From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:54:27 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> This wasn't my premise.  I asked you to explain how/why you consider
rl> mindless acceptance (ie faith) and empirical/rational thinking to 
rl> be compatible.

From article <1992Oct13.191602.22801@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Russell tactic 130:  Changing definitions in mid-argument.

Not really.  

mo> To refresh your memory, the question we were dealing with was:
===================================================================
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?
===================================================================
mo> So, Russell, I've supplied the "proof" that "Many people, quite 
mo> learned, empirical and rational have religious faith.  The two 
mo> concepts are not mutually exclusive." (I especially liked Isaac 
mo> Newton's work on the prophesies of Daniel and the Revelation to 
mo> John.  Showed a lot of applied rational thought on the issues of 
mo> faith;  far from mindless acceptance.) 

Are the concepts of "up" and "down" mutually exclusive?  [yes] 
It's true that a man may go "up" a staircase or he may go "down" 
a staircase, but he can't go up and down at the same time.  

Are the concepts of "deep sleep" and "wide awake" mutually 
exclusive?  [yes].  We know that Isaac Newton slept some of the 
time and we also know that Isaac Newton was wide awake some of 
the time, but it's doubtful that Isaac Newton could be deeply 
asleep and wide awake at the same time.  Hence we say that the 
concepts are mutually exclusive.  

The fact that Newton resorted to "faith" (ie mindless acceptance)
at one time, while relying on empirical/rational arguments at
other times does *not* mean that faith and empirical/rational
thinking are not mutually exclusive.  

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

mo> Russell tactic 131:  Presto-chango:  reword untennable position to make
mo>                      it appear to have been that of the opponent.
mo>
mo> This is the most aggregious tactical ploy used by Russell.
mo> 
mo> What Russell has done here is take his own position and state it in the
mo> contrapositive.  Russell asserts that if a man is a Christian (with
mo> "mindless faith") then it destroys his credibility. 

Not necessarily, but it certainly casts doubt on his ability to label
other men and women as "idiots".    To illustrate, you're entitled to 
accept on faith that the Cosmic Bunny has white fur, and you're free to
propagate this notion as you see fit, but it ill-behooves you to turn
around and criticize someone else for their alleged intellectual
shortcomings.   After all, any "idiot" can mindlessly accept the notion
that the Cosmic Bunny has a certain set of attributes.

Your position is hypocriticial, pure and simple.  You've reserved the
right to demand empirical and rational arguments from your opponents,
yet you seem to think that "faith" is perfectly acceptable when it suits 
your convenience.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals