Catholics need to sharpen our debating skills...and increase our charity

[Wozza]

GordonP:

No, that is inaccurate. A atheist lacks belief in God. An agnostic does not believe that it is possible to know whether God exists.

…it should fit the situation where the person has no argument for or against God, whether or not they believe it’s possible to prove/disprove Him.

As I said, one cannot argue for or against something that hasn’t been proposed. There are as many variations of gods are there are people who believe in them. Propose one and the answer is either:

Yes I believe that: Believer
No I don’t believe that: Atheist
I’m not sure you have convinced me: Agnostic

 

[GordonP]

But to do that you have to have a reason to disbelieve.

No, you don’t. At all. That is a common misconception, and a common reason why believers fail when communicating with atheists.

And you really have to parse what you read what I wrote, because I did NOT say that an agnostic is someone with a positive belief that the question is unknowable. I said, again, that an agnostic does not believe that it is possible to know whether God exists.

 

[MarysLurker]

No I don’t believe that: Atheist

But then you’d have a reason for saying no.

I’m not sure you have convinced me: Agnostic

That would be a weak form of agnosticism, while a stronger form would say the question is not proveable. See dictionary commentary

As you’ve alluded to, the terms are imprecise because when a Catholic says “God,” he means something totally different then what, say, a Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim means—and for that matter something different then even what a Protestant means.

 

[GordonP]

But then you’d have a reason for saying no.

No. Wherever are you getting that idea from. That is a logical non-sequitur. Just because someone does not believe does not mean that they have a reason for not believing.

 

[GordonP]

when a Catholic says “God,” he means something totally different then what, say, a Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim means

Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.

 

[vz71]

Whatever.
You posted yourself that debate and discourse don’t ‘win hearts’ which actually implies yours.

So when someone notes that is not always the case, you are offended.
Then when an apology is genuinely sent, you slap it aside.

I can see well why discourse doesn’t win your heart. However, discourse still works well in many cases.

Feel free to be offended.

 

[MarysLurker]

Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.

I’m aware of that, but Muslims hold that Allah is mutable. Catholics, Orthodox and Jews do not. Protestants vary.

 

[MarysLurker]

No. Wherever are you getting that idea from. That is a logical non-sequitur. Just because someone does not believe does not mean that they have a reason for not believing.

I think that “I don’t believe in God for no particular reason” isn’t specific enough to put someone in either the agnostic or atheist camp. If the reason is “I don’t think you can prove He exists” the person is an agnostic. If the answer is “materialism until proven otherwise,” then the person is an atheist.

 

[GordonP]

I think that “I don’t believe in God for no particular reason” isn’t specific enough to put someone in either the agnostic or atheist camp.

I think that “I don’t believe in God for no particular reason” isn’t specific enough to put someone in either the agnostic or atheist camp.

No, again. A atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God. Full stop. That is a full and complete definition, and nothing needs to be added to it whatsoever. Anyone who lacks belief in God is an atheist. When anyone tells you they are an atheist, the ONLY thing you can possibly know about them is that do not believe in God. You cannot logically conclude that they believe that God does not exist, nor can you make any logical inferences about their reasons or lack thereof.

Once you start doing that, the atheist you are talking to will know that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about, and tune you out, because anything you say from that point on is going to be fallacious or irrelevant.

Don’t every assign motives or beliefs to people unless they specifically tell you their motives or beliefs. Otherwise, the conversation shuts down immediately, and you will never get their ear again.

 

[MarysLurker]

Don’t every assign motives or beliefs to people unless they specifically tell you their motives or beliefs. Otherwise, the conversation shuts down immediately, and you will never get their ear again.

The temperature in here is getting too high. I’m off to lurking again.

 

[Economist]

Interesting thread. Since I studied all sorts of physical sciences, and also several kinds of philosophy, I want to add my two cents. Philosophy has several sub-categories; namely “metaphysics”, “epistemology” and “ethics” (sometimes even aethetics).

Metaphysics deals with “existence”, in other words it deals with “what exists”?
Epistemology deals with knowledge, in other words: “how do we know something”?
Ethics deals with “ought” statements, “how should we behave”?

This is basic philosophy 101. Many people are not aware of it.

If one believes in some “supernatural”, or some “god” of “God” then one is a theist. If one lacks such a belief, then one is an “atheist”. Theist and atheist are metaphysical positions. Gnostic and agnostic deals with knowledge, so these are epistemological positions. One can be any of the four possibilities: “gnostic theist”, “agnostic theist”, “gnostic atheist” and “agnostic atheist”.

The word “god” designates anything supernatural, without any special attributes. Usually the upper case “God” designates the Christian concept of god, which has a plethora of other attributes. Now, why does one not believe in a “god” or “God” is secondary. Some people have never heard of this concept. Others may have heard it, but are unable to comprehend it. (I once met someone who was unable to conceptualize negative numbers. And I am serious.) And then there are people, who heard of the god-concept, who understand it, but find it nonsensical, or contradictory. These are all atheists.

Atheism is a purely metaphysical stance. It has no bearing on ethics. There have been very good atheists and very bad ones. There have been very good theists and very bad ones. It is not a good idea to try to draw some conclusion from one’s philosophical stance. About as bad as trying to draw conclusions from the person’s skin pigmentation.

This is still philosophy 101. I hope no one will consider this post non-charitable.

Oh, and this whole thread should really be in the philosophy sub-forum.

 

[Neithan]

And then there are people, who heard of the god-concept, who understand it, but find it nonsensical, or contradictory. These are all atheists.

I hope no one will consider this post non-charitable.

If you mean, not unkind, it looks OK to me. The rhetorical principle of charity is to " avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available." While you narrow the definition of atheism to those who think the concept of god is nonsensical or contradictory, I think that is a subset of atheists — the term is so vague that the only aspect I have found in common among all who self-identify with it is simply a lack of belief in any particular religion or deity.

For those who find the simple concept of god — as in supreme being as a philosophical proposition — incoherent, nonsensical or contradictory, I think Dennett’s advice to apply the principle of charity is a great starting point before engaging in debate.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I doubt that you can know what does and what does not move my heart.

Then why claim debates do not move hearts?

 

[Economist]

If you mean, not unkind, it looks OK to me. The rhetorical principle of charity is to " avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available." While you narrow the definition of atheism to those who think the concept of god is nonsensical or contradictory, I think that is a subset of atheists — the term is so vague that the only aspect I have found in common among all who self-identify with it is simply a lack of belief in any particular religion or deity.

For those who find the simple concept of god — as in supreme being as a philosophical proposition — incoherent, nonsensical or contradictory, I think Dennett’s advice to apply the principle of charity is a great starting point before engaging in debate.

I took pains not to narrow down the concept of atheism to those, who heard and understood and rejected the concept of god as incoherent, nonsensical or contradictory. Simple linguistics tells us that atheism is merely the lack of belief in any kind of supernatural or transcendent. Yes, one can speak of weak and strong atheism, and the differences these concept entails.

The possible problem is the word “god”, which means something “supernatural” when speaking metaphysically, and “transcendent” when speaking epistemologically. (So many people fail to comprehend the difference). It is a very vague concept, all the way from the deistic, faceless, uncaring creator, who simply set the world in motion, and then left it alone, all the way to the very detailed, attribute-rich God of Christianity.

When I first encountered the concept of “charity” in this kind of context (many, many years, decades ago), I was flabbergasted. Charity in my neck of the woods is giving alms to someone who suffers some needs. A few dollars to a beggar. Nothing more. But I learned that there are other uses for this word, and I accepted it.

As for the concept of “theist” and “atheist”, these are simple concepts, as I explained in my post. But even though they are simple, it does not mean that they are simplistic. Precisely because there are several so many instances of misunderstanding it is a very good idea to sit down, and clarify the misunderstandings. The conversation should be civil, without trying to put down the other side.

I would like to emphasize again, the presence or absence of belief in something supernatural is no indication of the person’s mental abilities or “moral” character.

 

[Neithan]

I took pains not to narrow down the concept of atheism to those, who heard and understood and rejected the concept of god as incoherent, nonsensical or contradictory.

OK so this would be the first step for that particular subset of atheism then — what would you call it, theological noncognitivism? If one cannot apply the principle of charity to a concept or proposition (e.g. god) so that it is coherent and rational then we need to find common ground somewhere antecedent, since we can’t debate something that does not make sense to one or the other party.

Precisely because there are several so many instances of misunderstanding it is a very good idea to sit down, and clarify the misunderstandings. The conversation should be civil, without trying to put down the other side.

I would like to emphasize again, the presence or absence of belief in something supernatural is no indication of the person’s mental abilities or “moral” character.

These are basic attitudes for productive debate, and essential for the principle (and virtue) of charity.

 

[DENNYINMI]

we should first try to understand the argument as the other person does, to see how it has convinced them — to “steel man” the argument and aspire to re-state it in such a way that supporters of it would admire how succinctly we can articulate it. Then we can critique it.

I do agree with the “care and Kindness” part which goes without saying, but we as Christians might not necessarily remember that faith is a gift from God. That is scriptural, but rarely do we truly ponder this.

Why would God withhold a great gift? He doesn’t. The Christian sees the poor man and gives him bread, the Atheist does too. The Christian spends a moment longer than he should to give their time to an elderly lonely man, the Atheist does the same. But Christian and Atheist do this for the same mind set, the same reason. And, God sees this as good. They are caring for Christ, a Christ they don’t acknowledge, yet Christ sees the heart.

