Sunday, September 30, 2018

BULLSHIT by Meta Christianity

Hold onto your hats as this will be a whirlwind of MetaChristianity displaying obfuscation, quote-mining, misrepresentation, and scholarly disregard for citing his sources as well as committing fallacious reasoning in the form of appeal to authority.

Note: My words/replies (apetivist) will be in purple and his/her (Meta Christianity) words will be in red.  Later my commentary will appear below the purple text and red text and will appear in white text.
-----------------


-----------------

--------------------
Apetivist
What does any of that have to do with my questions?

My Commentary: I am correct in asking this question.  As he did not state what was wrong with my question or added commentary but all he did was refer to two links.  



MetaChristianity
‏Only addressing your claim of “...technically evil...”
More and more Non-Theists such as Carroll, Hume, Ruse, and Rosenberg give arguments to the contrary.

Again- he/she doesn't state any specifics but loosely points authorities saying something to the contrary.  I really appreciate the vagueness of his/her replies.   He/she is real busy sounding like he/she knows what he is talking about without pointing out specifically anything at all.  

Apetivist
You have to give me examples and provide the context. Citing where they said these things would also be quite helpful.

I am asking for him/her to do more than provide what he/she has and in particular show specifically what he/she is trying to say in response to my questions and statements and in particular the context of these responses by said authorities.  


MetaChristianity
‏No I don’t. They’ve robust and honest arguments and of late the younger, braver Non-Theists are eager to deconstruct, to get to the bottom line. Silliness like Harris’ “I choose but I do not choose what I choose” quickly shines and twice as quickly fades. Why? Well for reasons.👍

I am not surprised that he/she will not provide what I am asking for.  Then he/she goes off into a diatribe about Sam Harris in an attempt to further distract from my requests.  


Apetivist
‏So you won't cite where these claims are made? Telling.

Need I say much more?  If he/she really had the goods he/she would happily provide it.  



MetaChristianity
1. The quotes were given earlier ➡️
http://disq.us/p/1titjw1
2. I’m satisfied if you’d like to claim that they’re not actual quotes.
3. 👍

Apetivist
‏Do you have the source from where these quotes are derived?


MetaChristianity
‏Yep.
The last one was linked.
The first 4 weren’t.
You’re still avoiding the actual topic. Perhaps they’re all fake quotes, yes?

Apetivist
‏Give me all the links to all the sources of the quotes.

Apetivist
‏guess he won't so I've done research on my own and have come across some level of quote mining and also some appeals to authority. I will address all of this with proper address of the quotes, context, and other implications regarding morality. When complete I will post it to my blog and provide a link in this tweet thread as well as a new tweet. This is all an example of Brandolini’s Law – “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” Alberto Brandolini @ziobrando

MetaChristianity
General segue:
—Prediction:
https://twitter.com/m_christianity/status/1045367816868761600?s=12 …
Demonstration:
Present premises and arguments with respect to Knowledge, Mind, Reason, Perception, and Being as such relates to:
1. the Christian Metaphysic and
2. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html … and
3. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/08/five-proofs-is-out.html …
Then debunk them....

I’ve clearly stated my goal of demonstrating that critics either avoid Christian premises or dive in and tweak until a Christian X becomes a Non-Christian X, and when called on it they level F-bombs & insults.

If you ever present one of these debunk-ing-Thingamajiggers........


Note that all of this is MetaChristianity's attempt to flood me with research over non-specific material in an attempt to not specifically respond to my questions, statements, and also by appealing to authority he feels no need to actually articulate his points.  He fails to do anything but obfuscate.  I will breakdown the following so to show that MetaChristianity is misrepresenting the quotes, taking them out of context or not even being interested in the context, and making appeal to authority that doesn't even address the questions or statements that I have made.





--------------------




    Well.... hold on’there’fella....
    Ministries of T_u_h? What’s t_u_h?
    5 letters... so 5 here....
    [1] “The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […insert any evil here…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children—aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is.” (Sean Carroll)
    I had to buy the book that this quote derives from- "The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself" by Sean Carroll.  *As I type this I must read the entire book.  In particular the chapter and paragraphs from which this quote is derived. This is all an example of Brandolini’s Law – “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” - Alberto Brandolini @ziobrando
    This is the advantage of dishonest people that can pump out material at breakneck speeds while those interested in honesty and scholarly debate must invest large amounts of time and effort to present their counter argument (example the 'Gish Gallop").  It makes the dishonest person seem more presentable but only to the misinformed mind and gives them only a momentary victory that will eventually be upended by the honest individual that wants nothing but the truth to prevail no matter where it will land.

    I must go at great length to present what Sean Carroll is talking about and how he further addresses the topic of morality in his book.  Even for those that can't or haven't bought the book there is information available in Amazon's "Look Inside" feature for the book that will present my case that MetaChristianity is not being forthright with his quote nor is he presenting the full case of Sean Carroll regarding the matter.

    Here is the 'look Inside" using a key search function: The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality  In it you will clearly read that MetaChristianity left out some key text.  This is preferential quote mining to make it look like Sean Carroll is making a cold statement about morality.  Upon closer inspection one will see that Carroll is making a logical analysis about morality and the difficulty about doing experiments or syllogisms to support morality one way or another.  He elaborates earlier by discussing the usage of instrumental rationality as a way to arrive at "ought issues" that aren't addressed in experimental science.  He does admit that we must have a way of determining what it is that we want and providing logical reasons as to why we want those things (p. 401).  Carroll goes on in chapter 39 to elaborate how we go about determining what is the kind of morality we should choose.  This is largely based on Deontological and Consequentialist  arguments.  Deontology has to do with our ethical impulses and Consequentialism is concerned with systematic utilization of ethics.  Most of our moral choices are based on either one or both of these ethical considerations. 

