From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:16:02 GMT

In article <Bw0yo3.4pH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> What you're saying is that some people who know how to think 
>rl> rationally may be willing to accept some beliefs without 
>rl> thinking at all.   This doesn't mean that rational scutiny
>rl> and mindless acceptance go hand in hand.   
>
>From article <1992Oct12.164415.15615@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>mo> No.  What I'm saying is "here's proof that many learned, empirical
>mo> and rational thinkers were Christians".  Newton, who spent the
>mo> years of his life after the age of 45 studying and writing about
>mo> scriptural prophesies, obviously did quite a bit of thinking about
>mo> his beliefs.  As did Copernicus.
>mo> 
>mo> So, your initial premise that there aren't many "learned, empirical
>mo> and rational" thinkers who have religious faith has been DISPROVEN.
>
>This wasn't my premise.  I asked you to explain how/why you consider
>mindless acceptance (ie faith) and empirical/rational thinking to 
>be compatible.

Russell tactic 130:  Changing definitions in mid-argument.

To refresh your memory, the question we were dealing with was:
In article <BvvEJq.Hpz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>James Hoskins writes:
>jh> Many people, quite learned, empirical and rational have religious
>jh> faith.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. 
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Proof?

So, Russell, I've supplied the "proof" that "Many people, quite learned,
empirical and rational have religious faith.  The two concepts are not
mutually exclusive."  (I especially liked Isaac Newton's work on the
prophesies of Daniel and the Revelation to John.  Showed a lot of applied
rational thought on the issues of faith; far from mindless acceptance.)

And you've supplied the proof that you're not going to admit that Hoskins
and I are right on this one.

>The fact that a scientist may demand empirical proof of the claim 
>that a particular chemical cures cancer doesn't mean that he 
>won't go home and mindlessly accept the notion that Jesus cast 
>out demons.  You seem to think that the prestige of a man who 
>thinks rationally and empirically some of the time ought to lend 
>credence to those beliefs that he accepts without scrutiny at 
>some other time.  Why?  

Russell tactic 131:  Presto-chango:  reword untennable position to make
                     it appear to have been that of the opponent.

This is the most aggregious tactical ploy used by Russell.

What Russell has done here is take his own position and state it in the
contrapositive.  Russell asserts that if a man is a Christian (with
"mindless faith") then it destroys his credibility.  [If you're having
trouble following this you are not alone; this trick of verbal slight
of hand is very deceptive.]  Here's a rework of what Russell said:

    You seem to think that (lack of credibility) of a man who
    (has faith in God) ought to (cast doubt on) the (rational
    and empirical thinking) at some other time.

This is essentially what Russell has been saying about Mike, and has
validated retaining this discussion in t.p.a on the basis of discrediting
Mike's opinion using this assertion.  Now, well into the debate, Russell
does a #131: Presto-chango and says that I'm trying to establish 
credibilty through argument when in fact he's the one trying to destroy
credibility through argument.  It is this kind of verbal trickery that
causes people to describe Russell as "slippery".

The only thing I tried (and succeeded) to establish in this (portion) of
the argument is that there are notable instances which contradict Russell's
assertion that rational thinking and religion are incompatible.  I have
not tried to say that since notable thinkers were Christians, that all
Christians should be considered notable thinkers.