I’ve often wondered about this, and I believe it’s a mystery. An atheist could be the most intellectual person in the world and because God is not tangible, not scientific, they don’t believe. But there is nothing to indicate that a good man is forgotten by God with no way to provide a means to salvation. Our faith will save us, love may save them, yet the greatest of these is love. just a thought.

 

[IWantGod]

W: I am a materialst.
C: Oh, so genocide is perfectly acceptable!

With further explanation i can see the validity in this statement.

Obviously for you it might not be a subjective preference and so it is not acceptable for you. You don’t like genocide. However in actual reality (objectively speaking) if there is no objective moral truth or standard regarding human behaviour beyond ones pragmatic preferences, then how is not liking genocide any different from not liking a particular cake. Obviously the idea or experiences of genocide has a shock value that goes beyond the experience of eating a revolting cake. But clearly there isn’t really anything objective to distinguish the value of their effects beyond the fact that one type of experience revolts us more than another kind and perhaps in a different way. But it’s all just physical activity nonetheless.

Thus when a materialist argues that genocide is unacceptable, one has a right to question the rationality of that statement given their commitment to materialism. After-all, if materialism is true, there is no objective moral truth and thus all physical activities are permissible insomuch as there is nothing in truth that disallows any particular behaviour. There is no wrong way, only pragmatic preferences.

Of course, a materialist can be consistent with their materialism and say that their particular physical makeup and experiences just so happens to cause a sense of empathy or disgust on the topic of genocide, but at the same time no physical effect is truly wrong. I can respect that because at least they are being consistent about what they believe in this case. But it just doesn’t have that same strength of character as when one recognises evil and takes sides with the truth and protests that this or that behaviour is morally wrong at whatever expense.

After all, most of us at least, when we say that some behaviour is unacceptable, we mean that it is truly wrong and we expect other rational people to agree with that truth. It’s not just something we happen to not like because of the biochemical activity in our brains.

 

[Economist]

OK so this would be the first step for that particular subset of atheism then — what would you call it, theological noncognitivism?

I see no need to create a fresh nomenclature. Atheism is the lack of belief in anything “supernatural” works just fine. It is clear, short, simple and unambiguous. Theism is the belief that supernatural entities exist, and they can influence the physical reality.

These are basic attitudes for productive debate, and essential for the principle (and virtue) of charity.

That is fine. So how shall we continue?

An atheist could be the most intellectual person in the world and because God is not tangible, not scientific, they don’t believe.

It is not that simple. The upper case “God” has many attributes and using those attributes God directly interacts with our observable physical existence - at least allegedly. The skeptic (or atheist) looks at the world and sees no such interaction. It is one thing to say that God is non-physical, and therefore cannot be detected by the naked eye, or its extensions. It is quite another that there are no events, which carry the imprimatur “Made by God”, so that the authorship is plainly visible for everyone.

 

[DENNYINMI]

It is one thing to say that God is non-physical, and therefore cannot be detected by the naked eye, or its extensions. It is quite another that there are no events, which carry the imprimatur “Made by God”, so that the authorship is plainly visible for everyone.

Most eloquently stated by a believer. I concur. Here you make my point. The atheist does not see it. The question begs why, the answer I’ve offered is a mystery and there may even be an opinion but to state a finite answer would be faulty.

 

[Economist]

With further explanation i can see the validity in this statement.

I cannot. And the reason is twofold: Ethics - the third branch of philosophy does not deal with “IS” statements, it deals with “OUGHT” statements. Given some objective circumstances and some subjective goals (goals are always subjective!) what should we do to achieve those goals? Since actions do not happen in a vacuum, there are always extra consequences which must be taken into consideration. So the circumstances MUST be considered, and as such every ethical decision is relative - to the circumstances.

But that is only part of the problem. There are many ethical systems, and they are usually incompatible with one another. Just a few: “divine command theory”, “virtue ethics”, “consequentialist / utilitarian”, “deontology”, “social contract”, “natural law”… and several more. Depending on which meta-ethical system one accepts, the same act will be evaluated differently.

Of course bringing up that “pesky” genocide is a favorite tactics against the concept of relativism. After all almost everyone abhors genocide… unless one subscribes to the “divine command” theory, and when God orders the extermination of the Amalekites, then it becomes hunky-dory. So you are just as much a moral relativist as I am, except your “relativism” is based upon a different foundation.

Using a less controversial problem, the ethics of contraception is worthy to ponder. Only a miniscule minority of the general population has problem with contraception. Even the majority of the Catholics see nothing wrong with prevention.

And this leads to the question: “which ethical system should we accept” ? There is no objective epistemological method to compare two ethical systems, except for the “pudding method”. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. But what is the “proof” for an ethical system?