Going Nuclear FTW!!!!

[philadiddle]

(I can't remember if it was this board or another that I talked about this months ago but it seems appropriate to bring it up again.)

While this article is about how some theists approach theism/atheism, I can see how it also applies to how some creationists approach the crevo debate. Thoughts?

Stephen Law: GOING NUCLEAR

 

[mark kennedy]

(I can't remember if it was this board or another that I talked about this months ago but it seems appropriate to bring it up again.)

While this article is about how some theists approach theism/atheism, I can see how it also applies to how some creationists approach the crevo debate. Thoughts?

Stephen Law: GOING NUCLEAR

An interesting caricature:

I submit, that your worldview cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments, whereas mine can, and does.​

Notice it never really contrasts the two worldviews. I'll continue to look at the article and check back with as many random thoughts about it as I can muster. At a glance, 'Going Nuclear' seems like a fool proof way of making sure the argument never actually happens.

What is truth?” said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.

This kind of use of the question “What is truth?” is the intellectual equivalent of throwing dust in your opponent’s face to make quick your escape. When arguments are going our way, we are generally quite happy to say that we have good grounds for supposing that what we believe is true. Only when things start going badly for us does it suddenly occur to us to ask, “Yes, but what is truth?!”​

First of all Pilate was not jesting, he was seriously asking a rhetorical question. At any rate, the underlying question is pure undiluted epistemology. The writer did get one thing right, Pilate never stayed for the answer.

What this kind of argument reminds me of is how evolutionists derail conversations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

What this kind of argument reminds me of is how evolutionists derail conversations.

In what way does it remind you of that?

 

[shernren]

Meh, it's standard creationist argument. A particularly common variant is that historical science simply can't be done - which strangely never applies to eyewitness testimonies, despite the fact that of all beings and creatures in creation only humans (and demons) are known to consciously lie.

 

[Papias]

Meh, it's standard creationist argument. A particularly common variant is that historical science simply can't be done

Yep, the old argument of "you weren't there to see it, so....". What's the right name for that..... relativisitic nihilism?

- which strangely never applies to eyewitness testimonies, despite the fact that of all beings and creatures in creation only humans (and demons) are known to consciously lie.

Hey, I've seen descriptions of chimps and other non-human animals lying. Also, male topi antelope will tell females passing through their territory that there is a lion in the neighboring terrritory (when there isn't), so as to keep them there longer for more matings. I bet there are other cases too.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

In what way does it remind you of that?

Creationism has long been predicated on presuppositional and propositional logic, the problem with Darwinian is that theistic a priori assumptions were rejected before the conversation ever started. In other words, God makes a sound a priori assumptions, self-evident and self-referential. The naturalistic assumptions of evolutionists are transcendent, they get into everything.

Creationists are not the only ones who do this, they just don't hide behind fallacious arguments when they do.

 

[shernren]

Hey, I've seen descriptions of chimps and other non-human animals lying. Also, male topi antelope will tell females passing through their territory that there is a lion in the neighboring terrritory (when there isn't), so as to keep them there longer for more matings. I bet there are other cases too.

What, me wrong! Well, it is still true that humans do lie.

Yep, the old argument of "you weren't there to see it, so....". What's the right name for that..... relativisitic nihilism?

Well, the two are slightly different.

Relativistic to me says "different truths". For example, "if you begin with creationist presuppositions you will agree with me; since you begin with evolutionist presuppositions of course you don't".

Nihilism to me says "no truth". For example, "everything was created fully formed" - i.e. evolutionists aren't wrong per se about the past (as projected) of the universe, rather, there simply is no past to know about the universe.

They're subtly different riffs on the common undercutting theme of "well, if I can't prove that I'm right, then you can't prove that I'm wrong either". They work out the same in practice - "you just can't know the past" and "there isn't any past for you to know" end up the same.

But we do need a catchier term for it. I propose, in the spirit of a term recently coined by hilariously angry feminist bloggers, we call it presplainin': accusing someone of obviously having wrong presuppositions or not believing correct ones in lieu of, y'know, actually explaining just which ones are wrong and why.

Creationism has long been predicated on presuppositional and propositional logic, the problem with Darwinian is that theistic a priori assumptions were rejected before the conversation ever started. In other words, God makes a sound a priori assumptions, self-evident and self-referential. The naturalistic assumptions of evolutionists are transcendent, they get into everything.

Creationists are not the only ones who do this, they just don't hide behind fallacious arguments when they do.

Here's a classic presplainin'. In a rehash of this post, I'm going to spell out exactly what my presuppositions lead me to, and you're going to tell me exactly which of them are wrong, okay mark?

My presuppositions are already strongly Christian enough for me to believe that a man can be God, rise from the dead, and ascend into Heaven, something nobody in my lifetime or yours has ever reliably witnessed. I will spit in the face of scientific materialism to hold to that outlandish belief ... and yet I won't accept what you say about a few megabases of genetic code.

Shouldn't you find that curious? Just what do you propose I add to my presuppositions, so that I may believe - in addition to the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ - that there is no possible evolutionary origin for the biological features of the human brain?

Perhaps an explanation would do it.
​

 

[Ration]

Perhaps belief in reason is, ultimately, a dogma. However, if this person relies on reason in every other aspect of their life, and appeals to reason whenever it appears to support their particular religious beliefs, then they are guilty of hypocrisy. Playing the skeptical card is merely a ruse they selectively employ in order to avoid having to admit that what they believe has been revealed, by the standards that they accept and employ in every other aspect of their life, to be false.

*Cough* AV1611VET *Cough*




Actually, thanks for pointing this book out OP. Just went on my new must read list.

 

[philadiddle]

Creationism has long been predicated on presuppositional and propositional logic, the problem with Darwinian is that theistic a priori assumptions were rejected before the conversation ever started. In other words, God makes a sound a priori assumptions, self-evident and self-referential. The naturalistic assumptions of evolutionists are transcendent, they get into everything.

Creationists are not the only ones who do this, they just don't hide behind fallacious arguments when they do.

While you used a lot of big words to try to sound smart (and yes I understand the meaning of the words) you haven't clearly explained how the argument in the OP of "going nuclear" applies to evolution. Making an assumption (as you explained it) is completely different from changing the subject from evidence and reason to philosophy (as the article explains).

So please clarify for me, how does the argument linked to in the OP remind you of evolutionists?

 

[Papias]

Shernren wrote:

but we do need a catchier term for it. I propose, in the spirit of a term recently coined by hilariously angry feminist bloggers, we call it presplainin':

(now where is that popcorn smilie........)

Well, the two are slightly different.

Relativistic to me says "different truths". For example, "if you begin with creationist presuppositions you will agree with me; since you begin with evolutionist presuppositions of course you don't".

Nihilism to me says "no truth". For example, "everything was created fully formed" - i.e. evolutionists aren't wrong per se about the past (as projected) of the universe, rather, there simply is no past to know about the universe.

I was thinking of relativism in the approach of equaling all those different ideas "all ideas are equally true" (of course they aren't). Isn't that a common next step when a relativist points out all the different ideas - the step of claiming they are somehow equal or all valid?

Nihilism - yep, I think we are seeing that the same way, that being the claim that we can't know anything, do anything, or move forward.

Papias

 

[shernren]

Some fantastic presplainin' going on here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594623-13/

 

[shernren]

Some more presplainin' happening here, with the following two gems:

Meh, nice try. You still don't understand the other side. You exposed yourself by adding "for no reason." Special creation and miracles is a concept you're never going get, mainly because you're so emotionally dug in.

You have misrepresented my position to make your position look superior - but be my guest and have all the fun you want with that straw man. I also sense that you would rather appeal to ridicule than actually treat me like an intelligent person.

Seeing these two posts helped me piece together one of the most disturbing patterns in creationist postings on CF.com and in society in general: the tendency towards personal attack and in particular the accusations of closed-mindedness.

Of course, on one level, presplainin' is by definition a personal attack. Let me recap: presplainin' is when an arguer A, upon hearing an argument by B, states of B that "you are beginning with the wrong presuppositions, therefore you have the wrong conclusion", without ever being able to either point out specific presuppositions of B that are wrong or give specific reasons for B to adopt particular presuppositions of A.

(Notice that there are many possible arguments about presuppositions that do not constitute presplainin'. For example, my argument in the aforementioned thread was about radiometric dating of zircons. Suppose someone were to demonstrate to me that, somewhere in the dating of zircons, it is actually assumed that they are very old. That would be a valid demonstration of presuppositional circularity, and therefore a demolishing of that argument.)

Now by (creationists') definition presuppositions are chosen before looking at the evidence. What, then, can motivate a person to choose one presupposition over another? It isn't the evidence; therefore it is the person. Any attack on presuppositions that doesn't attack the evidence - in other words, a presplainin' - must therefore attack the person. And that is why presplainin' so often devolves into a personal attack. There is a fine line between "You have the wrong presuppositions" and "You're an emotionally dug-in mocker of creationists".

 

[shernren]

Notice, by the way, that evolutionists do this (implicitly) fairly often too. "You're closed-minded, you'll never get what we're saying" seems to come from TEs quite often.