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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 54:

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

EduChris paraphrases Miss catalyst, placing such within a quote, while putting on her a term - "pooh on you" - that appears nowhere in her post.

It is merely EduChris' take on that post, and as such, is bound to his interpretation of just how one goes about saying "pooh on you".

It would seem the "principle of charity" only applies to us who are NOT getting our fourth points of contact handed to us.

[JoeyKnothead]

from Post 60:

No, you are not the only one. A while ago I've figured it out that perhaps the most charitable approach to "discussing" >name redacted as not important to the issue< is simply to avoid challenging him on anything that he might feel uncomfortable with. I think this applies to gnostics (both theists and atheists...

Let me stop you right there. As one of those gnostic atheists I object to your statement, and you, with my blessing, can go eat a bug!

[Jester]

Moderator Comment
There seems to be very little discussion about the topic going on, and quite a bit of personal comments in its place.
Everyone, please remember to stop, take a breath, and realize that we are here to discuss issues, not one another.

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.

[100%atheist]

from Post 60:

No, you are not the only one. A while ago I've figured it out that perhaps the most charitable approach to "discussing" >name redacted as not important to the issue< is simply to avoid challenging him on anything that he might feel uncomfortable with. I think this applies to gnostics (both theists and atheists...

Let me stop you right there. As one of those gnostic atheists I object to your statement, and you, with my blessing, can go eat a bug!

According to the POC, I assume that you somehow know that there is no god(s). Would you elaborate a bit of how do you know that?

Also, if the POC is followed, can a gnostic assume that there is (there isn't - for gnostic theists) god?

[Filthy Tugboat]

From Post 54:

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

EduChris paraphrases Miss catalyst, placing such within a quote, while putting on her a term - "pooh on you" - that appears nowhere in her post.

It is merely EduChris' take on that post, and as such, is bound to his interpretation of just how one goes about saying "pooh on you".

It would seem the "principle of charity" only applies to us who are NOT getting our fourth points of contact handed to us.

Hmm, I didn't actually notice this, oh the irony. In a thread dedicated to pointing out instances where someones post is taken at a weaker meaning than was intended by the poster or received by the responder the author of the OP did just that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 64:

According to the POC, I assume that you somehow know that there is no god(s). Would you elaborate a bit of how do you know that?

I was just funnin' around really and I hope ya didn't actually eat that bug

Notice I "cut you off" and responded to that part of your post I chose to respond to, while leaving the remainder for others to consider without my input. My point is that expecting folks to respond in a certain fashion, a fashion not stated in the rules of this site, is to express one's frustration that folks ain't playing by the rules "I" set. That's not to say that discussion thereof can't be a good thing. I think following the POC is a good notion, even as I tend to like to exaggerate, or use hyperbole, to prove my points.

While I do contend there are no gods, I understand that my reasons for arriving at such a conclusion may be insufficient for others - thus I don't tend to make the claim overtly, or say such as, "And you're a fool to disagree".

Also, if the POC is followed, can a gnostic assume that there is (there isn't - for gnostic theists) god?

Sure. How else could we debate the proposed characteristics or actions of a god?

Did God really flood the planet? I don't think so, 'cause I don't think he even exists to do any planet flooding. This doesn't preclude my thinking he'd be a jerk of some infinitely high order of magnitude if he actually did, nor would it preclude my thinking folks are being a bit of that jerk themselves for worshiping him after they sat there and thought he actually did.

[100%atheist]

From Post 64:

According to the POC, I assume that you somehow know that there is no god(s). Would you elaborate a bit of how do you know that?

I was just funnin' around really and I hope ya didn't actually eat that bug

Notice I "cut you off" and responded to that part of your post I chose to respond to, while leaving the remainder for others to consider without my input. My point is that expecting folks to respond in a certain fashion, a fashion not stated in the rules of this site, is to express one's frustration that folks ain't playing by the rules "I" set. That's not to say that discussion thereof can't be a good thing. I think following the POC is a good notion, even as I tend to like to exaggerate, or use hyperbole, to prove my points.

While I do contend there are no gods, I understand that my reasons for arriving at such a conclusion may be insufficient for others - thus I don't tend to make the claim overtly, or say such as, "And you're a fool to disagree".

This is my point that literal gnosticism concerning matters of beliefs is logically self-contradictory.

Also, if the POC is followed, can a gnostic assume that there is (there isn't - for gnostic theists) god?

Sure. How else could we debate the proposed characteristics or actions of a god?

Did God really flood the planet? I don't think so, 'cause I don't think he even exists to do any planet flooding. This doesn't preclude my thinking he'd be a jerk of some infinitely high order of magnitude if he actually did, nor would it preclude my thinking folks are being a bit of that jerk themselves for worshiping him after they sat there and thought he actually did.

I consider love that some believers experience to Yahweh/Jesus as just another example of Stockholm syndrome.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 64:

According to the POC, I assume that you somehow know that there is no god(s). Would you elaborate a bit of how do you know that?

...
While I do contend there are no gods, I understand that my reasons for arriving at such a conclusion may be insufficient for others - thus I don't tend to make the claim overtly, or say such as, "And you're a fool to disagree".

This is my point that literal gnosticism concerning matters of beliefs is logically self-contradictory.

Briefly, I contend that matters such as sociology and psychology, even biology in a limited role, provide a more logical explanation regarding how folks and societies come to their religious beliefs, and then follow that to the implication that there are no gods.

But to say I just got back from searching the whole universe, I can't.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I think that this thread has been misnamed from the outset. The OP links to the wikipedia article on the "principle of charity", yet seems to be discussing something that bears little resemblance to it. The principle of charity does not seem to be concerned with those who ignore strong arguments in favour of attacking weak arguments, rather it is concerned with those who interpret an argument in a poorer (ie uncharitable) light in order to create an easier target. Kind of like a strawman argument. Now obviously, since EduChris was not actually able to provide any evidence in this thread that strong arguments are routinely ignored in favour of weak arguments on this forum, it is difficult to sympathize with or even fully comprehend his complaint.

What EduChris seems to be advocating is paying less mind to weak arguments and focusing one's attention on what they consider to be strong arguments. But this in itself seems to be far more of a violation of the principle of charity than any of the other alleged behaviours being discussed. When someone presents a weak argument, I think that one of the least charitable responses possible would be to simply ignore them. In fact, merely categorizing arguments as "weak" in the first place appears to some extent to be a violation of this principle. "Weak" arguments should not be treated as irrelevant, or already debunked, or not worthy of a detailed response. To the contrary, weak arguments that persist in debates should receive the most attention, as they are the most detrimental to understanding and rational discourse. Weak arguments should be treated according to the principle of charity - given the benefit of the doubt, treated with respect and as if they were presented honestly and earnestly, and attacked in a detailed and comprehensive manner.

EduChris, I admire the confidence and zeal with which you present your arguments, and even more I am grateful that you bring ideas to this forum that seem to be new and even unique to many of us (or at the very least presented in an innovative way). However, given that these are generally not the usual apologist talking points that many of us are used to arguing against, I think your time and energy could be spent far more productively. Present your arguments and defend them, even against "weak" counterarguments - if you don't do this, then those of us presenting "weak" arguments can hardly be expected to discover why their arguments are inadequate. It is less productive to create threads such as these where we speculate as to which psychological deficiencies are preventing nontheists from conceding points to you.

[EduChris]

...I contend that matters such as sociology and psychology, even biology in a limited role, provide a more logical explanation regarding how folks and societies come to their religious beliefs, and then follow that to the implication that there are no gods...

And this is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy.