Friday, May 04, 2007

Chimerical indignation

“Here we have Gordon Clark, one of the most respected Reformed Christian elders and teachers in the last century, a man who has few peers throughout the entire history of the Christian faith, now being compared to a producer of methamphetamine. Then we have Dr. Robbins, a man I greatly respect and admire, a man who has done more for the cause of truth and freedom since the days of J. Gresham Machen, being compared to a drug pusher. This is a new low even for you Paul.”

There’s only one little problem with Gerety’s indignant reply:

According to his own epistemology, he doesn’t know that Clark existed, he doesn’t know that Clark was a widely respected elder and teacher, he doesn’t know what Clark actually taught, he doesn’t know church history, he doesn’t know that John Robbins is a real person, or Paul Manata, or J. Gresham Machen, he doesn’t know what Machen actually did with his life (assuming that he even existed), and so on. Heck, Gerety can't even know if he exists.

So, perhaps Gerety would like to favor us with an explanation as to how he proposes to validate a single one of his comparisons?

5 comments:

  1. According to his own epistemology, he doesn’t know that Clark existed, he doesn’t know that Clark was a widely respected elder and teacher, he doesn’t know what Clark actually taught, he doesn’t know church history, he doesn’t know that John Robbins is a real person, or Paul Manata, or J. Gresham Machen, he doesn’t know what Machen actually did with his life (assuming that he even existed), and so on. Heck, Gerety can't even know if he exists.

    Paul, I'm not sure what Gerety believes here, but you have taken a philosophy 101 class, haven't you? You do realize that no one can have certainty about anything, don't you? If this is true it's possible he's right, right?

    Besides, you draw out the best in people, I think. Congratulations to you for that. Thanks for the dialogue. It's much easier to blast people than to seek to understand, isn't it? That's because you know more than others, right? This is just too funny. You have converted but your personality has not changed. Isn't that strange? Wouldn't you think if God exists your combative personality would also be changed by God?

    Naw...I know. You disagree.

    Spell out your credentials sometime for the rest of us to see. I'd really be interested. They reflect guided study from someone who himself was guided. Anyone can read a few books here and there and put together a belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You do realize that no one can have certainty about anything, don't you?"

    I see. And are you certain that you can't be certain of anything?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You do realize that no one can have certainty about anything, don't you? If this is true it's possible he's right, right?"

    And if this is false it's possible you're wrong, right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Paul, I'm not sure what Gerety believes here, but you have taken a philosophy 101 class, haven't you?"

    John, I didn't write this post, you did a take reading 101 class, right?

    "You do realize that no one can have certainty about anything, don't you?"

    You have taken a philosophy 101 class, right? Are you talking about psychological or epistemic certainty? Surely the later, right? Are you certain about that? And, how can I not be certain about *anything?* How about triangles having three sides? How about bachelors being unmarried? So, it can't be *anything,* right? How about immediate mental reports? Can I be mistaken about all of them?

    "If this is true it's possible he's right, right?"

    No. If you've been paying attention, his episetmology is self-referentially incoherent at worst, unknowable at best. So, if he's right there's no way we could know it. Try and bone up on these debates before you come moseying into these sallons with your 10 gallon hat on, partner.

    And, as was pointed out above, since you can't be certain that no one can be certain, then it's possible that you're wrong about your views on certainty, right? Wait, have you taken a phi. 101 class?

    "Besides, you draw out the best in people, I think. Congratulations to you for that. Thanks for the dialogue. It's much easier to blast people than to seek to understand, isn't it?"

    Well (a) no one has shown me where I have misunderstood anything. (b) You're unaware of the context involved inteh discussion. You're stepping into a family squabble. (c) Out of the 13 pages I wrote, 10 consisted of pure argumentation. The sarcasm was mainly contained in the first 3 pages of my original post. And (d) you're unfamiliar with the broader context here. I guess it's easier to aspersions rather than understand the arguments and the context.

    "That's because you know more than others, right? This is just too funny. You have converted but your personality has not changed."

    I know more than some, less than most.

    And, since you don't know my personality before I converted, you're simply being ignorant. Furthermore, I indicated why I used the metaphors I did. If you're not going to engage my reasons then you're just blowing hot air.

    On top of that, are the anologies I used "immoral?" Is there "inherent evil?" Is there are absolute moral way to treat others?

    This is too funny. You've converted but your acting like a Christian hasn't changed.

    " Isn't that strange? Wouldn't you think if God exists your combative personality would also be changed by God?"

    No, why would I think that? How does what you're implying even follow? You have taken informal fallacies 101, right? I mean, Jesus was combative. St. Paul was. Peter was. Elijah was. I try to not be more holy than them. And, of course, you've nowhere shown how my actions have been wrong. Is using colorful metaphors "immoral;" especially when you explain the purpose? Furthermore, sometimes combative people are needed. We may go too far at times, but our personality types are still useful.

    "Naw...I know. You disagree.

    No, John, it is you who *just* disagrees. I, on the other hand, *argue* against your claims and support my own. You're still the tent preacher you always were. Banking on emotion to win you converts. Funny. You'd think that if Momma nature existed you'd have evolved out of that stage by now (and if you're tempted to laugh at the argument, hey, I learned it from you, so cowboy up).

    "Spell out your credentials sometime for the rest of us to see."

    I don't have any.

    But, yes, we know, you were taught by William Lane Craig.

    My only question is, if what you say about "credentials" is true, how do you explain yourself, your 'arguments,' your inability to grasp the arguments of others, etc?

    ReplyDelete