Hector Avalos and Andre Gagne recently wrote a document entitled A Manifesto for Secular Scriptural Scholarship and Religious Studies. Avalos is an old "friend" here (and here, and here, and here and here). Gagne is an Associate Professor of Early Christian History and Literature at Concordia University in Montreal. Their joint manifesto was also signed by fourteen other scholars in the field, not all yet with terminal degrees, including Matthew Ferguson, whose work I have also criticized in this space from time to time. (Including in my last post)
The authors of this manifesto forthrightly identify themselves as "New Atheists." (I have, curiously, occasionally been blamed for use of a "straw man" for using or maybe even inventing that term.) They begin by introducing the movement, before explaining what skeptical scholars in religious studies like themselves have to add, either to the New Atheism, or to the academic study of religion. Their work is a kind of 95 Theses for skeptical scholars of religion, but shorter, and less obviously up for debate.
Be that as it may, let us examine this manifesto critically.
BACKGROUNDThe New Atheism is a name given to a movement represented by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom wrote best-selling books that were highly critical of religion.
Although the New Atheism does not eschew the classical arguments against the existence of God, its focus is primarily on the immorality and harmful consequences of religious thinking itself. For some, the New Atheism is not merely atheistic, but also anti-theistic.
Another main feature of the New Atheism is a secular apocalyptic outlook born out of the events of September 11, 2001. A secular apocalyptic outlook refers to the view that religion has the potential to destroy humanity and our entire biosphere.
Odd that such a criticism should be made just a few decades after the end of the Cold War, in which the West (secularist and Christian) faced "religiously" atheistic Soviet and Maoist geopolitical blocks that possessed vastly greater resources for destroying humanity than anything, say, Iran possesses today. Can Avalos and Gagne already have forgotten the 20th Century?
The communists did a number on the biosphere, too. (Although some species appear to have flourished after humans were forced out of Chernobyl and the No-man's land along the North Korean border, apparently.)
However, many secular and religious critics of the New Atheism have charged the New Atheism with a number of flaws. One is a lack of expertise in scriptural and religious studies that has led Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens to make pronouncements that are rightly viewed as simplistic or inaccurate in some cases.
Got that right.
This situation has led to the perception that the New Atheism has no experts in scriptural and religious studies that could challenge religious counterparts with as much or more expertise. Others have conflated all New Atheists as followers of a neoliberal or capitalist ideology. Still others note that all the representatives of the New Atheism are white males.
The latter would be peculiar set of charges, to anyone who follows the movement. Most "Gnus" are decidedly left-wing, with many proponents well to the left of the American Democratic Party, for instance. (As, indeed, was the Marxist-Leninist movement, the world's most successful anti-"religious" movement of all time.) While most New Atheists do indeed seem to be male -- and often rowdy males, some women attending their conferences have complained -- of course there has long been a female contingent as well, led by people like Greta Christiana and (for color) Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Accordingly, there is a need to identify a Second Wave of the New Atheism. Such a need was discussed briefly in Hector Avalos, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), but it received no elaboration.
The First Wave focused on the problems that religious thinking can cause. Since religion was the focus of the First Wave, then a Second Wave seeks to rethink how self-identified atheist scholars of religion and scripture approach the issues that the First Wave raised.
The original band of New Atheists could stand for some help from scholars who know more about religion than they do, I concede.
The recent uprising of terror attacks across the globe from groups like ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, and others, is also one of the reasons why scholars of religion and scriptural studies who identify with a Second Wave of New Atheists should speak out against the catastrophic effects of religious violence and ideology.
Oddly enough, all three of these movements belong to just one of the world's major religions. I wonder how many of the signatures of this document are scholars of that religion? Those few I recognize, are not.
But again, notice that no mention is made of prior "(religious) violence and ideology" by atheistic Marxist-Leninists. Have the deaths of 100 million innocent people, many after prolonged torture and deprivement, already slipped the minds of Avalos, Gagne, & Co? If it happened "once" -- actually protracted over many decades, on five continents -- why should we be so confident that atheistic-based ideologies are now neutered of the potential for harm?
