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]

...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...

What would be nice is if non-theists would stop starting straw-man threads directed against so-called Christian "doctrines" which the vast majority of Christians either no longer support, or never did support. Specifically, many American "fundamentalist" doctrines from the 18th and 19th centuries either never were adopted or believed by the vast majority of Christians around the world, or else they are not now believed or taught by the vast majority of Christians.

And if such a thread were to be started by a non-theist, then the next best thing would be for the non-theist to refrain from attacking the messenger who informs the non-theist that such "doctrines" are not now, and perhaps never were, believed or taught by the majority of Christians worldwide.

Now if a Christian starts a thread that promotes some outmoded, lightly adopted "doctrine," then by all means theists and non-theists alike may attack the argument on that thread, and anyone who wants to defend the argument obviously has that right as well.

But it's just silly for non-theists to muddy up the forum with countless and incessant "flame bait" threads that suggest that Christians generally hold doctrines that simply do not represent the beliefs and teachings of modern global Christianity--and then angrily denounce the messengers who gently inform the flame-baiter that their proposed "doctrine" has little to do with current maintream Christian thought.

Can the non-theists here start policing their own, so that the level of discourse here can be elevated?

[JoeyKnothead]

...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.

Which is but one more reason I don't go to making the claim overtly. I understand the limits of my reasoning.

Some seem think there's this great cosmic thinking entity "up there", and then act all befuddled when folks reject their "proof".

Some think folks can walk on water.

Some think a dude getting strung up on a cross absolves them of their "sin".

Some think dead bodies can hop up and stroll through town. And I'm not talking 'bout laid out on the back of a cart.

I don't complain about how these folks' present (or don't present) arguments for such, near as much I ask them to show they speak truth.

I figure that my rejection of their arguments is just as befuddling to them as their rejection to mine and that of science, is to me.

(tagular edit)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 71:

...
But it's just silly for non-theists to muddy up the forum with countless and incessant "flame bait" threads that suggest that Christians generally hold doctrines that simply do not represent the beliefs and teachings of modern global Christianity--and then angrily denounce the messengers who gently inform the flame-baiter that their proposed "doctrine" has little to do with current maintream Christian thought.

It can't possibly be that these "flame-baiters" are simply misinformed, could it?

No, we "must" automatically assume - COUNTER to the position laid out in the OP - that these folks have some nefarious intent in these postings.

How 'bout those of us who get our information from the Christians in our necks of the woods? Is it "us" trying to "flame-bait", or is it the Christian themselves who could stand the most correcting?

Can the non-theists here start policing their own, so that the level of discourse here can be elevated?

If I had a nickel for every time some of my more atheistic minded peers have corrected me, I could stack 'em up and use 'em to make one of them donkeys jumping into the pool shows.

I propose that if one considers the discourse to need some "elevatin'", maybe they might need to hop off that high of a horse.


It would seem the only "correcting" being proffered here, is for those unfortunate enough to have found themselves on the other side of one's coin.

[EduChris]

...their rejection to mine and that of science...

Strawman fallacy.

Contemporary, mainstream, global Christianity does not reject any scientific claims; rather, they sometimes reject the philosophical baggage that all too often (subconsciously) insinuates itself into popular-level scientific discussion.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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...

What would be nice is if non-theists would stop starting straw-man threads directed against so-called Christian "doctrines" which the vast majority of Christians either no longer support, or never did support. Specifically, many American "fundamentalist" doctrines from the 18th and 19th centuries either never were adopted or believed by the vast majority of Christians around the world, or else they are not now believed or taught by the vast majority of Christians.

That's not what a strawman argument is. Here:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Christians believe many, many different things. Unless you believe that Christianity is a monolithic entity I cannot understand why you would view threads targeted at beliefs you do not hold as "strawman threads." These are not attacking strawmen of your beliefs, they are targeting real beliefs that other Christians actually hold and promote today. These threads are not targeting you, there is no need for you to participate in them.

Now, if someone makes a claim that "all Christians believe x" when this is clearly not the case, they should certainly be corrected. But to call them "strawman threads" is simply a misuse of the term.

