Since some uncomprehending commenters don’t grasp the nature of an argument I’m using, I’ll spell it out. Michael Sudduth defends his conversion to Hinduism by appealing to numinous encounters he allegedly had with Krishna.
That’s the argument from religious experience, which is a type of testimonial evidence. In this case, self-testimony to his mental states, which were allegedly triggered by Krishna’s presence.
Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with testimonial evidence or the argument from religious experience. But at the risk of stating the obvious, when that type of appeal is made, then, by definition, the credibility of the witness is relevant. In assessing the credibility of the witness, it’s germane to consider motives and background considerations.
For instance, if I tell you that Thor appeared to me in my bedroom, but you happen to know that I was tripping out on acid at the time, that undermines the veridicality of my claim. Is that “ad hominem”? In a sense. But ad hominem in that context is perfectly appropriate.
Likewise, if a faith-healer like Peter Popoff says he performed a miracle, and there’s prior evidence that Popoff is a fraud, then that’s a salient consideration in assessing his claim. Ad hominem in that context is perfectly appropriate.
Keep in mind that I’ve also raised other types of objections to Michael’s claim.
Likewise, if a faith-healer like Peter Popoff says he performed a miracle, and there’s prior evidence that Popoff is a fraud, then that’s a salient consideration in assessing his claim. Ad hominem in that context is perfectly appropriate.
ReplyDeleteNo, a particular and relevant kind of ad hominem is - a history of fraud on the part of the agent is relevant in assessing whether the agent is engaged in a current case of fraud.
Armchair psychoanalytical speculation which amounts to "Sudduth had failed marriages, so clearly he's a playboy, and that's the reason why he's changed his religion" is flimsy. Now, if Sudduth appealed to his perfect relationships in the past as a reason to believe his experiences were legitimate, you'd have a reason to go after him. But nothing akin to that has taken place, as near as I can tell. So why do it?
'He appealed to personal experience, therefore ad homs are fair game without qualification' just doesn't work.
Crude wrote:
ReplyDelete"Armchair psychoanalytical speculation which amounts to 'Sudduth had failed marriages, so clearly he's a playboy, and that's the reason why he's changed his religion' is flimsy."
That's not what Steve said. In another thread, he told you that "It's a working hypothesis. There are other possible explanations as well." And he mentioned more than failed marriages.
As I said in the other thread, I think you can reasonably disagree with Steve's approach toward Sudduth's conversion. But you keep overplaying your hand. You're ignoring distinctions Steve has made and large portions of his argument.
Suggesting possible motives for why people do what they do is common practice. We do it in our relationships with relatives, in the workplace, in our legal system, etc. It's something that can be abused, but it isn't inherently wrong.
That's not what Steve said.
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "Yes…well…another interpretation comes to mind. To my knowledge, Michael has burned through three marriages. From what I’ve heard, his current girlfriend is a former student.
So a playboy deity like Krishna is a logical patron god for someone with Michael’s lifestyle. In theological analysis, Michael is thinking with his joystick rather than his brain."
If my rendition differs from what Steve said, I'd like to see how.
And he mentioned more than failed marriages.
He did indeed. I'm taking aim at the marriage/playboy riff.
But you keep overplaying your hand. You're ignoring distinctions Steve has made and large portions of his argument.
If by that you mean I'm focusing on the whole playboy/divorce thing, then yes, I am. Because that's the problematic part. I said there's plenty of other ways he can go after Sudduth reasonably - this one stood out as the worst move to make.
It's something that can be abused, but it isn't inherently wrong.
I gave an example of an ad hom that would be reasonable. I don't think this one qualifies by a longshot, especially not as a very public criticism rather than private speculation among close associates and friends.
I won't run this one into the ground - I've had my say. But I think it's clearly a bad move, intellectually and in how it reflects on others. I'm all in favor of being forward, even telling individuals off and treating them with disrespect when they warrant it.
Was this response warranted in this situation? Not that I can see. If you see otherwise, well, that's that.
Crude wrote:
ReplyDelete"If my rendition differs from what Steve said, I'd like to see how."
I've already explained how. I quoted some of his other comments. He said that he was addressing "possible explanations", not what's "clearly" the explanation, as you suggested. Even if Steve hadn't made those other comments, the ones you quoted are ambiguous on the issue I was addressing.
You write:
"I'm taking aim at the marriage/playboy riff."
What I'm saying is that Steve mentioned more than Sudduth's marriages when discussing that issue. He also mentioned the report that Sudduth has a girlfriend who's a former student. I don't know whether that report is true. But I'm saying that it's another factor involved. Steve didn't just refer to marriages in this context. If a pastor who renounced the faith and left his church gets divorced and starts dating a woman on the church's staff a few days later, I think it would be reasonable to take the potential relational motives into account. It would be irresponsible not to.