The authors of this statement, Hector Avalos and André Gagné, thought it useful to identify the main characteristics of what can be called a Second Wave of the New Atheism. Our hope is that other secular scholars who have similar ideas might join us or help us to clarify the nature and purpose of scriptural scholarship and the study of religion as it relates to current global events in the coming decades.
All right, let's see what proposals Avalos and Gagne come up with.
A MANIFESTO FOR SECULAR SCRIPTURAL SCHOLARSHIP AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES
Insofar as we believe that religious belief has the potential to incite actions that could ultimately lead to the destruction of our planet, we identify ourselves with what is called “the New Atheism.”
Insofar as atheistic ideology almost DID incite destruction of the planet, I don't see why we are supposed to assume that this "cure" is better than the "disease" -- which may, after all, have something to do with human nature.
We affirm that a Second Wave of the New Atheism exists insofar as that descriptor encompasses self-identified atheist scriptural scholars or scholars of religion who:
- Are academically trained experts in the study of religion and sacred scriptures (e.g., the Bible, Quran, and any other text deemed sacred on religious grounds);
- Regard activism as a fundamental orientation of all scholarship insofar they agree with Noam Chomsky’s view that “[i]t is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies”;
- Uphold and defend freedom of expression;
- Question the notion that religious thinking is itself good or ethical;
- Acknowledge that human ethics need not depend on religion;
- Welcome as wide a diversity of scholars as possible in terms of ethnic self- identification, gender, or sexual orientation;
- Recognize that most of biblical scholarship is still largely part of an ecclesial-academic complex that renders it very distinct from other areas of the humanities and social sciences, especially insofar as it seeks to protect and preserve religion as a valuable feature of human existence;
- Aim to expose the bibliolatry that still lies at the core of biblical studies insofar as most biblical scholars believe the Bible should be a vital part of modern cultures or bears superior ethical values;
- Advocate the discontinuation of the use of any sacred scripture as a moral authority in the modern world;
- Acknowledge that the traditional scriptural canons are an artificial theological construct, and encourages scriptural scholarship to study all texts considered authoritative or sacred by ancient religions;
- Call attention to the ethical advances or positive features of texts in the ancient Near East that have not received due attention;
- Seek to make scriptural and religious studies relevant by encouraging scholars of sacred scriptures and religions to engage in public discussions and/or use cyber-media to educate the public about issues such as the role of religion in violence and the use of sacred scriptures to oppose gay rights, contraception, gender equality, and other social and human rights issues that should be adjudicated on non-religious grounds;
This sounds to me like a call for one-sided, left-wing anti-Christian propaganda. Don't Drs. Avalos and Gagne wish to be contradicted, despite their mention of freedom of speech?
- Encourage secular scholars of religion and sacred scriptures to help establish policies that are based on reason and democratic values instead of religion; they should be the guardians of a strict separation between religion and state;
- View cooperation with scientists as a necessary strategy to challenge those who use sacred scriptures to deny the existence of evolution or anthropogenic climate change, among other general scientific conclusions;
- Work to ensure that professional organizations of scriptural and religious studies, such as the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, insist on methodological naturalism, and not theological methodologies, in their basic approach to all research presented at its meetings, as is the case with all other areas of the humanities and social sciences;
- Affirm that religious obscurantism can only be countered through education;
- Insist on critical education that focuses on a historical and social understanding and development of religion; that is, teaching and education that is fact-based instead of faith-based; people should know ABOUT religions and religious texts, not in the sense of maintaining the value of any religious tradition, but to develop critical thinking about religions;
- Regard the study of the Bible, the Quran, and other sacred scriptures as important in understanding western history and modern culture, but without seeking to retain their moral authority.
Scholars who share these views may not identify themselves as any sort of New Atheists or as part of any Second Wave of the New Atheism. Indeed, some of the following signatories do not necessarily apply those labels to themselves. When the co-authors say that “a Second Wave of the New Atheism exists...” they are affirming the existence of people who already think this way, but may not have identified as such explicitly up to now.
However, we invite all scholars who share these views to join us in expressing, or putting into practice, any or all of the ideas and goals that we have outlined here.
All in all, this manifesto seems rather Johnny-Come-Lately to me. The "objective" study of religion has been used as a weapon against "religion" for at least a century, already. The Bolshevik Revolution, which set the "League of Militant Atheists" to bother, pester and persecute believers by the million across Eurasia, and send millions more to the Gulag, many never to return, came to power a full century ago, next year. Nor do I think any American Christian would expect a friendly pat on the back when entering a Religious Studies program in the United States.
I will say this for Karl Marx. He and Engels did, at least, master the bombastic style. ("A spectre is haunting Europe . . . ""You have nothing to lose but your chains!") I doubt this one is going to catch on, even if its goals have already largely been fulfilled.
24 comments:
Avalos needs to stop referring to himself as a skeptic, because he is far from it when it comes to being skeptical of arguments made by his inner circle.
Avalos turns up his skepticism when it comes to conservative Christianity but lightens it when it comes to anything put forth by Richard Carrier or Ed Babinski.
Hector Avalos you are not a skeptic, so stop calling yourself a "skeptic" until you start acting like one.
I have a Theistic manifesto for all secular atheists.
If we are to do scholarship in an objective manner like secularists want then every secularist who doesn't believe in God must explain how there can be "objective truth" in a godless universe.
In a godless universe where humans are nothing more than cosmic accidents and are part of an evolutionary process that doesn't search for objective truth we have an instant problem that must be answered.
For all we know "truth" could just be arbitrary human constructs which we make up for survival and pragmatic purposes.
How do we know that our brains are discerning a perception to be a truth about how really is rather than just being an interpretation of an image which could just be a representation of how the brain perceives the external object and not an actual true representation of the image itself.
Secularists need to deal with relativism since they have no final say on it.
"How do we know that our brains are discerning a perception to be a truth about how really is rather than just being an interpretation of an image which could just be a representation of how the brain perceives the external object and not an actual true representation of the image itself.
Secularists need to deal with relativism since they have no final say on it."
- I see, so you say that your brain perceives external objects as they truly are, and you "know" that because Gawd, while the secularist has no justification for saying that.
Well, fortunately (for the secularist), it can unambiguously be demonstrated that your brain, as a matter of fact, does construct a mental image that is NOT identical to the "true nature" of what you are perceiving. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilac_chaser
Countless more examples:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/
(and that´s just scratching the surface of it - it can also unambiguously be demonstrated that your vision has blindspots, blindspots that you don´t consciously perceive because your brain is fooling you, to name just one out of dozens of scientific discoveries about how your brain is systematically fooling you)
And that´s why an educated secularist realizes that he should NOT naively trust his senses and intuitions but rather TEST them against reality with the scientific method, while uneducated theists fool themselves into false certainty by believing demonstrably false things (like our minds perceiving reality is it truly is) based on ridiculous justifications (I know that my senses and ituitions are totes reliable because I strongly believe that Jebus luvs me!).
"Your brain?" Spoken like a true Loftus disciple. You should start with "my brain" -- we've seen that, enough.
Comparing "educated secularists" with uneducated Christians who can't even spell, is another instance, let me suggest, of your brain fooling itself.
See, for example, the prior and following posts, in which I demonstrate that Matthew Ferguson, who claims to be literate in at least three ancient languages, cannot actually read and comprehend the English language well. I face this constantly, from "educated" secularists. That is why I have to spend so much time in my books refuting simple errors in reading, by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, and Elaine Pagels -- all highly educated skeptics whose brains "lie to them," as you and Loftus like to put it.
David,
I see, so you think that your religious beliefs grant you some magical superpowers that make your brain special and completely immune to the systematic biases that have been demonstrated for mere mortals. That´s adorable!
You're the one who said "your brain" or "your senses" seven times, not "our brains" or "our senses." That's exactly what Loftus does. Then you'll turn around and said "I only meant 'your' in the generic sense . . . '"
Or this:
"Educated secularist realizes that he should NOT naively trust his senses and intuitions but rather TEST them against reality with the scientific method, while uneducated theists fool themselves . . ."
Again, why do you compare educated secularists to uneducated theists? Talk about being fooled by self-deluding brains!
And as I show, "educated secularist" brains fool themselves as much as any. Indeed, Thucydides suggested that intellectuals tend to fool themselves more than the uneducated, because they tend to grow over-confident. Maybe the palpable arrogance of the New Atheism explains its endless blundering.
Then you'll turn around and said "I only meant 'your' in the generic sense . . . '"
- Of course David! Because when I say that scientific results demonstrate that your vision has blindspots which you do not consciously perceive because your brain is fooling you, I of course meant that you, David B Marshall, have been the test subject and scientists were careful to explain that the David B Marshall results are of course not generalizable to the human brain, but are rather unique David B Marshall results. And then when you catch me, I of course turn around and "admit" that I meant "your" in the generic sense.
Seriously, your students should ask for a refund, because whatever they might be learning, it can at best be superficially similar to the English language.
"Again, why do you compare educated secularists to uneducated theists?"
- Maybe because Cornell Anthony´s "challenge" directed at secularists was foolish and could only have been raised by someone who is completely uneducated about how the human mind does and does not work? Could have been clear from the context, but I understand that I have to spell it out for the "skilled English writer and teacher".
"And as I show, "educated secularist" brains fool themselves as much as any"
- You don´t say! Keep up your studies and you might "learn" more fascinating things - like the fact that the air that is exhaled by secularists contains 4-5% carbon dioxide, just like the air exhaled by theists, who would have thought?!
Andreas: Let me offer you a free English lesson. In this language, "our" is a more inclusive pronoun than "your." "Your" is essentially a second-person plural or singular pronoun. It can, in some circumstances, be made to include the speaker, but usually does not. One recognizes the rarer inclusive use of "your" by context. A good writer drops clues of inclusiveness when he or she wants to use "your" in a self-inclusive sense.
You did not do this. On the contrary, you went out of your way to contrast "educated" secularists, who are not fooled by these evolutionary cognitive glitches, with "uneducated" believers, who are.
But that's propaganda and self-deluding BS.
Of course you will admit, when confronted with your own loaded rhetoric, that yes, atheists evolved, too. But propaganda, and self-delusion, work not just by explicit admissions, but by twisting language to give oneself an apparent verbal advantage, as you do above.
Why should you get upset when I point out that "your" brain is fooling you in this way? After all, isn't it precisely "your" point that evolution engineered such glitches into "your" brain, and that "you" really can't help "yourself?" (And probably don't even recognize it when "you" do it?) If not, do "you" have a point?
"Andreas: Let me offer you a free English lesson. In this language, "our" is a more inclusive pronoun than "your." "Your" is essentially a second-person plural or singular pronoun. It can, in some circumstances, be made to include the speaker, but usually does not. One recognizes the rarer inclusive use of "your" by context."
- But recognizing this by context assumes that the reader is familiar with the English language, which you are evidently not, because you would look at an article like this:
"5 Mind-Blowing Ways Your Senses Lie to You Every Day
We are so completely dependent on our five senses every moment of the day that we totally forget how full of shit they can be. Your reality is cobbled together from a bunch of different parts of your brain working in conjunction, and often it's like a bickering conference room full of uncooperative co-workers. In fact, we're pretty sure the thing your brain does best is convince you that it works.
But it doesn't take much to spot the bizarre little flaws in your gray matter. For example ..."
- and conclude "Hey! Why are they singling out my brain?! What have I, David B Marshall done to them to deserve this??"