I don't know what you mean by "angrily denouncing the messenger" as I have not seen this happening. Perhaps part of the difficulty actually does come from you viewing "modern global Christianity" and "current mainstream Christian thought" as some actual things that exist, when I am fairly sure there is no such animal. Christianity is a 2000 year old religion with endless diversity, and countless doctrines from throughout that eclectic history remain popular in parts of the world. I think one would do well to not take every mention of "Christians" or "Christianity" as referring to every single Christian alive today, unless, again, such a fallacious generalization is actually explicitly made.

I would also suggest that calling these threads "strawmen" and "flame bait" in the first place is a clear violation of the principle of charity that you have supposedly started this thread to promote. Calling questions or arguments "flame bait" is the complete opposite of considering the "best, strongest possible interpretation" of your potential opponent's OP.

[EduChris]

...if one considers the discourse to need some "elevatin'", maybe they might need to hop off that high of a horse...the only "correcting" being proffered here, is for those unfortunate enough to have found themselves on the other side of one's coin.

Ad hominem fallacy.

Three posts, three separate fallacies...

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...if one considers the discourse to need some "elevatin'", maybe they might need to hop off that high of a horse...the only "correcting" being proffered here, is for those unfortunate enough to have found themselves on the other side of one's coin.

Ad hominem fallacy.

Three posts, three separate fallacies...

This is not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad homiem fallacy is...

...is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Telling someone to get off of their high horse is not a fallacious argument, it isn't even an argument.

[David 2.0]

I can only speak from my experience, but in a general way, I am frustrated by how quick some debates get thrown into the gutter.

For example...
In one thread, as an atheist, I made the comment that on some level christian morality is pretty attractive. Love, peace, caring, whats so bad about that?...

It was then implied/asked if I was pro slavery?
Is that the default position of an atheist trying to consider the merits of christian morality?

Anyway...

Lets play a drinking game.
Pretend that you have to take a shot every time you read the word slavery, genocide, evil, or Hitler in a thread on this site...

Are you dead yet?
Can someone say alcohol poisoning?

It may only be me..
Sometimes I feel like I am arguing against a christian caricature snatched out of the past....

An argument best used on a time traveler?

[EduChris]

...Christians believe many, many different things. Unless you believe that Christianity is a monolithic entity I cannot understand why you would view threads targeted at beliefs you do not hold as "strawman threads"...

Obviously contemporary, mainstream, global Christianity is not monolithic in all respects, but it does stand in uniform opposition to many of the American 18th & 19th century dogmas that are presented as "Christian beliefs" here on this forum by non-theists--who then attack the messenger who informs them that such dogmas are far removed from anything in contemporary, mainstream, global Christianity.

It seems that many non-theists here understand nothing more than the outmoded aspects of Christian thought that are parodied and ridiculed across any number of atheists-r-us websites. Upon encountering new information about contemporary, mainstream, global Christianity, these non-theists then resort to name calling and ad hominems about high-horses and such.

Sigh.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 74:

...their rejection to mine and that of science...

Strawman fallacy.

Please note, dear reader, the snipping of my post to it's "weakest" argument.

What does all them dots not show?

Which is but one more reason I don't go to making the claim overtly. I understand the limits of my reasoning.

Some seem think there's this great cosmic thinking entity "up there", and then act all befuddled when folks reject their "proof".

Some think folks can walk on water.

Some think a dude getting strung up on a cross absolves them of their "sin".

Some think dead bodies can hop up and stroll through town. And I'm not talking 'bout laid out on the back of a cart.

I don't complain about how these folks' present (or don't present) arguments for such, near as much I ask them to show they speak truth.

I figure that my rejection of their arguments is just as befuddling to them as their rejection to mine and that of science, is to me.

Notice, my argument is less about the validity of the position in the above referenced snippet, but about how we may consider our own positions, and the positions of others, in light of the OP.

Or, we could condense that down to what can be considered, in light of the OP, that it is the sentence itself that is in question...

I figure that my rejection of their arguments is just as befuddling to them as their rejection to mine and that of science, is to me.

I ask you, dear reader, which is the more "POEish" thing to do here?

Should we just assume I'm declaring their position false based on "...their rejection to mine and that of science..."?

Or, should we consider that I'm expressing my own befuddlement as to why theists would reject the reasons for my having come to the conclusions I have, regardless of whether such conclusions are sound?