The pre-eminent Sophist, Protagoras (circa 490-420 BCE), was up-front about the fact that the Sophist curriculum included instruction in making the "worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)."1 Their clientele included people who needed to bring or defend a suit in court (as reported in my post of January 11). We're quite familiar with that agenda, which is demonstrated every weekday in American courts, where the prosecutor argues that the defendant is guilty, and the defense attorney argues that he isn't, and each attempts to make his own argument appear the better without respect to the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant.
One of the informal charges against Socrates was, as he phrased it himself in answering the charge at trial (399 BCE), that he "makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example." Socrates of course countered that that wasn't what he had been doing. He said that he couldn't possibly be mistaken for a Sophist because they were wise and highly paid, and he was poor and knew absolutely nothing. Whether Socrates was ingenuous in saying this or slyly being sophistical, I leave to you to ponder.We're also familiar with bloggers' trying to make their arguments appear stronger and their adversaries' weaker. We can see this demonstrated not only every weekday (but every weekend too), if we have the time and interest. Bloggers tend to be a contentious lot, even when they attempt to represent themselves as being engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth. I'm not above using "debating tactics" myself, insofar as I have the skill to do so. I believe that I have reason on my side when I say that god doesn't exist, and that a theist doesn't when he says the opposite. And the same theist is sure that "He" does exist and that I'm a fool. Each of us sets himself up to try to defeat the other. Because each knows he's right, each knows that the other cannot possibly demonstrate his position successfully.
And yet.
And yet, engaging in the somewhat (psychologically necessarily?) disingenuous activity of "discussing religion" on a blog can be fun, and not only fun but also instructive. I develop a better understanding of my own position by stating and defending it, and with effort I can learn a thing or two about an opposing position. By far my most dependable interlocuter is Sheepandgoaticus, with whom I have developed a genuinely respectful friendship. I look forward to his comments on my blog and (I think) he looks forward to mine on his. Though we may not really listen to what each other says, we seem to have learned how to pretend to do so with enough civility to continue the discussion.
I hope that I never think of him as my adversary, or of our interchanges as opportunities to defeat him. I also hope that I am open enough to the truth, however strongly I feel that I already have it, to be able to change my mind when a truly stronger case has been made for a different view.
_______________
- From a Wikipedia article on Plato's dialogue, "Apology," which portrays the trial of Socrates.
Oh, come now. Isn't this just "sore loser syndrome?" Surely there must be a Greek phrase to express that! "My side is getting shellacked. I can't possibly be wrong, so the other guy must be cheating."
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak of the legal system, you speak of hired guns. Lawyers may believe in their cause, but this is by no means assured. What they believe in for sure is one third of the settlement. They liberally and disingenuously apply populist arguments and blatant appeals to emotion, same as politicians. I don't think I've done that at all. Give me examples if you think I have. Sarcasm doesn't count. I do confess to tiny instances of that (smile), much as a chef might use a pinch of this or that spice to fully bring out the flavor.
Besides, I by no means think I consistently get the better of you. To quote from my own post: "Believe me, he can give as good as he gets. I'll score a point or two, which he'll graciously acknowledge, and then, while I'm strutting around like Hercule Poirot, he whacks me in the back of the head with a two-by-four!"
Besides again, in the overall picture of what's currently hot, atheists are carrying the day. It's not books on God that are topping the best-seller list. (Bibles themselves don't count; they usually just sit on the shelf unread, much like those images we recently spoke of) Didn't Hitchens just come out with a sequel? It's all a backlash, IMO, and for the most part a well-deserved one, against the atrocities that have been committed by various religious causes. Wasn't it 911 that finally caused the pot to boil over?
As you know, I think evolution's popularity is essentially the same thing....a backlash against the abusive, self-righteous and backward religionists that have always dominated history. It's a fine way to pull the rug of authority out from under these guys. But it's popularity far outweighs the available evidence.
With regard to micro-evolution there is abundant evidence, but nobody (in the JW camp) contests microevolution. On macro-evolution, the evidence is much more spotty, and on the actual origin of life from inorganic matter there is virtually none at all. So I do think it's appeal is primarily emotional, just as you think regarding my position.
And the same theist is sure that "He" does exist and that I'm a fool. While I don't presume you're applying that to our exchange, for the record I have never said you were a fool. I've never said it because I don't believe it. I think the atheist position is foolish, but not necessarily the atheist himself. I'm never in position to know, nor would I be qualified to make the call if I were in position. People are complex and they settle on this or that philosophy for any number or reasons. One thing I do firmly believe is that it is never logic alone that determines our beliefs. Mr. Spock was a make-believe TV character. He does not find a counterpart in real life.
Dear friend Tom, You ask, "Isn't this just 'sore loser syndrome?'" In a word, No! <smile>
ReplyDeleteOn your point of substance about the legal system, I was thinking of criminal justice rather than torts, where the "settlement" involves a person's being convicted or acquitted, in some cases rightly, in others wrongly. I'm sensitized to this because of my intimate familiarity with the case of Ray Krone through editing a book about his case (Jingle Jangle: The Perfect Crime Turned Inside Out). Ray's attorney for his second trial, Christopher J. Plourd, not only saw his innocent client convicted a second time, but contributed tens of thousands of dollars of his own money for the privilege. Jingle Jangle details the major ways that truth was perverted in Ray's case.
I didn't have you in mind at all in that paragraph.
I appreciate your admission that you "by no means think [that you] consistently get the better of [me]." Most gracious of you. However, I have to correct the record: You not only don't consistently get the better of me, you hardly ever do at all! <smile>
If Hitchens has just come out with a sequel, I haven't heard of it. But I went to Amazon.com and searched on the author's name and did find a hardback apparently published subsequently to God Is Not Great: Thomas Paine's Rights of Man: A Biography (Books That Changed the World). If the title referred to Paine's Age of Reason, if could be a sequel, but Rights of Man was Paine's political book. Still, Hitchens may indeed have published a sequel. Harris had his sequel to The End of Faith (Letter to a Christian Nation), and I believe that Dawkins says in The God Delusion that he will write more on the subject. Indeed, like your disingenuous lawyer, authors whose topic is in vogue might have the profit motive to supplement their passion for the subject itself.
Apparently, it indeed was "911 that finally caused the pot to boil over," at least in the case of Harris's first book. He of course mainly supports his contention that religious faith is mortally dangerous by providing many examples of militant Islam and a long list of ominous quotations from the Qur'an. His major evidence for Christian religious faith's being lethal goes back many years to the vilification of Jews as Christ-killers and kidnappers of "Christian children" for purposes of blood sacrifice, to the Crusades, to the Inquisition. His current objections are tame relative to contemporary Muslim behavior: murder of abortion doctors, opposition to stem-cell research that could save human lives, that sort of thing.
Whether "evolution's popularity is essentially the same thing [as atheism's alleged popularity]," you may be right, if you'll accept my stipulation that the reaons for both are much sounder than anything pushed forward by creationists and theists. You still have not responded to my challenge in comment circa #20, to post "Religious advice for coping with jealousy":
How does positing a "first cause" to explain the existence of apparently designed things actually explain anything? More fairly (and intelligently) a person trying to explain such things might say, "Hmm, something or some process brought this about; now, what could that be?" [Anaximander] (along, later, with Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace) came up with an idea. And it wasn't "God."
Of course, I didn't mean to imply that you think me a fool. I was referring to the language of the Old Testament (Psalm 53:1. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"). (Reading that as intimidation of non-believers, I was also thinking of the Qur'an, which demeans non-believers with vigor; Islam's harsh enforcement of "right thinking" is legendary. They're continually putting the stick about through beheadings, stonings, and issuing fatwas condemning blaspheming writers to death.)
But you do "think the atheist position is foolish." Alas, if you weren't right "that it is never logic alone that determines our beliefs," we might both have more reasonable hope of someday turning the other around. Nevertheless, my friend, I hope that you and I will continue to try to reason with each other, despite the unencouraging probability that either of us will succeed in a debating way. At least we will, I hope, enjoy the interchange and not only come to understand our own and each other's positions better, but also, in so doing, enlarge our mutual respect and friendship.