Fact-freethinkers

At 5:21 PM, September 23, 2006, Matthew said...

“John, I would take Hays with a grain of salt. If someone like Turkel has a low opinion of Hays (or had one) then, what confidence can the world of reason have in Hays to be an effective and formidable opponent of skepticism and freethought?”

At one level, this is a trivial issue, but it also illustrates the intellectual frivolity of so many unbelievers.

1.To begin with, if MG were a real “freethinker” who represents the “world of reason,” then why can’t he think for himself? Why would he form his own opinion on the basis of what second-party had to say? Why is a “freethinker” retailing in second-hand opinions?

2.Moreover, consider his source. This is his most recent performance evaluation of Turkel:

“As I have said before, I now have a very low opinion of Turkel and I consider him to be the worst spin-doctor imaginable these days...Turkel is just an intellectual wanna-be…Turkel has a complete creep…Turkel is an apologetic joke of the worst sort and I regret that any Christian might have a high opinion of him. It's my hope that the Christian community will one day, in strong unity, condemn and chastize Turkel for the charlatan that I am convinced that he is.”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/09/letter-to-jason-engwer.html

Consider, then, MG’s process of reasoning: MG has a low opinion of someone who has a low opinion of me, therefore MG has a low opinion of me.

Does that sound very logical to you?

Suppose I were to argue along the same lines, viz.

i) I have a low opinion of the National Inquirer.
ii) The National Inquirer has a low opinion of global warming.
iii) Ergo, I should have a low opinion of global warming.

Or, to put it another way, if someone who happens to be a “spin-doctor,” “intellectual wannabe,” “complete creep,” “apologetic joke of the worst sort,” and “charlatan” has a low opinion of global warming, then we should share his low opinion of global warming.

Or, to put it yet another way:

i) So-and-so is a quack doctor
ii) Dr. Quack has a low opinion of penicillin
iii) Ergo, I should share Dr. Quack’s low opinion of penicillin.

3.Furthermore, why does the fact that I disagree with Turkel erode my credibility while MG’s disagreement with Turkel doesn’t seem to have the same effect on MG? Hmm.

Once again, this is what passes for rationality among “freethinkers.” They wrap themselves in the mantle of reason all the while uttering the most unreasoning nonsense imaginable.

4.Or, to take a different example, notice the current exchange between Bridges, Engwer, and Jon Curry over the anonymity (or not) of the Gospels.

It’s clear that Curry begins from a posture of unbelief, and then goes on a desperate search for any scrap of evidence that would support his initial position of unbelief—a position which he obviously arrived at sans the evidence he is now sweating to hustle in after the fact—like someone who tries to backdate a bounced check.

He is indeed a “free-thinker”—more precisely, a fact-freethinker.