The "Mental Acrobatics" objection

[Pieman333272]

Often, when I propose a solution to a skeptic’s argument against God (esp. involving the Bible), they state I am doing “mental acrobatics”. Does this objection hold any water? And if so, how do you avoid it?

 

[Barbkw]

Ask them about guilt in their lives and what mental acrobatics they’ve perform hiding from Christ.

 

[JRKH]

Often, when I propose a solution to a skeptic’s argument against God (esp. involving the Bible), they state I am doing “mental acrobatics”. Does this objection hold any water? And if so, how do you avoid it?

Basically there isn’t much you CAN do in this case. The reason that say this is because they are essentially closed to any argument that does not agree with their view or fit with whatever parameters they have set up for themselves.
If they are serious, rather than dismiss you with the “mental acrobatics” quip, they will aske questions, point out problems with the logic or reasoning etc…

Sorry can’t be any more specific without details that will likely vary depending to the position of the other person (atheist? protestant? heathen?..etc)

Peace
James

 

[PeteO]

The objection holds water insofar as you don’t explain what you are discussing.

For example- I’ve explained the Trinity to some atheists, the “substance” of God, concepts of eternity and infinity, etc.

The initial reaction to explaining such things is “oh, so the Church says that the tough parts to understand (where there is apparent contradiction), is now called a ‘mystery’.”
Their frustration is valid- I too would be frustrated in attempting to intellectualize infinity and eternity. Also, my greatest frustration when coming to the faith was dealing with the apparent “convenient” mystery statements which many Catholic apologists used to escape having to explain such difficult concepts.

I find that honesty is the best policy- I claim that I too do not fully understand.

I then find this logic puts my point across- However, I do not understand Quantum Physics either, yet I do not deny that it contains truth or that it is valid. Just because something is beyond our capacity to immediately comprehend does not mean that it is not valid.

Also, you must encourage others to ask God Himself. I never understood until I prayed.

I forget who I heard this from… but I believe a saint prayed it-
“Lord, help me to believe so that I may understand; not to understand so that I may believe.”

Seems counter-intuitive, but it worked for me.

 

[Victorious]

Actually, it takes a lot more mental acrobatics to disbelieve than to believe.

I mean, consider it in terms of how the universe came into being. If you’re an atheist, you have to believe that in the beginning there was nothing; and then, all of a sudden, nothing turned its non-existent self into something; which then multiplied itself into an infinity of atoms and molecules; which, by pure chance, arranged themselves into stars and planets and living creatures governed by physical laws; all of which remains in being for no particular reason.

Makes a lot more sense to believe that God created the universe.

Occam’s Razor…

 

[In_Spiration]

Suggested response: "Wow! This is a philosophical breakthrough of Aristotelian – no, Fregean! – proportions! Have you informed the logicians that there’s now a brand new ‘fourth way’ to refute an argument? No longer must one point out either (a) an ambiguous term, (b) an invalid inference, such as a known logical fallacy, or (c) a false premise; ladies and gentlemen, introducing (d): “it’s complicated!”

We can call it the “Fear of Commitment” retort – for the logically promiscuous folks who just like to casually “get around” with various single premises without ever entering into an official relationship with any conclusion. Your most common user of this rejection has usually “been around the block” for a while, and he’s therefore quick to defensively disclaim that he’s not *really * the cynic his notorious reputation would suggest. He insists, in fact, that he’s 100% free of any prejudice (he’s been tested), and that he approaches each new proposal with the same vigor of a bright-eyed teen in the throes of a Shakespearean romance. Nonetheless, he’s stern to warn: his judgment is most refined, and he’s seen it all, and they’re “all the same.” Of course, as if by some cruel, irresistible, God-forbidden instinct, this rejoinder serves only to intrigue you more. “I’ll be the one to reform his ways and to make him a doe-eyed believer again! My dad’s so wrong about him. I can handle this so-called bad apple.”