"On the contrary, you went out of your way to contrast "educated" secularists, who are not fooled by these evolutionary cognitive glitches, with "uneducated" believers, who are. "
- Indeed! And because educated people are not fooled by this, what I meant by saying that they should not "naively trust [their] senses and intuitions but rather TEST them against reality with the scientific method" was of course just that educated people should do it because it is so much fun to do science - not because it is necessary to do given how their senses and intuitions are 100% reliable and not at all plagued by the same cognitive biases as everyone else´s senses and intuitions are.
You know, I was about to call you liar for this misrepresentation here, but on second thought, it was clear that your reading skills are really that abysmal.
"Why should you get upset when I point out that "your" brain is fooling you in this way? After all, isn't it precisely "your" point that evolution engineered such glitches into "your" brain, and that "you" really can't help "yourself? "
- My point is completely unambiguous, and trivially easy to understand for anyone who knows the English language and isn´t a complete moron.
This is getting tedious. Now you appear to be arguing that your comment was obviously inclusive, because "your" in some other article we haven't read was (in your view) obviously inclusive? Surely your brain must recognize how weak an argument that is.
I have already shown, in the previous and following articles, and in many, many others (and books) that "educated secularists" are, in fact, often badly fooled, or fool themselves, by the most elementary logical and exegetical challenges, when it comes to comprehending Christian arguments.
Now I'm either a "liar" or a "complete moron."
Go away. You're a bore, evidently with nothing valuable to say.
"Now you appear to be arguing that your comment was obviously inclusive, because "your" in some other article we haven't read was (in your view) obviously inclusive? "
- Ah, so you see the "your" in that article as "obviously inclusive"? Interesting, so your abysmal reading skills only kick it when you really want to smear one of your enemies.
"I have already shown, in the previous and following articles, and in many, many others (and books) that "educated secularists" are, in fact, often badly fooled..."
- That´s cute David! It also has literally nothing what-so-ever to do with my reply to Cornell Anthony.
"Now I'm either a "liar" or a "complete moron.""
- Why not both?
."And that´s why an educated secularist realizes that he should NOT naively trust his senses and intuitions but rather TEST them against reality with the scientific method, "
All you are doing is assuming your perceptions are reliable to show that you perceptions are reliable. You never gave any evidence for your assumption and just took it by blind faith whilst using your assumption to support your conclusion.
This is called a circular argument
Those examples fail and also beg the question.
Secularism still fails Andreas
And educated secularist is just an oxymoron since they think that intelligence came from non intelligence.
That is what magic looks like
It is funny how secularists one the one hand state that their senses fool them, but on the other hand they make claims to knowledge pertaining to how reality really is
Andreas THINK about what you are saying and you'll notice the contradiction.
He has much of value to say if one likes watching someone constantly shoot themself in the foot.
He is making an argument for global skepticism whilst telling us what the objective truths of reality really are.
Cornell Anthony,
"All you are doing is assuming your perceptions are reliable to show that you perceptions are reliable. You never gave any evidence for your assumption and just took it by blind faith..."
- No. If you could read with any comprehension, you would have noticed that I am not assuming at all that my perceptions are reliable, I rather point out the exact opposite - that human perception is NOT reliable and that this is *demonstrably* so. And that is why I called you uneducated because you are evidently utterly clueless about how the human mind does and does not work and thus base your ludicrous challenge directed at secularists on a premise that is demonstrably false and known to be false by everyone with even just the most rudimentary knowledge of human psychology.
"And educated secularist is just an oxymoron since they think that intelligence came from non intelligence."
- This is one of the most blatant non sequiturs I have ever seen.
"It is funny how secularists one the one hand state that their senses fool them..."
- So first the secularist is allegedly assuming that his senses are reliable and now he is not, you might want to lean back and organize your thoughts a little because right now, you hold two mutually contradictory beliefs here (hint: the one quoted right here is the correct one)
",but on the other hand they make claims to knowledge pertaining to how reality really is. Andreas THINK about what you are saying and you'll notice the contradiction."
- There is no contradiction, which could have been clear to you if you could read with comprehension. Human perceptions and intuitions are not reliable, they are in some domains even notoriously unreliable, and that is why you have to *TEST* your beliefs against reality - justified beliefs about how reality is are derived from intersubjective, reproducible and empirical investigations into the nature of the world around us, not from naively trusting your senses and intuitions as you are inclined to do. Your intuition tells you that objects free-fall faster or slower depending on their mass, doubting your intuition and TESTING it however would reveal that this is false, the free-fall rate is constant and independent of mass and this can be shown by intersubjective and easily reproducible experiments that can (and are) even be conducted by elementary school kids. And that´s why, again, *justified* beliefs about how reality is like cannot be derived from naively trusting your senses and intuitions, no matter how much people like you would like to choose that lazy approach.
Mr contradiction
"No. If you could read with any comprehension, you would have noticed that I am not assuming at all that my perceptions are reliable, I rather point out the exact opposite - that human perception is NOT reliable and that this is *demonstrably* so. And that is why I called you uneducated because you are evidently utterly clueless about how the human mind does and does not work and thus base your ludicrous challenge directed at secularists on a premise that is demonstrably false and known to be false by everyone with even just the most rudimentary knowledge of human psychology. "
In order to have knowledge of human psychology I'd need to rely on my sense perception to learn what the human psychologists have to say.
You are engaging in a contradiction.
" first the secularist is allegedly assuming that his senses are reliable and now he is not, you might want to lean back and organize your thoughts a little because right now, you hold two mutually contradictory beliefs here (hint: the one quoted right here is the correct one)"
How else am I supposed to read your article???? By use of atheist magic which surpasses my sight?
You are contradicting yourself and it is plainly obvious.
"Human perceptions and intuitions are not reliable, they are in some domains even notoriously unreliable, and that is why you have to *TEST* your beliefs against reality - justified beliefs about how reality is are derived from intersubjective, reproducible and empirical investigations into the nature of the world around us, not from naively trusting your senses and intuitions as you are inclined to do. "
How could I trust a test that would be subject to the deception itself?
You are contradicting yourself
Why does testing all of sudden make everything better and somehow escape the deception when the test results themselves are a part of the unreliable.
If my senses is unreliable then so is the system that I am using to test them.
You are contradicting yourself, so once again please THINK about what you are saying.
" So first the secularist is allegedly assuming that his senses are reliable and now he is not, you might want to lean back and organize your thoughts a little because right now, you hold two mutually contradictory beliefs here (hint: the one quoted right here is the correct one)"
If you could take a second and think you'd notice that I am parodying you and that your argument holds to two mutually exclusive beliefs.
I am working with what YOU are giving me and I notice the contradiction while you blindly accept it, because you fail to use skepticism
If I can't trust my intuitions then why should I trust them when it comes to what human psychologists say, perhaps they are being deceived when they give their arguments.
Just try being skeptical of what you say and you should notice how you contradict yourself.
Cornell Anthony,
OH YOUR GAWD - this is hilarious.
We will now do a little experiment together, it will fricken blow your mind! Are you ready? Alright, click on this link:
http://blog.doctor-ramani.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/arrow-illusion.jpg
- and have a look at the two arrows. Your eyes will tell you that the upper one is shorter than the lower one. Now, fetch a ruler. If you have a flatscreen, hold the ruler against the screen and carefully measure the length of the arrows, if you don´t have a flatscreen, print the image out and measure the length on the printout. Your measurement will tell you that the arrows are actually equally long.
So, given the unexamined and confused mess that your worldview is right now, this leaves you with two and only two possible options:
1. Your eyesight is not always reliable when estimating the length of objects. But that means you also cannot trust your eyes when you try to measure with the ruler, or trust any other sense experience, intuition or rational thought under any circumstances ever - you cannot know anything about anything!!11! ERMAHGAWD HELP!!!!
2. Your eyesight is always and in every context 100% reliable and the ruler is wrong - actually, it is in principle impossible to design a tool to measure length with any accuracy whatsoever, the only "tool" that works are your own eyes which are always 100% reliable and accurate.
So, Cornell Anthony, which one is it?
Hint: There are more options than that, and if you think reeeaaaally hard, you might be able to figure out what other options there are (it is not *that* difficult to figure out, I actually already gave you the answer in earlier comments but that requires reading comprehension above the 4th grade level).
Andreas
If my senses are unreliable then why should I even assume that there are even arrows to begin with?
What you should be saying is
Our senses, for the most part are reliable
Rather than
Our senses are unreliable
If you think that our senses are unreliable then you are making such a strong claim where you put yourself in a position to the point where you should doubt EVERYTHING that you obtain from your senses.
Last point, when I look at these arrows in which you want me to look at it doesn't have much to do with I intuition.
Intuition involves claims PRIOR to experience which philosophers refer to as a priori justification. Intuition involves reason and analysis and not so much observation and inductive inference.
Cornell Anthony,
Ah, so now you try to change your position from:
"If my senses is unreliable then so is the system that I am using to test them."
To:
"What you should be saying is
Our senses, FOR THE MOST PART are reliable"
- They are not always reliable?! Oh noes, then I can never know whether right now is one of those "for the most part reliable" moments or whether my senses are unreliable right now, maybe I´m not looking at a computer screen and typing a reply to you, but rather staring at a squirrel, how could I possibly know?! We cannot know anything about anything!!11!
Hint: there is no way for you out of this without conceding everything of what I said in my earlier comments - but it´s fun to watch you squirm ;-)
Andreas
The only one squirming is you.
I am going to teach you something about how arguments work
WHen I say "If my senses is unreliable then so is the system that I am using to test them"
Notice the word IF
IF means that this is a conditional statement
So I am in no way changing my position.
Now is it oossible for you to actually answer a question that is posed to you?
Are your senses reliable most of the time, some of the time, all of the time or never reliable?
Cornell Anthony,
"I say "If my senses is unreliable then so is the system that I am using to test them"
...
So I am in no way changing my position"
- Cute! So your position is evidently utterly ludicrous. Your problem is, that you can apparently only "think" in perfectly binary categories, either your cognitive faculties are 100% infallible, or they are never reliable in any way under any circumstances what-so-fricken-ever. Both of those extremes are ludicrous, but that is unthinkable for you because you can only think in such 100% black-and-white categories.
Regarding your question "Are your senses reliable most of the time, some of the time, all of the time or never reliable?"
- I have already answered this, I did so long before you even asked that question and I did so in an easy to understand and completely unambiguous way, and I also included the answer as to how you can know how reliable your senses (and cognitive faculties in general) are in a given context. I´m not going to dumb it down any further for you - if you cannot understand it, learn to read.
"Cute! So your position is evidently utterly ludicrous. Your problem is, that you can apparently only "think" in perfectly binary categories, either your cognitive faculties are 100% infallible, or they are never reliable in any way under any circumstances what-so-fricken-ever. Both of those extremes are ludicrous, but that is unthinkable for you because you can only think in such 100% black-and-white categories. "
You are beyond hopeless
Look what I wrote up above
Are your senses reliable most of the time, some of the time, all of the time or never reliable?
This isn't black and white because I am giving you more than two options.
If you actually take the chance to read what I am saying then you'd notice that I gave you 4 options to choose from.
4 is not black and white
" I have already answered this, I did so long before you even asked that question and I did so in an easy to understand and completely unambiguous way, and I also included the answer as to how you can know how reliable your senses (and cognitive faculties in general) are in a given context. I´m not going to dumb it down any further for you - if you cannot understand it, learn to read."
Your answer was very vague
Just pick one option and tell me which it is. You don't have to give me an explanation, just face your fear and answer the question.
Of those 4 options your answer is ________
Post a Comment