I've seen it....and even pointed out ad hominem attacks myself.
I think atheists tend to see them a lot. I know I do. I think it's probably a good topic for another thread..."Why do so many Christians resort to ad hominem attacks in debate/discussion with atheists?"
I know I have my own guesses as to why.
The article looks like it's going to be more confusing than helpful to most people. Take the New York governor example....
If you and I are discussing his ability to govern....then the only question is "Is character a valid factor in governance?" If we agree that it is, then we can certainly make judgements about the character of the governor....because it's literally a part of the topic of discussion.
If however, I make a point about his ability to govern...and you claim that my point isn't valid because of some bias I hold or morals I've expressed...well then you've committed a fallacy. I can be biased, or hold some hypothetical moral opinions, and they can have literally influenced the point I just made about the governor....but they won't invalidate the point. Claiming they do would be an ad hominem fallacy. Unless the topic is directly related to me in some way....attacking me will always be invalid.
Now, it's possible that during the course of discussion about the governor I could invite an examination of myself into the discussion. For example, if I were to ask you "Do you think there's something about my views that keep me from understanding your point?"....any answer to that question could certainly include examination of my motives and biases, and would be completely valid. That's because the question itself changes the topic from the governor to me.
In general, I've viewed ad hominem attacks as a signal that I've "won" the debate or discussion. The person I was debating with can no longer address or refute the points I've made....so in an act of desperation or frustration, then attempt to invalidate me instead. I used to see a specific type of ad hominem (a kind of special pleading ad hominem) so often that I decided to call it the "esoteric knowledge fallacy" to distinguish it from other ad hominem attacks...especially since it was unique to religious people. It went something like this...
Christian- I do have evidence that my claim is true in the form of some special knowledge acquired by belief.
Me- Oh? What is this special knowledge?
Christian- I can't tell you because you don't believe. You wouldn't understand if you don't believe.
Me- Try me. I can understand a lot of things I don't necessarily believe in.
Christian- Nope, there's no point. You'd have to believe first to understand the evidence. I wouldn't be able to explain it to you.
Me- Are you saying that you have knowledge that you can't even explain? How is that even possible?
Christian- It's possible, but you'd have to believe to understand.
And so on....round and round....with the general argument being that his belief gives him access to some mystical category of evidentiary knowledge that my lack of belief has left me incapable of understanding. Obviously fallacious....but rather unique to discussions between atheists and believers.
Ok. I hear you. Those aren't bad points, but have you ever seen a Christian state to his interlocutor that she---who could be either a skeptic or even another Christian, I suppose--- is being either stubborn and resistant, or just plain ignorant, because she is in fact being stubborn, resistant or just playing out an emotional tantrum and pushing her ignorance on down the lane of discussion/debate?
If I were pushing my own ignorance and apathy on down the lane of discussion, just to be purposely uncooperative and refuse to engage additional considerations, theories, data or just entreaties to be 'more' rational, I personally wouldn't define the accusation another person may lay at my doorstep to be an "ad hominem attack." I'm not sure if I've ever done this in the past, but from this point on, I think I'll be aware of it and consider the personal character critique. And why? Because I think personal Critique of my behavior and character, if it is truly off the charts ethically, can be criticized without a necessary fallacy on the part of the person so accusing me, and the fact of my potential 'misbehavior' or even, let's say, my own lack of engaging a better level of Virtuous Epistemological Inquiry doesn't have to be some agreed upon focal point of the topic of a discussion.
I discern a conceptual difference between a
relevant, full-bodied, fully contextualized complaint about my behavior and/or character APART FROM an off the wall, probably even stupid example of Ad Hominem Fallacy [like say, because my eyes are 'brown,' then I must be full of crap, or some bawdy statement about me that obviously would qualify as a kind of grasping at straws in the discussion or debate].
This is all I've been implying this entire time in this thread, but it seems that I'm not being very well understood on this point. Granted, the lack of understanding on this intended point of mine could be due to my lack of clarity, and I'll accept this as a valid personal criticism if that is the case; but it could also simply be that some folks here feel a resistance to my claim and genuinely disagree with my claim about there being a difference (a difference that is more or less implied in the OP article).
In sum: I agree, more or less, with the OP article. So, if others don't agree with the article, then they don't agree with the article. However, in saying this, I'm
not ALSO implying, and haven't been, that if by chance they don't agree with the OP article that they're then somehow a bunch of schmucks. No, I'm not implying that at all.
I mean skeptics are people, too, and I personally recognize them as fellow human beings deserving of respect and so on and so forth, etc. I'm also generally aware that they can be moral on some level, sometimes very substantially so,
BUT like Aldous Huxley, there are a few for whom an accusation of character or moral shortcoming does fit like Cinderella's magic slipper [and not only from a Christian perspective]. In those latter cases, I don't think it's an
Ad Hominem Fallacy to say, "The shoe fits!!!!" Heck, it might even fit on my own foot (sometimes), but I wouldn't cry foul if someone thought it did and and said that I was running around being a moral drag because of it. And God forbid [me] if I were to ever be utterly lacking in Virtuous Epistemological and/or Hermeneutical Praxis. Oh, perish the thought!!
Is any of this making sense to anyone here? Anyone? Anyone?
...or am I just speaking out my Existential orifice to a bunch of Hardline Foundationalists?
... uh, no! It's not a tu quoque fallacy! But I'll leave it to you to rationally figure out why? (I'll give you a hint: ...per my various posts here in this thread, my position is on the other side of yours, or at least it's at a tangential angle to it, I'm not in agreement with you, and I think that, at times, and if it's relevant to some person's 'case' (as in the case of someone like Richard Carrier), personal criticism is justified. I think this just as surely as I think that personal criticism can be lodged on my account if and when I'm morally (or cognitively) at fault and I end up articulating what seem to be supposed truths with and through some exaggeration I've made or through some underlying motivation that remains within my brain and 'colors' my overall aims in communication (e.g. an agenda to persuade for some massive social change, or other similar silly stuff that rarely works).