    Sean Carroll is not advocating for immorality or chaos or cold reckoning of materialism.  He is advocating for a rational and useful morality that allows mankind to advance in a future of well being and social flourishing.  Unlike religion that promotes rigid systems of rules and behavior- secular morality advocates a morality that maximizes the well being of others while protecting the rights of others to not be violated and if they are then there are laws to deal with the offenders.  In the Bible we have a deity handing down rules that can't be questioned often to one person which can't be verified but secular morality is a consensus of a society about how they want themselves and others to be treated.  The Bible doesn't give us the tools or philosophy with dealing with moral dilemmas nor does it provide the complex questions about why a person does what they do.  These types of questions belong to science, philosophy, and psychology.  Pretending that there are easy answers to every moral situation is fooling ourselves.  If you don't know about it take the time to research the Trolly Problem.  Rarely would we be faced with such extreme moral problems but every moral problem has its own degree of complexity and sometimes there are no easy answers.  
    [2] “Hume was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do.” (Sean Carroll)
    Once again this is quote mining.  See here at Hume was right. We have no objective guidance   Why do some theists feel compelled to misrepresent what others say?  If they had the truth on their side they wouldn't have to do this.  It is underhanded to say the least.  Additionally in Chapter 48 Carroll explains how we go about constructing rational moral arguments and systems.  I wonder why MetaChristianity failed to use any quotes from this chapter?  What I find hilarious is by quote mining and ignoring data that doesn't support his argument MetaChristianity actually embarrasses himself and equally strengthens the argument of the opposition.  In the Age of Information a lie and disinformation may spread for a while but sooner or later somebody is going to pick it apart.  
    [3] “– Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)
    Here MetaChristianity is isolating a quote to make it seem that Hume is some moral nihilist.  When in reality Hume isn't speaking of morality but the distinction between passion and reason.  If you don't believe me then check this free online file of Treatise of Human Nature and use keys Ctrl-F (find) on your keyboard and type in the words "Tis not contrary to reason" and it will take you to the actual quote and the surrounding context regarding the quote.  
    [4] “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: “Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bull___t, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.” The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer. So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective. “Why should I be good? Why should you be good? Because that is what morality demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid on us and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2 + 2 = 4.” I am not saying that we always are moral, but that we always know that we should be moral. Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.” (Michael Ruse)
    Once again, MetaChristianity is isolating a quote free from its context and surrounding words. MetaChristianity so wants to paint atheists as moral nihilists or immoral people incapable of making sound and ethical judgments. He really seems committed to grinding a non-existent axe. Feel free to read Michael Ruse's full article in The Guardian entitled God Is Dead. Long Live Morality. Ruse speaks of the reasons why morality is a natural part of our social interaction and that it is independent of a person's belief in a god. Ruse also refers to Hume in the article saying- "Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner."

    [5] “Pressing on through Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of morality. Followed out consistently, Rosenberg says, scientism entails nihilism. As Rosenberg is keen to emphasize, this is not the same as moral relativism or moral skepticism. It is not the claim that moral truth is relative, or that it is real but unknowable. Nor is it the claim that everything is morally permitted. It is a far more radical and disturbing claim than any of these views. Nihilism, as Rosenberg understands it, is the view that there is no such thing as being “morally permitted” or “morally prohibited” in the first place. For there is, given Rosenberg’s scientism, no intrinsic value in the world of the sort that is necessary for morality to be intelligible. Morality — not just commonsense or traditional morality, not just religious morality, but all morality, morality as such, including any purported secular, liberal, permissive morality — is therefore an illusion.” (…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot...etc…)  
    And perhaps: https://www.thinkingchristi... (...this comment http://disq.us/p/1titjw1 ...) 
    I could not follow the link as my Webroot Antivirus warned me of possible malicious activity on the site linked as edwardfeser.blogspot.  See jpeg below as evidence:
       
    The remaining two links seem useless.  One opens up to a strange defense of Christianity (see for yourself) and the other is a copy/paste of these same 5 points.
    However, I looked into Alex Rosenburg's position on scientism and nihilism and deferring to an expert in the field that does a far better job than I, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, explains what is wrong and/or weak about Rosenburg's argument.  See link: Rosenberg's 2012 Argument for Nihilism Lowder points out that Rosenberg makes several statements that aren't true particularly toward what other atheists believe.

    I think MetaChristianity should re-exam his/her "war" against atheism or atheists.  Why must we be painted as some immoral "other"?  I suspect it because he/she has bought into the idea that without his deity belief one can't be moral.  This goes against almost everything we know about morality, psychology, science, and history.  If this is not his/her grind against atheist/atheists then what would cause him to post such things?  
    I think this is about as exhaustive I will be regarding these quotes.  If you have anything to add feel free to do so in the comments below.

    The End?  😑

1 comment:

  1. I am usually not in the habit of blocking people on Twitter but MetaChristianity went on teh attack using similar tactics as before and would not own up to deliberately quote mining and casting unwarranted aspersions against atheists painting us as immoral as a group of people.

    ReplyDelete