Yoder]

I don't believe I will convince a certifed atheist to become a Christian through my debate here. I am here because I find this an entertaining, educational, fun place to be. Thus technically this is a sport to me, as I assume it is to many other people. In other sports, football, basketball, soccer, ping pong, chess, you learn your opponents weak points and take advantage of them. Why would this sport be different? In boxing, the boxer looks for an opening in the defense and takes advantage of it. War is the same way. You don't pick the most well defended point and try to scale the wall there; you pick the weakest point. It makes no sense to pick an opponenets strongest, most well defended point and try to overthrow him there.

So far as fundamentalist Christians not being in the majority, I agree with that. I memorized and took to heart this scripture, Mathew 7:13

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

. Thus I am nervous when something is widely accepted as truth; according to this passage if the majority accepts it, it's probably not the right path.

I think I just won the debate; what did I win? Please send the prize to Moses Yoder, White Pigeon, MI 49042

[EduChris]

...this is a sport to me...You don't pick the most well defended point and try to scale the wall there; you pick the weakest point. It makes no sense to pick an opponenets strongest, most well defended point and try to overthrow him there...

If the analogy is sports, you have to think in terms of defense. Suppose you are playing a basketball team which has four one-armed, one-legged midgets and one Michael Jordan. Which player will receive the most attention when you are on defense?

If the analogy is war, then "bad-arguments = previously-conquered-territory." You want to devote your primary attention to the front lines, rather than have your best personnel and equipment sitting back where they're no longer needed.

For debate, we don't expect to rehash debates which have already been settled--unless someone brings in new evidence or new insight or new line of reasoning.

[EduChris]

...if the majority accepts it, it's probably not the right path...

If you were to count the number of fundamentalists, and compare them against the number of accredited scholars, the fundamentalists would outnumber the accredited scholars by several orders of magnitude.

Unlike some others on this forum, I have no wish to denigrate fiundamentalists generally. I disagree with them on numerous matters, but many of them have gifts which I lack. More often than not, their gifts are more important in the long run than whatever strengths I possess.