An individual brings a necklace into a pawn shop . The individual claims it is very valuable. The pawn broker uses his tools to closely evaluate the item and finds that the gems are not valuable and the necklace itself is only a cheap gold plating. The individual disagrees with the assessment and then reveals another necklace and again claims that it is valuable. The pawn broker evaluates the new piece and comes to the same conclusion. This scenario is repeated several more times with the same results. The individual leaves the pawn shop upset. The individual then goes to several other pawn shops and the same activity is repeated. An objective person would conclude that the individual attempting to pawn his jewelry is either deluded or dishonest.How is the above individual different that the Christian apologist? This blogger personally has listened to several apologists and has read dozens of apologetics blogs. There has not been one argument presented to this blogger that has not been adequately refuted by the skeptical community. This blogger is amazed when viewing "debates" on YouTube where an apologist's arguments are adequately refuted and then the same apologist appears in another debate stating the same argument. No wonder some people in the skeptical community refuse to continue to respond to apologist's arguments. This blogger is about at the same point of frustration.
The Parable Of the Pawn Shop
One of this blogger's favorite TV shows is the History Channel's Pawn Stars. The characters are interesting and, at times, humorous. The items brought in and their value are also usually fascinating.
On this week's Chariots of Iron podcast, a story similar to the following was told in reference to apologists:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yet another straw man.
ReplyDeleteRussell,
ReplyDeletePlease see "Criteria For Discussion" on the upper right side of this blog and get back to me if you want to have a dialog.
Thanks.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteYou posted the following at another blog I follow:
"All of these arguments have been effectively debunked by the skeptical community. See my blog, ratioprimoris.blogspot.com for details, if you have an open mind."
If you are wanting to have fruitful discussions on your blog, you may want to attempt the same at others. The above statement seems more like internet trolling than fruitful discussion.
Also, I assume that my first comment fell under your category of "Philosophical jargon". Is that correct?
Russell,
ReplyDeleteMy comment on that blog was not as a troll, although I can see how it may be interpreted as such. I only wanted to challenge the reader to consider another view on apologetics with an open mind.
The term "strawman" isn't necessarity philosophical jargon if it is followed by support and subsequently leads to a clear and succinct discussion.
I do wish to discuss apologetics with you, but I am not willing to do so at the philosophical and logical level. I, frankly, am burned out with that sort of thing, as it leads nowhere. If you want to talk at the evidence level and are willing to communicate clearly and directly, lets have at it.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you can have a productive conversation when limiting it to strictly to scientific evidence. I think there is plenty of scientific evidence that points to a creator. However, there are also many philosophical and historical reasons as well. In my opinion, you are going to have a hard time finding people willing to engage in discussion if you impose restrictions on the before the conversation even gets under way.
Evidence is the only way we can objectively verify reality. By the way, historical evidence IS evidence as well.
ReplyDeletePersonal experience is subjective and can be explained by neuroscience and/or psychology.
As I have stated, I have been exposed to the apologetics boilerplate philosophical and logical arguments and have found all of them wanting. If you want to know my opinions in this area, just peruse the "Apologetic" category on my blog. If you think these arguments are convincing, we should just agree to disagree.
You stated "there is plenty of scientific evidence that points to a creator." In my experience, this has meant "god of the gaps" arguments but, if you wish, present it.
Regarding historical evidence, if you wish to discuss this angle, I recommend reading what I have posted under "BiblicalStudies/Theology", "HistoricalMethod" and "HistoricityofJesus" under "Post Categories" to the right prior to responding.
Peace.
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteTo your first point, are you speaking solely of scientific evidence?
To your second point, I have checked out a few of your articles on the apologetic arguments. I am having a hard time seeing how you could have looked at these arguments without deciding that they were wrong from the start. Comments like the following prove my point:
"There has not been one argument presented to this blogger that has not been adequately refuted by the skeptical community."
"Does this support theism? Is it precise and succinct? Does it make any sense?
Folks, this is apologetics."
"Thanks to Jerry Coyne, an enlightened discussion on the subject, at least from half of the participants (guess which ones this blogger is referencing)"
I would have no problem starting a discussion. However, I don't see the point if this is type of response I can expect.
Russell,
ReplyDeletePresent evidence(only)against anything I have said on this blog and we can take it from there. If you feel that I will not receive anything you say well, then have a good day.
Jason, thank you very much for your kind words. This blog is inactive and has been for several years. If you are interested in my ideas now and wish to follow me, this is the blog within which to do so: https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete