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?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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.

Once again, I think you need to spend some time learning what "strawman" and "ad hominem" fallacies are before you throw these accusations around so haphazardly. I would also expect, living in America, for you to be more aware of just what type of Christianity dominates your country's social and political discourse. It should not surprise you to see nontheists more concerned about the Christianity represented and promoted by powerful global political leaders than the more benign discussions held in liberal seminaries.

You have given me an idea for a thread.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...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.

Catholicism explicitly rejects the scientific claim that any humans have or ever had any ancestry other than from a single definite pair of parents who were themselves entirely human and constituted the entirety of humanity at that time. The doctrine of inherited original sin rests on this assumption. The presence of Neanderthal genes in humans requires that this 'Adam and Eve' must predate the migration of all Neanderthal ancestors from Africa, making them difficult to justify as being human. The suspected presence of Java Man ancestry in oriental races makes the situation even worse.

Catholicism also explicitly rejects any scientific theory that proposes that human reason and moral sense or anything else that might be considered an attribute unique to the human soul is actually a product of natural evolution.

Catholicism also explicitly rejects any scientific theory that allows a universe or multi-verse of infinite age. Creation by God at a definite time in the past is required. The Steady State theory is essentially dead and the oscillating universe is unlikely in current thinking. But "eternal inflation" or alternate universes of infinite duration are not allowed. A multi-verse that in any way removes the necessity of divine volition in creating this specific universe is not allowed.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 76:

I hope it is understood that my post here deals with methodology and should apply to anyone who engages in such. I can't help who came up with it, that is beyond my control.

I have carefully and deliberately edited my comments in order to be as generic as possible, however, we have a legitimate need to know who is saying what, so that the observer can better understand just what's going on here, and to be able to confirm that what at least I say has been presented in a thorough and honorable, and civil fashion.

I'm aware that I frequently have violated the rules of this site, to the point of having received a final warning - and I'm doing my dead level best to keep this as generic as possible, not speaking "to" anyone in particular, but addressing the methodology.

...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.

If folks consider my post an ad hom, I respectfully request they report it to the moderators, as they're the ones to determine who's doing all the ad homing.

Three posts, three separate fallacies...

Please note, the reference to one post, calling it an "ad hom", while contending there are three posts with "ad homs". Notice though, the lack of a "strong" argument, where links or references to the offending posts "should be", in light of the OP, presented, if only to ensure the observer knows to which of these three posts they are to now consider to be all "ad homy".

Let's do this right then...

If folks consider that mentioned post above an ad hom, I respectfully request they report it to the moderators, as they're the one's to determine who's doing all the ad homing.

If folks consider >insert unreferenced post< an ad hom, I respectfully request they report it to the moderators, as they're the ones to determine who's doing all the ad homing.

If folks consider >insert other unreferenced post< an ad hom, I respectfully request they report it to the moderators, as they're the ones to determine who's doing all the ad homing.

Now, let's get back to the original "ad hom"...

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

To which...

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.

Notice, I have made no statement of fact, but have offered a suggestion, in sincerity, for folks to consider. Notice though, the snipping of that whole "It would seem" deal.

Keeping in mind the topic of this OP, and the notion that we should be engaging in a fashion consistent with the "principle of charity", and that I speak of methodology only because who actually said or did what is not my point...

Why no mention, or no counter argument as to why the "seem" ain't applicable?

Could it possibly be that a generic, non-specific individual that would present such in such a fashion doesn't wish to present my argument in the "strongest" light?

Could it be that a generic, non-specific individual who presents such in such a fashion seeks, in a nefarious fashion, to "strawman" my argument?

Obviously I trust the observer to make up their own minds as to whether one of the above (or other) reasons may be applicable here.

[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.

If folks consider my post an ad hom, I respectfully request they report it to the moderators, as they're the ones to determine who's doing all the ad homing.

I'm not a moderator, but I'm pretty sure logical fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy are not against the rules, so I am not sure what people would think there is to report here. Perhaps the "ad hominem fallacy" is being confused with a personal attack. As wikipedia helpfully makes clear for us:

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.

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

[JoeyKnothead]

...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.

If folks consider my post an ad hom, I respectfully request they report it to the moderators, as they're the ones to determine who's doing all the ad homing.

I'm not a moderator, but I'm pretty sure logical fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy are not against the rules, so I am not sure what people would think there is to report here. Perhaps the "ad hominem fallacy" is being confused with a personal attack. As wikipedia helpfully makes clear for us:

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.

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

I can dig it, and I 'preciate your pointing this out.

