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?

[Moses Yoder]

...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.

According to this website, http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 78.4% of people in the US consider themselves to be Christians. However, only 43.1 percent go to church weekly, and I think that's an optimistic estimate. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/ameri ... -2010.aspx . That means that 35.3 percent of the population claims to be Christian but does not attend church regularly. On the website noted earlier Evangelical churches, where you find most fundamentalists, are only claimed by 26.3% of that 78.4% that claim to be Christians. That would mean that probably roughly 52.1 percent of of the American public considers themselves to be liberal Christians. These are the people that are being led by the educated, scholarly, accredited Christian leaders that you refer to. Can you please tell me how you calculate fundamentalist Christians to be in the majority?

[EduChris]

...Can you please tell me how you calculate fundamentalist Christians to be in the majority?

Fundamentalist Christians are indeed a minority compared against global Christianity (but accredited scholars are a minority compared to almost any other recognized group, including fundamentalist Christians).

However, for any given fundamentalist group, no matter how conservative, there is always some other group that is more conservative and less numerous. To such a group, you represent the broad path, and they represent the narrow path.

At what point is a group or sub-group small enough to be true, but yet not so small as to be aberrant?

[catalyst]

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?

Hello Educhris,

I followed a link from another thread to see what this was all about.

Whilst I agree with the premise of the POC in theory, it seems that what the writer may deem as a rational, coherent and "truthful" (rather than fallacious) statement in reply to a previous comment, does not mean that the reader will RECEIVE that information in kind. The poster may well have open and honest intention, Educhris, but maybe your preconceived notion of the "right" way to do things (for you personally) is getting in the way.

A case in point is this particular OP. Whilst I see that you have cited a link to back up what you mean, I personally RME at the fact you chose wiki as a "source". Reason? Well, I see wiki as a lazy "go to" link when people cannot be bothered actually researching things as (I personally) perceive they should, if of course they are trying to make a rational, coherent and "truthful" point. I actually doubt the majority of people out there citing wiki ever go the extra mile to check out and read the nuts and bolts of the argument, which are (one would hope) held in the footnotes and referenced material at the bottom of each wiki page. As such at this point, I would like to ask you if you HAVE actually sussed out the referenced information to determine whether the info you cited on wiki summary as to what the POC "IS", FITS exactly with what Dennett, Blackburn, Wilson, et al had to say on the matter in their papers and/or books?

I look forward to your reply on that.

I will say as well though, I have learned through interactions on this board with MANY "opposers" to my thoughts since 2008, that I too have to keep my personal bias as to wiki in check for the most part and consider just what the poster is trying to tell me, from their own place of rationale. I have found it successful in many interactions as it helps not only my opponent but also me get a more thorough understanding. Others, not so much as at times it gets to the point where I quiz their actual understanding of their position, because of their CONSTANT wiki references, and unfortunately, at those times the posters citing wiki, get defensive. *shrug*...and then they perceive ME as being the irrational one... (and all the while avoid actually answering the question of whether they have actually checked the footnotes and references...perhaps in a quest to "save face" - or ego.. because when push comes to shove, they haven't checked the footnotes or referenced material...).LOL. Something else I have witnessed too on here, is that people do cite sources other than wiki as well, but it is obvious that they have NOT read the material in its entirety, that they claim backs their statements and then get ticked off when there IS a quote from their cited source which goes against everything they have stated. End result? More "face saving" defensive 'tude...which lends to an interaction spiralling out of control.

Secondly. In your OP, you wrote:

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)

The above for me is a considering your OP seems (to me at least) to be attacking the arguments of what you call "anti-christians",. Perhaps you can elaborate just WHAT an anti-christian IS? Is it the same as a non-christian or a non theist, or are "anti-christians" actually people belonging to other religions (as they obviously reject christ as their"saviour" too).

If you could elaborate and sort that one out for me, I would appreciate it.

For the record, I am an atheist but I am not anti-christian (nor anti Islam, nor anti Jew, nor anti Taoist, nor anti-shintoist...etc etc etc); in fact, my mindset is what ever works for YOU, works for you. It just ain't for me and as I respect your choice for you, then please, respect mine. Yup, I certainly reject the biblical jesus model (as I don't believe the man ever walked the face of the earth), but that does not mean that I am "anti"as to YOUR beliefs (or anyone else's beliefs who deside to call themselves a christian).

I will say though, what it seems to me that is happening with you here, is much the same as my personal disdain of those citing wiki. Just as that doesn't "mesh" with me personally and in my book someone "educated" would not resort to such lazy measures, it seems you on the other thread, actually "dissed" not only non-theists/non-christians and even other self professed christians as they did not comply with your PERSONAL(and only claimed) standard of honestly, truthfulness, rationale and coherence. (yes I saw what you said to the Moses Yoder person as NOT being an educated christian, and then you basically told him/her in YOUR BOOK, what it takes to "be" educated. For the record, I have never seen him/her resort to citing wiki... Just sayin'!!! LOL It also seems to me that in Moses Yoder's defence, that the bible doesn't state you need to be "degreed" in ANYTHING to personally understand what "God" means to an individual personally, and to have faith in "Him" based on that personal understanding. Have you ever thought Educhris that YOUR "personal" and SPECIFIC god model is NOT a once size fits all model? I look at it this way. Everyone's assumed "salvation" is their own.. it is unique to them and them alone, and their "faith" in their perception of biblejesus. Perhaps many people would NOT have gleaned "faith" from the bible if you had taken YOUR personal model to them as example. *shrug* My point is, if people feel that they "want" jesus in their lives, let them do it on THEIR OWN TERMS and not on yours.

Also, it may have failed to cross your mind, but there are30000+ (and counting) denominations of christianity (then the thousands upon thousands of non denominal factions) on offer. I bet even those within your own church don't "see" your god EXACTLY as you do, despite the "yes-men" bible study classes. I can assure you that behind closed doors though, outside of the "study groups", there would probably be a some (if not alot) of "discussion".. in that people will be discussing said study group and may well say to another.. "How did X read THAT from verse Y)... Yes it does happen, even if your ears are not there to hear it and if you are honest, you probably do it to.


Something else too. I spent years (8 all up) at Theology College and have a M.Div. as well as B.H in both Theology and Ministry. Also, as I received my accreditation here in Australia, my credentials are recognised internationally. The same cannot be said for other countries - US for example. ( I added the internationally recognised "bit" just to rub a bit of salt, I admit Educhris ) I know that I am not the ONLY non-christian (ex-christian) on this forum to have such qualifications, so in your book, would that make me and the others educated on the matters you refer to, "uneducated" just because we are no longer christians, or just as educated or MORE educated on christian matters and matters regarding theology generally because we tend to delve FURTHER than the face value of christianity alone, in our scholarly pursuits?

Again, I will be very interested in your reply.


In conclusion, to me what it comes down to, is that anything others provide, no matter WHAT, it is YOU who is to determine across the board, what is allegedly civil, coherent, reasonable and truthful. Anything that does not bode well with you personally, is seen as irrational, non-coherent and fallicious, despite direct to source links or references being provided by others. Anything against what you personally believe pretty much, is a lot of claptrap and as such, you won't even bother exploring it.

I see your OP as being a lot of confusing nonsense and a lot of finger pointing elsewhere, perhaps because you don't want to address your own ...failings as a reasonable opponent in debate. No one is always right, whether it be you or me or anyone else on this site. IMO...and it is only my opinion... perhaps you should take a good hard look at how YOU personally approach things Educhris as you can't continually condemn the pot, when it's certainly clear to me that you are a shiny black pot as well. It's probably a hard pill to swallow, but, despite your "edu", Chris, and what you claim to know from that "edu", you DON'T know it all.

Think on that and then think on this:

Debate with Reason

Take from that what you will.

Catalyst.

[EduChris]

...pooh on you...you DON'T know it all...(lengthy post paraphrased for succinctness and clarity)

I admit I've been something of an enfant terrible around here. I apologize.

[catalyst]

...pooh on you...you DON'T know it all...(lengthy post paraphrased for succinctness and clarity)

I admit I've been something of an enfant terrible around here. I apologize.

Yes your sincerity is clear by the wiki link attached.

Answering the questions I asked of you would be nice.

I look forward to your reply.

Catalyst.

[EduChris]

...the wiki link attached...

Lots of people use Wiki around here. Everybody knows it has its flaws, but it's convenient and available to everyone. If you happen to know that Wikipedia promotes a radically different understand of POC than The Philosopher's Toolkit, from which I quoted, please let me know.

[catalyst]

...the wiki link attached...

Lots of people use Wiki around here. Everybody knows it has its flaws, but it's convenient and available to everyone. If you happen to know that Wikipedia promotes a radically different understand of POC than The Philosopher's Toolkit, from which I quoted, please let me know.

I realise full well that many people around here use wiki. The fact however, that despite you admitting it has flaws, it's still your "go to" place? That in and of itself puts you behind the 8 ball Educhris. I wonder how you can expect "charitable" replies to you, when you knowingly bring forth FLAWED and weak argument yourself?

As to the Philospher's Toolkit. I have read through this entire thread and not once have you quoted from that book but rather just "cited" the book with a link to Amazon.com and referenced pages 112-114, obviously claiming those PARTICULAR pages allude to or somehow "go" with the wiki definition.

Makes me wonder if you have actually READ The Philospher's Toolkit Educhris, including pages 112-114, because I have and those pages actually reference NOTHING claimed on the wiki page. All page 112 does is refer to Decartes and his usage of Leibnizs law of Identity (which BTW starts at the last paragraph of page 111 and continues mid sentence ON page 112), and then goes on to Spinoza's critisism of Decartes alleged lackings. Page 113 actually relates to "partners in guilt" and Kant's views. With Kant still in mind, it then goes to point out the differences in mindset of consequentialists vs deontologists and their perception of "right" vs "wrong" and a case in point mentioned on page 113, was the concept of murder, even of innocents and the "justification" behind such an action and then that pages finishes with a question relating to that particular argument. (BTW, if you ask me, a LEADING question on the part of the author of the book).

Page 114: Again, continues with the consequentialists vs deontologists argument and raises more questions and triggers analysis on Kantian philosophy.

At the end of page 114, it brings the tu quoque fallacy into the equation, which in and of itself, not ONLY contradicts the premise of the wiki page you cited when starting your OP, but also of your own position, PERIOD.

So, to answer your question, YES the pages you cited from the Philosopher's Toolkit ARE radically different to the wiki reference, in that those pages have ZERO to do with the POC at all!!

BTW, should anyone want to download the book, you can do so here.

http://www.4shared.com/document/NmN_0Va ... olkit.html

(to help those wishing to read pages 112-114, they are in points 3.16 and 3.17.)



Now, if you would like be to be charitable to both myself and others and actually practice what you at least YOU preach, please answer all of the questions I asked of you in my original reply.

Even to help you with this, here is a link to my original post to you on this thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 498#423498


Catalyst.

[EduChris]

...Makes me wonder if you have actually READ The Philospher's Toolkit Educhris, including pages 112-114, because I have and those pages actually reference NOTHING claimed on the wiki page...the pages you cited from the Philosopher's Toolkit ARE radically different to the wiki reference, in that those pages have ZERO to do with the POC at all!!...BTW, should anyone want to download the book, you can do so here... http://www.4shared.com/document/NmN_0Va ... olkit.html ...(to help those wishing to read pages 112-114, they are in points 3.16 and 3.17.)...

From the table of contents of your edition, it looks like the POC is in section 3.18. As intelligent as you are, it's funny you missed that (note: I have the 2003 version of the book, and the POC is on pp. 112-115, point 3.21).

...practice what you...YOU preach...answer all of the questions I asked of you...

Practice what I preach? Okay, if you insist.

[catalyst]

...Makes me wonder if you have actually READ The Philospher's Toolkit Educhris, including pages 112-114, because I have and those pages actually reference NOTHING claimed on the wiki page...the pages you cited from the Philosopher's Toolkit ARE radically different to the wiki reference, in that those pages have ZERO to do with the POC at all!!...BTW, should anyone want to download the book, you can do so here... http://www.4shared.com/document/NmN_0Va ... olkit.html ...(to help those wishing to read pages 112-114, they are in points 3.16 and 3.17.)...

From the table of contents of your edition, it looks like the POC is in section 3.18. As intelligent as you are, it's funny you missed that (note: I have the 2003 version of the book, and the POC is on pp. 112-115, point 3.21).

My edition? No, it's Edition 2 that you cited over at amazon.com and that is the Edition 2 I read, thanks to your citation. Also, I didn't miss 3.18. I actually read that too and from what 3.18 (and 3.21 from edition 1) stated, it DOES differ radically to what the wiki page claims That could have much to do with why the wiki page did not cite it in its footnotes and referenced materials. Even giving something TO the wiki page, it stresses that there are MULTIPLE formulas of the POC...the writer of the wiki page just seems to have ignored Baggini and Fosl's formula when popping up his obviously flawed interpretation. (flawed against The Philosopher's Toolkit version), hence not understanding WHY you would give it as example of what the wiki page was claiming.

Educhris wrote:
Practice what I preach? Okay, if you insist.

Interesting. I have now been placed on ignore by Educhris, ironically for simply applying his requested adherence to the POC in our interactions. As this is the case, this post, although mainly addressed TO Educhris, is also for other readers to contemplate.

As to the POC: I have assumed his intelligence from the beginning. I assumed certain points of his argument may have some validity and strength and as such I have asked questions of him in an attempt to draw out his reasonings, and wanting to get clarification on certain points he made, by asking why he has come to certain conclusions: EG:

WHAT in your eyes Educhris is an anti-christian?;

WHAT is an uneducated Christian?

Is a non-theist with degrees in Theology/Divinity/Ministry etc... educated as far as you're concerned?

My questions went on and on and not one of them was answered. I even went to the edition of the book he cited and read the information therein, showing clearly I was more than willing to give his argument the benefit of the doubt. I even stated my own biases as to certain information and explained to him clearly the reasons why I had come to such personal conclusions.

As it can be seen, I never jumped to any concrete conclusion for myself why he thinks certain things. I did however give a conclusion based on what had been written by Educhris in the OP and asked for clarification on his points, so with further information, STRONGER information to support his position, IF he had supplied it, could well have swayed my view.

What "charitable" intercourse did I get in return? Just about none. I do however have to give him some credit for admitting that WIKI IS flawed. What I did get a lot of though, was avoidance for the most part,, and popped on his personal "Ignore the Uncivil" list.

What does that show?

Also, what does his OP show?

Despite me (and having read most of the posts on this thread, others) TRYING to see the intelligence and rationale, perhaps hidden somewhere there, it seems to me that Educhris, spouting the alleged viability of the POC, and charitable intercourse, although I am still unsure whether he is "running" with the PT's take on the POC or that determined by the wiki page, comes in from the start with ad homs, (uneducated christians, anti-christians).

The "uneducated christian" comment alone shows clearly that he is not one to practice what he preaches!

Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy in his standards?

Catalyst.

[100%atheist]

Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy in his standards?

Catalyst.

No, you are not the only one. A while ago I've figured it out that perhaps the most charitable approach to "discussing" EduChris is simply to avoid challenging him on anything that he might feel uncomfortable with. I think this applies to gnostics (both theists and atheists) in general that they often feel unsecure about some of their arguments and views to the point of avoiding the conversation by all possible means. Regarding this, I have a question: does gnosticism imply a closed mind and an agnosticism - an opened mind?