Dishonest Apologetics

[benedictus2]

What do you mean Sartre acknowledged God at the end of his life?
“Sartre’s atheism was foundational for his style of existentialist philosophy. In March 1980, about a month before his death, he was interviewed by his assistant, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed his interest in Judaism which was inspired by Levy’s renewed interest in the faith. Through Sartre’s study of Jewish history he became particularly interested in the messianic idea of the faith. Some people apparently took this to indicate a deathbed conversion; however, the text of the interviews makes it clear that he did not consider himself a Jew, and was interested in the ethical and “metaphysical character” of the Jewish religion, while continuing to reject the idea of an existing God.”
False deathbed conversion stories are a fine example of dishonest apologetics.

It is hard catching up with this thread after some absence.

Well, in your post 324, with Sartre’s words in them, it is very clear that Sartre belived in God albeit an impersonal one.

However, you concluded that this is not so based on another of his quotes in your same post 324. But in my post 469, I showed you that your interpretation is quite wrong.

Based purely on your post324, Sartre did believe in God.

And that is all that is in contention here: whether he believed in God. We are not saying that he believed in a personal God.

 

[Surfmeister]

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

*the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
*the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
*the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light.

The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker’s on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

 

[Cinette]

I do not understand your fascination with deism. It has no attraction. What is the point?

Cinnette

well…it has no attraction for YOU…i’m not quite sure of the global census, but i think it would be fair to say that you probably dont speak for the entire poulation……fd

No, I don’t speak for the entire populaton.

It is just that, from my perspective, I cannot see the attraction to deism. You might like to enlighten me perhaps?

Blessings
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Reply no 2

Have you ever watched Friends? Are you familiar with the character Chandler?
Picture him saying this:
“Could you BE any more rude?”

Yes I could be, but I try not to . And there is no rudeness in my post that you are replying to. If you think something I said above is rude please point it out.

“Could you BE any more uncharitable?”

Is it uncharitable to call a spade a spade?

“Could you BE any more combative?”

News for you. Apologetics is combative by nature.

I don’t do drama.

That is good. I don’t either. Let’s just both do reason. How about that?

Sorry. Come back later in a better mood

I think I have already replied to this saying I can’t be happier today with much of my commitments attended to.

and I will be more than happy, willing and able to discuss this with you. Until then, peace and love.

Same. Peace and Love to you too. The peace and Love of our very personal God. You don’t know it yet but it tops any kind of peace and love you will ever find on this earth.

 

[Surfmeister]

Another person assuming I’m an atheist. Odd. Hmmm.

 

[benedictus2]

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

*the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
*the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
*the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light.

The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker’s on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

Very well said.
Now the onus is on you to prove that I or any theistic members here have done the above.
Mind you, I can cite some instances of point number 2 that you are guilty of which basically all goes back to my saying please read my post properly.

But as I have said before, bad or illogical argumentation does not constitute dishonest apologetics or intellectual dishonesty. All that reveals is that the person is logically challenged.

 

[Surfmeister]

I hope you get a chance to read that short wiki article on Intellectual Dishonesty

 

[Surfmeister]

Post 400 (I think), Posted by me:
Cinette,
You said:
"When I speak of God I mean God with a capital G and that means the following:

• Almighty God of the Christians
• The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God of the Jewish Faith
• The God of the Muslim Faith"

Einstein did not believe in that God, so it unfair to claim that he did.
Well, that was easy.

 

[Surfmeister]

You seem to think the fault lies in my reading and not in your writing.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But the title of this thread is actually wrong.

First, calling an apologetics argument dishonest means you are making a judgment on the intent of the apologist.

Bad i.e. illogical arguments are not dishonest arguments. What make an argument dishonest is if the apologist knows it to be untrue and claims it to be true. Even if the apologist knows that a liine of thought is illogical, it does not make the person dishonest. For at most all that person is doing is stating an illogical argument. He is not stating a lie.

If someone were to say that Einstein believed in God and used that as an apologetics argument, all that person is doing is falling into a fallacy, not dishonesty.

Even if that person were to keep repeating that line of argumentation, it will not make him dishonest becuase what he is saying is still true, that Einstein belived in God and Einstein himself wrote this.

To say that Einstein believed in God so therefore it must be true is bad argumentation (fallacious) but not dishonest.

You my friend have fallen into a lot of bad argumentation due to failure to comprehend. Now I could say that you are being dishonest if you are deliberately failing to comprehend. But of that I can only guess so I cannot really say you are being **deliberately **obtuse so therefore I cannot say that you dishonest.

The only sad thing about that is, if one is not being dishonest, one is therefore not being deliberately obtuse. Which raises the question: is one simply, plainly obtuse? So that is like a Catch 22 situation.

I just wanted to clarify what I meant when I chose the name “Dishonest Apologetics” for this thread. According to answers.com (which as Google’s default dictionary must be reliable ), apologetics has two definitions:

1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

I was using the second definition. Answers.com defines argumentation as the presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments. So when I said “Dishonest Apologetics”, I meant the dishonest presentation of arguments in defense of a set of beliefs. I was not saying that the branch of theology itself is inherently dishonest.