As I've mentioned, I'm trying my dead level best to argue the methodology and not the person.

That said, I contend that when a generic, non-specific individual claims something to be an ad hom - whether as fallacy or whatever, they should, in accordance with the "POC", at least report the post and let the mods decide if there's even any ad homing going on.

[EduChris]

...Catholicism explicitly rejects the scientific claim that any humans have or ever had any ancestry other than from a single definite pair of parents who were themselves entirely human and constituted the entirety of humanity at that time. The doctrine of inherited original sin rests on this assumption...

Okay, touche on this. It should be said that Catholicism takes a more nuanced approach to "scientific claims" than many people realize. As in the case with Galileo and other similar situations, the Catholic Church does not forbid anyone from adopting this or that current scientific theory as the best currently available scientific hypothesis for the purpose of advancing scientific research. What the Catholic Church frowns upon is anyone who tries to elevate a scientific theory (no matter how strong it may seem at the moment) as absolute, ontological truth.

...Catholicism also explicitly rejects any scientific theory that proposes that human reason and moral sense or anything else that might be considered an attribute unique to the human soul is actually a product of natural evolution...

Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of an immaterial soul. Certain philosophies of science might try to extrapolate scientific data toward certain conclusions, but in that case it is the philosophy that becomes the problem, rather than the science.

...Catholicism also explicitly rejects any scientific theory that allows a universe or multi-verse of infinite age. Creation by God at a definite time in the past is required...

The multi-verse or omniverse theory is at best speculation, at worst epistemically subverting. Such theories have more to do with poor philosophy than with sound science--and even if it were science, Catholics would be fine to adopt the theory for the sake of advancing scientific research, so long as they don't mistake the theory for the actual ontological truth. After all, if history is any guide, virtually every scientific theory ever proposed is either false or incomplete.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...Catholicism explicitly rejects the scientific claim that any humans have or ever had any ancestry other than from a single definite pair of parents who were themselves entirely human and constituted the entirety of humanity at that time. The doctrine of inherited original sin rests on this assumption...

Okay, touche on this. It should be said that Catholicism takes a more nuanced approach to "scientific claims" than many people realize. As in the case with Galileo and other similar situations, the Catholic Church does not forbid anyone from adopting this or that current scientific theory as the best currently available scientific hypothesis for the purpose of advancing scientific research. What the Catholic Church frowns upon is anyone who tries to elevate a scientific theory (no matter how strong it may seem at the moment) as absolute, ontological truth.

I would love to get into the complex and subtle Galileo affair but it is way off topic to this thread and I just do not have that much time. I will only offer the comment that the Pope allowing Galileo to discuss Copernicanism as a hypothesis in1624 in the end did no good. He was convicted in 1633 of violating the 1616 total gag order, which made Copernicanism heretical on Biblical grounds. The 1633 trial had nothing to do with science and did not discuss Copernican theory at all. It was all about the enforcement of discipline.

...Catholicism also explicitly rejects any scientific theory that proposes that human reason and moral sense or anything else that might be considered an attribute unique to the human soul is actually a product of natural evolution...

Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of an immaterial soul. Certain philosophies of science might try to extrapolate scientific data toward certain conclusions, but in that case it is the philosophy that becomes the problem, rather than the science.

It is not science claiming to have a theory of the soul that is the issue but " somewhat as in the Galileo case " the ontological interpretations that might be put on scientific findings. It is the perception that religious beliefs are under attack that leads to a distrust of these areas of science.

Here is a review of an interesting sounding book (I do not have it) that was written in response to this perceived threat. I think you might like the argument/counter-argument about the existence of the soul presented in this review.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /soul.html

...Catholicism also explicitly rejects any scientific theory that allows a universe or multi-verse of infinite age. Creation by God at a definite time in the past is required...

The multi-verse or omniverse theory is at best speculation, at worst epistemically subverting. Such theories have more to do with poor philosophy than with sound science--and even if it were science, Catholics would be fine to adopt the theory for the sake of advancing scientific research, so long as they don't mistake the theory for the actual ontological truth. After all, if history is any guide, virtually every scientific theory ever proposed is either false or incomplete.

An eternally existing multiverse is a proposed but not yet well supported scientific notion with no inherent philosophical content. Do not mistake it for my ontological musings, which do not depend on scientific findings. But since it contains no specific creation event, it is a no-no to the RCC. In a similar vein ideas about a self-creating universe and the removal of the need for a Creator (ala Hawkings somewhat misunderstood proposal) are also beyond the pale.