These argument-breakers will typically attract the inculpably innocent apologist who is new to the brutal debating scene, always, sadly, the one optimistically trusting enough to expose her inmost thoughts with a tender vulnerability – a worthy and anticipated risk in saving a mate’s soul. The smooth skeptics listen to her heartfelt pitches with a calculated air of care and thoughtfulness, but they’re just reeling her in, going through the motions as they wait to selfishly entertain (and then swiftly dismiss) the climax at the end. The next day, their attention will have moved on, and they’ll proceed onward with their “high standards” under the impression that they’re justified in never again giving the theist or her claims the light of day.

Throwing away all that wisdom she once accepted about maintaining a cool “hard to get” front", the believer naturally rushes to tweet her excitement to all followers; or perhaps, if she’s not on Twitter, she modestly limits her friends to a hint via one lone Facebook update. But whenever the player’s pals inquire as to what the situation is with argument what’s-its-name, especially after he’s had time to rationalize, he’ll somehow save face by glibly replying: “It’s complicated.” Gossip ensues. Drama. Shouting. Name-calling. Tears are shed, maybe even a vow to wait it out is proclaimed, but inevitably it’s over. And then, feeling deceitfully played and unfairly violated, she reports back to her concerned friends, who try their best to encourage this promising one not to become jaded (like them).

Jerks.

…and I told myself I wouldn’t procrastinate tonight. Oh well!]

 

[Tonitz]

When you are dealing with an atheist, there are two kinds; one is by omission and the other is by decision. Atheists by omission simply never “got religion” of any kind as they were growing up. There are some dynamics of great interest surrounding this for both the faithful and the non faithful. This kind is as set in stone as cradle Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or whatever, and for similar reasons, and reason is about the last thing that works on such.

Atheists by decision have come to their stance by looking at their lives on the basis of ideas and suppositions, some of which they bring with them from childhood, others which they conclude are so because of personal observations. This type resents being “third partied” by an authority we hold Supreme, but they don’t acknowledge, at least in the form of a religion or a holy Book. Remember, these folks are atheist to other religions than our own as well, which is part of the reason that arguments from a specific religion are often counterproductive. They are unconvinced of anyone’s God/god. not just yours.

And that is often the source of the “mental acrobatics” assessment. Those who base their arguments on faith are including a component rejected a priori by atheists. It takes a major shock for the complacent–religious or atheist–to really take a significantly deep look at who and what they are, and in what terms they will conduct that consideration. And then it can still go in a different direction. I know some folks you might call atheist at first glance who are no such thing, though they do not subscribe to our particular faith. Go figure.

 

[Tsamp1006]

When i read this post I cannot help but think back to something a professor of mine (in the mechanical engineering department) once said in his lecture, “There is a simple solution to everything… And it is always wrong” The so called mental acrobatics that he claims we perform are no different than any type of complex analysis that mathematicians use when they derive new theorems to simplify complex equations into manageable ones, and frankly physicists have been taking far more liberties with these “mental acrobatics” than we ever have with the both the underlying suppositions and the introduction of sometimes countless dimensions in the pursuit of string theory, something that i frankly suspect is will be debunked. Einstein could easily and doubtlessly was accused of performing “mental acrobatics” with the implications that arose when he threw out Newtonian physics in favor of Maxwell’s equations in the development of special relativity (an example in which such acrobatics proved favorable to scientific discovery), and so many mental acrobatics needed to be performed to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem that it has taken us almost four centuries to prove it, and when it finally was proven it took more than 100 pages to do so. The validity of an argument is not dependent upon the length that is taken to attain it but rather by the certainty and validity of each of the steps and thoughts that are used to derive it, I would recommend that you propose two options to your friends the next time the accuse you of such, ask them to either show you where in your argument you have taken a flawed step, or to refuse to accept all of modern science on the grounds that it has been derived through “mental acrobatics”