 

[benedictus2]

I hope you get a chance to read that short wiki article on Intellectual Dishonesty

I have. That is why I said the onus is on you. And that is why I have said. some of the statements apply to you. That methinks is like shooting onesself in the foot.

 

[Cinette]

*The aim of argument is differing in order to agree, the failure of argument is when you agree to differ. *G K CHESTERTON

In this exchange on Einstein and Sartre are we having an argument/debate or are we having a dispute?

This all started when I gave examples of atheists who had a change of heart towards the end of their lives. There was no definition of whether they believed in a God of revelation, a personal God but that they* acknowledged* the existence of a Creator. This would imply the beginning of a change of heart. They acknowledged. That’s it.

I think that when we are young we feel a certain power, a self-confidence, a belief in self which might lead us to believe that we are in control.

Later, since we all go through trials and tribulations, since we all go through situations that are testing, we may arrive at the conclusion that we are not so much in control after all. We reflect and perhaps even explore the possibility…??..and perhaps it is at that moment that the Holy Spirit empowers us and reveals to us the truth. Who knows? The fact remains that it happens that great atheists have acknowledge a change of heart.

I was simply musing on this fact.

Is this dishonest? I don’t think so.

 

[Surfmeister]

Well, if you had worded it like that in beginning, there wouldn’t have been an issue. Einstein did not have a ‘change of heart’ at the end of his life, his disbelief in the capital G God was decades old. Perhaps you’re thinking of Sartre (in dispute) and Antony Flew, who developed a deist leaning late in life.

 

[Surfmeister]

Benedictus, if I continue to disagree with you on an issue it’s not a failure on my part to comprehend your argument, it’s your failure to provide a valid or convincing argument.

 

[benedictus2]

You seem to think the fault lies in my reading and not in your writing.

If it was my writing, then you would have come back to me with a statement from me where I did say what you claim I said. Remember, I keep asking you where did I say that? You have not come back with an answer to any of that.

As a matter of fact, the last time I asked you “where did I say that?,” you directed me to Michael Francis’s post. Now is that a failure to comprehend or what.

If you can understand the likes of Sartre (which I never claimed to since I have never ever read anything of him except what you and Cinette have posted here), the way I write is kindergarten stuff compared to Sartre’s.

So I ask, is there a deliberate failure to misread me? Or is it that your chip on the shoulder (purely my perception here) about theists is causing you to **read into **my posts, things that I have never written.

But to move forward. Just read my post exactly as I have written them without imputing into them what is not and we can dialogue quite well I think.

Your accusing me of being dishonest with your first salvo post here is not very endearing if you get my drift.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, if I continue to disagree with you on an issue it’s not a failure on my part to comprehend your argument, it’s your failure to provide a valid or convincing argument.

No, it is your failure to comprehend. Why else would I have to keep asking you “Where did I say that?”, Where did I say that Einstein believed in a personal God, etc, etc, etc.

If I have to keep asking you this, then obviously it is a failure on your part to read my post properly.

I have rarely ever asked CAF member these, you know. To point out where I made such a claim. But with you, I seem to do that quite a lot.

 

[Surfmeister]

Directing you to the moderator’s post was a request to be civil, as per the forum rules.

If I were the only one to challenge you and Cinette on your misrepresentation of Einstein’s ‘beliefs’, I might think it was just me. But since others have also pointed out your errors/false claims and we have the words of the man himself defining his own beliefs which are contradictory to the initial claims, we can assume it’s you who have some ‘splainin’ to do!

 

[Surfmeister]

Flame Wars would also be contrary to the forum rules.

 

[Surfmeister]

I have stated and re-stated my position and showed you where those posts were and how I arrived at my conclusions. You not liking my position or my route to those conclusions cannot be helped. You need to read back if you want a re-hash.

 

[benedictus2]

I was using the second definition. Answers.com defines argumentation as the presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments. So when I said “Dishonest Apologetics”, I meant the dishonest presentation of arguments in defense of a set of beliefs. I was not saying that the branch of theology itself is inherently dishonest.

But to label something as dishonest means that there is an intent to lie.

What constitutes a dishonest presentation?

Let’s take for example the statement" Einstein believed in God".

It is only dishonest if the opposite is true : Einstein did not believe in God. It remains bad apologetics argument nonetheless; because Einstein’s belief in God does not constitute proof of God.

However, even if an apologist knew that it is bad logic, it does not make him dishonest unless it has been agreed that full knowledge of bad logic is considered dishonest.

What it is accoridng to answer.com is BAD/ILLOGICAL presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments not necessarily a DISHONEST presentation and elaboration of an argument.

Now if the apologist knew full well that Einstein recanted his belief in God at deathbed then it is indeed dishonest to claim otherwise.