I response to my post below, John Loftus writes:
"As I have argued, the only kind of religion that might possibly pass this test is one that embraces some kind of nebulous god (although I don't think one exists)."
And
"Christianity, for instance, could pass the OTF."
Basically Loftus claims in the first quote that it is impossible that any religion that embraces a descript, definitate, distinct (i.e., not-nebulous) God could pass his test.
In the second, quote, however, Loftus says that it is possible that Christianity pass the test.
These two claims are incoherent (on the reasonable assumption that Loftus isn't as ignorant as to think Christianity "embraces some kind of nebulous god"). Necessarily ~p contradicts possibly p
Paul,
ReplyDeleteFollowing up from the previous post, it seems what I was describing was the OTF in principle whereas you'll often find Loftus applying it in practice given how he thinks it should go in execution in light of how he sees actual religions. So that's what I think the "incoherence" is that you are detecting: statements of principle (i.e. hypothetically any religion could pass with flying colors) vs statements of practical application after the fact (in Loftus assessment only some nebulous conception of God would actually pass). Make sense?
I don't think anyone needs to get too hung up here, if you agree with "my version" of it.
Ben
WOE,
ReplyDeleteIt is an incoherence, and what you stated was an incoherence. Possibility deals with hypotheticals. Possible need not be actual. So the contradiction still looms.
Paul,
ReplyDeletePossibilities don't need to be actual, but in this context, Loftus is only guilty of having already thought through the OTF for himself in regards to Christianity. I'm assuming you think he's allowed to do that, right? And we would expect him to.
It's a priori vs a posteriori. Loftus is saying, on the one hand, there is nothing a priori that prevents Christianity from passing the OTF. He's trying to show that it is a fair test and then challenging up and coming Christian thinkers to actually apply it. However, when Christians come to him and tell him they've applied it and it has passed, he compares his a posteriori conclusions to theirs. And of course, in a world full of disputes about everything at all levels, we expect disagreement there.
I expect Christians to dispute Loftus' a posteriori conclusions based on application of the OTF to Christianity, but I don't think they need to fault him for merely having conclusions of his own. Like I've been saying, both parties at this point just need to "show their work" and get into actual arguments beyond the OTF. There is nothing incoherent about saying, "You didn't do it right," if you immediately follow that up with showing it. Unfortunately in chapter 4, Loftus just declares it a few times, but presumably the rest of the Christian Delusion should actually move the ball along.
I'm sure you'll have plenty to disagree with in those chapters. Have you finished the book? I'm only on chapter 7.
Ben
Sure, it's incoherent, but you just have to take it on faith.
ReplyDeleteKind of like how God is simultaneously responsible for everything ... and nothing.
WOE,
ReplyDeleteIt is incoherent. Translate it into symbolic logic and see for yourself. If you persist, change your name. If you were at war with error you'd be at war with Loftus' claim.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteKind like how God is responsible for everything and nothing? That's a rather odd caraciture, one what basis do you make it? Is a quote from someone (like I did with Loftus)? Does it have textual evidence, a paper trail that sets it forth as a Christian belief? Are all the terms used in the same sense and relationship?
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI think anyone can read my interpretation and understand where Loftus is probably coming from. I'm not here to start a tiff with you over this. You've not explained why it is incoherent. You've just asserted it whereas I have explained specifically why it isn't. If you want to use symbolic language and demonstrate why I am in error please do so. It's not my job to disagree with myself on your behalf when I think I understand exactly why you are mistaken. Using symbolic logic seems like an excuse to divorce someone's rhetoric from context and be ultra literal with quote-mined sentences. I would agree with your conclusion if I had to be that wooden with the rhetoric.
I have my own review of Loftus' book, focusing on the weaknesses of it at length. So, I'm not just picking on your errors. I even brought up this very issue because I knew it would cause these kinds of problems with Christians who are unwilling to read as charitably as atheists. So your posts serve as more fodder for my point that Loftus needs to be more careful with his rhetoric.
thanks,
Ben
"Possibilities don't need to be actual, but in this context, Loftus is only guilty of having already thought through the OTF for himself in regards to Christianity. I'm assuming you think he's allowed to do that, right?"
ReplyDeleteNo, he's guilty of incoherence.
"It's a priori vs a posteriori."
No, it the mode his claims come in.
"Loftus is saying, on the one hand, there is nothing a priori that prevents Christianity from passing the OTF."
That's not what he said, though. Indeed, the only ones he said could pass in the first claim are "nebulous" views of God.
"However, when Christians come to him and tell him they've applied it and it has passed, he compares his a posteriori conclusions to theirs."
Well, that's a dumb inference to make; however, that's not what he said.
"I expect Christians to dispute Loftus' a posteriori conclusions based on application of the OTF to Christianity, but I don't think they need to fault him for merely having conclusions of his own."
I'm not faulting him for that.
" Like I've been saying, both parties at this point just need to "show their work" and get into actual arguments beyond the OTF."
Loftus' own chapter on the OTF refutes taking the test, did you catch it?
"There is nothing incoherent about saying, "You didn't do it right," if you immediately follow that up with showing it."
That's not what I'm claiming the incoherence is.
"I think anyone can read my interpretation and understand where Loftus is probably coming from. I'm not here to start a tiff with you over this. You've not explained why it is incoherent. You've just asserted it whereas I have explained specifically why it isn't."
I showed where the incoherence is, read my post. Your explanation isn't a faithful logical translation of his claims.
Loftus makes a claim about what is possible and what isn't possible in the first claim. He claims that "the only religion that possibly passes is one with a nebulous God." This logically translates that it is impossible that religions with a non-nebulous God fail. He then goes on to claim that it is possible that a non-nebulous religion (Christianity) pass the test. His statements yield the contradiction. If you want to rewrite them and make them say something they do not, then maybe they're coherent. Of course the problem is that I'm not critiquing that retranslation, so you can't fault me for critiquing what was never said.
Now, you keep saying you don't want to get into a tiff. Neither do I. So I assume we're done. I've presented my case, you've presented yours. It's like I'm saying that p only if q should be trans If p then q and you're giving it some non-standard translation to avoid problems. The answer isn't to deny logical translation techniques, the answer is to re-state the claim.
Paul,
ReplyDelete"I've presented my case, you've presented yours."
Works for me.
I look forward to reading what the Triabloguers have to say about the rest of TCD (if you guys care to dive in). I'm hoping it will help round out my understanding of the issues on both sides.
take care,
Ben