Over at The Secular Outpost, Jeff Lowder has been calling on Christians to denounce what he regards as mistreatment of atheists. But it’s unclear why Jeff thinks we should do this. Does he think we ought to condemn these (alleged) offenses because they violate Christian ethics? Yet Jeff doesn’t believe in Christian ethics. It’s as if Jeff approves of Christians expressing disapproval on the basis of an ethical code that Jeff disapproves of.
Don't confuse Jeff by going all C.S. Lewis on him.
ReplyDeleteSee the new material at http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/open-question-to-theists-do-you-condone.html
ReplyDeleteRayndeon said:
ReplyDelete"Jeffrey, I wouldn't take it so seriously. The Internet in general is a rather abrasive, very trolly place, and theists are no exception. Website in question is hardly an exemplar of theistic thinking par excellence, so I think it and its tone can be safely dismissed."
Jeff said in response:
"I agree with your second sentence. And I think this site crosses a line that goes beyond even what is typical for the Internet. Can you imagine the outcry if an atheist had written something similar?"
1. Actually, atheists have said things which could be said to "cross a line" (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins). Jeff may or may not support their language, but many other atheists support Hitchens' and Dawkins' misotheistic tone. But there's not been much of an "outcry" as far as I've seen.
2. Check out what Rayndeon later says in the same combox. On the one hand, Rayndeon says: "So, it isn't surprising when theists take something particularly stupid an atheist said and blew it out of proportion, but I see likewise happen on the atheist spectrum as well. People are people. Humans are humans. C'est la vie."
But on the other hand, Rayndeon says: "And as usual, Hays says nothing useful at all. What else is new in the blogosphere?"
Okay, Rayndeon is willing to excuse atheists for just being "humans." To err is human. Fair enough, I guess.
However, Rayndeon hardly grants Steve the same accord he grants atheists.
As such Rayndeon is trading in double standards. One standard for atheists like Rayndeon, another standard for theists with whom Rayndeon disagrees.
Sure, Rayndeon says, "I feel certain positions - on either side of the spectrum - are worthy of scorn and ridicule and both scorn and ridicule have their place." But he doesn't name let alone offer reasons about what he finds "worthy of scorn and ridicule" about Steve's position with regard to Jeff. He doesn't say what's "abrasive" or "trolly" about Steve's position. Rather Rayndeon just dismisses Steve's post as saying "nothing useful at all." No attempted interaction, just disdain. Rayndeon can pay all the lip service he wants to the fact that he can disagree with both sides, but in practice he just waves his hand to dismiss Steve's position.
So where's the "outcry" from atheists against Rayndeon?
3. Jeff thinks "this site [i.e. Triablogue] crosses a line that goes beyond even what is typical for the Internet."
For one thing, "the Internet" doesn't have a "typical" ethic.
For another, contrary to popular opinion, ad hominem arguments aren't necessarily always fallacious.
Nevertheless, Jeff doesn't offer any reasons why he thinks Triablogue "crosses a line." If he's written why he thinks so elsewhere, he doesn't offer any links to his past material. So, for the moment, it seems like Jeff is just trying to tar Triablogue with an unfounded accusation. Perhaps a Triablogue blogger could respond as Jeff responded: I find the use of the phrase "crosses a line that goes beyond even what is typical for the Internet" without further clarifcation let alone supporting argumentation to be deeply offensive and very unhelpful for having genuine, respectful dialogue between theists and nontheists. I hope atheists who read this will consider condemning Jeff's incendiary language on their own blogs.
"Actually, atheists have said things which could be said to "cross a line" (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins). Jeff may or may not support their language, but many other atheists support Hitchens' and Dawkins' misotheistic tone. But there's not been much of an "outcry" as far as I've seen."
DeleteFairly sure Dawkins and Hitchens do not represent Lowder. They certainly don't represent me.
"However, Rayndeon hardly grants Steve the same accord he grants atheists. As such Rayndeon is trading in double standards. One standard for atheists like Rayndeon, another standard for theists with whom Rayndeon disagrees."
Hardly. Although I didn't respond to an atheist (since Hays isn't one), I find a number of atheists to say similarly useless things all the time. To put it mildly, I think Dawkins and Hitchens' positions are, by and large, rather dumb and sophomoric.
With respect to Hays, I found Hay's response to contribute nothing, by bringing up the completely irrelevant topic about the moral argument, as opposed to actually saying anything remotely substantive vis a vis Lowder's point. My actual conclusion was that the site Lowder had linked was nothing to get worked over and both atheists and theists say dumb things all the time.
"Sure, Rayndeon says, "I feel certain positions - on either side of the spectrum - are worthy of scorn and ridicule and both scorn and ridicule have their place." But he doesn't name let alone offer reasons about what he finds "worthy of scorn and ridicule" about Steve's position with regard to Jeff."
I didn't say that there was anything worthy of scorn or ridicule about Hays post, since that post preceded my response to Hays. It never referred to Hays. In fact, I don't think there can be anything worthy of scorn or ridicule about Hay's post, because there isn't anything to scorn or ridicule at all. Hays contributed a grand total of nothing to the discussion. That was my point.
"Rather Rayndeon just dismisses Steve's post as saying "nothing useful at all." No attempted interaction, just disdain. Rayndeon can pay all the lip service he wants to the fact that he can disagree with both sides, but in practice he just waves his hand to dismiss Steve's position. "
With respect to the last sentence, see above, but what exactly did say that warranted interaction? He didn't say anything remotely relevant to Lowder's point at all.
Just because you don't see the relevance doesn't mean Steve's post wasn't relevant. Try re-reading it.
DeleteIt's arguable what you say now is in part a retroactive justification of what you said then.
However, I'm happy to grant you were behaving ignorantly instead.
For the record, when I referred to the site crossing the line, I wasn't referring to Triablogue. I was referring to True Freethinker.
DeleteJeff said:
Delete"For the record, when I referred to the site crossing the line, I wasn't referring to Triablogue. I was referring to True Freethinker."
I don't think that would've been clear to many (if not most) people given your response to Rayndeon, particularly in light of Rayndeon's original comment. Nevertheless I appreciate the clarification.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"Second, Hays seems (?) to assume that if two people (P1 and P2) accept contradictory normative ethical systems, but both systems agree that an action A is wrong (even if for different reasons), it's unreasonable for P1 to ask P2 to condemn A. I find that bizarre. If they both agree that A is wrong, even if for different reasons, then surely they can both condemn A. If P2 claims to believe that A is wrong, then P2 already has a reason to condemn; P2 should condemn A because P2 believes A is wrong."
1. At the risk of stating the obvious, this assumes Steve agrees A is wrong. But that hasn't been established at this point. At best Jeff's argument is premature.
2. Not everything that's offensive is necessarily condemnatory. But here's what Jeff said in his post:
"If you are a Christian, how would you feel if an atheist referred to, say, the contributors to The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology as a 'murder of Christians'? Do you condone the use of the word 'murder' in this context? To be clear, the author's clarification notwithstanding, I find the use of the word 'murder' in this context to be deeply offensive and very unhelpful for having genuine, respectful dialogue between theists and nontheists. I hope theists who read this will consider condemning this site's incendiary language on their own blogs."
Speaking for myself, I might agree the phrase "murder of Christians" is offensive. But I don't find the phrase in this context condemnatory. Rather I suspect the use of the word "murder" in this context might be like when one sports team is playing against another team and says, "We're gonna kill/murder you!" Yes, it's trash talk. No, not all trash talk is excusable. But I don't see how this particular phrase is worthy of condemnation. Personally, I'd likely just roll my eyes if an atheist titled his post "A murder of Christians" in a polemical book review context.
3. Moreover, even if I agree the phrase is both offensive and condemnatory, I might not condemn it in this case. I might prioritize other issues. Let's say Jeff's call for condemnation in this case is likewise a ploy to bring Christians into conformity with the idea of politically correct tolerance, with which I might disagree. If I find this a bigger issue, then I won't play along.
4. Again, P1 and P2 may agree with one another that A is wrong, but I don't see where Jeff's argument obligates P2 to condemn A. Granted, Jeff doesn't say it does. He just says it gives them "a reason to condemn" (although as I explained in #3 I think it's an insufficient reason). He just says "I hope theists...will consider condemning..." But there's no argument for why theists are obligated to condemn. Jeff's feelings of disapproval that A is wrong, no matter how fierce, in and of themselves do not obligate others to condemn A.
5. And when it comes to duties and obligations, certainly one's "ethical system" does matter because we would have to convince someone on their "ethical system" more than on ours.
6. On a side note, I wonder why Jeff implicitly compares his book to The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Does he think his book is of the same caliber of scholarship as The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Does he think Price's and his own scholarship matches the contributors of The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Was it some sort of a parapraxis?
Steve Hays says: "Over at The Secular Outpost, Jeff Lowder has been calling on Christians to denounce what he regards as mistreatment of atheists. But it’s unclear why Jeff thinks we should do this. Does he think we ought to condemn these (alleged) offenses because they violate Christian ethics? Yet Jeff doesn’t believe in Christian ethics. It’s as if Jeff approves of Christians expressing disapproval on the basis of an ethical code that Jeff disapproves of."
ReplyDeleteHow does your conclusion follow?
Are you suggesting that whenever an atheist calls for Christians to behave in a certain manner, they are appealing to moral beliefs resulting from Christian beliefs?
Perhaps, Jeffery is just demanding that Christians condemn a behavior he assesses is immoral, rather than because he assesses that it's in conflict with the moral beliefs espoused by some of the many versions of Christianity.
Moreover, he may well believe that it's in conflict with some of the moral beliefs of some Christians, and not with those of others, and wants to expose the latter and/or seek support from the former.
Based on the post you're replying to, there is insufficient information to make any such assessments.
But let's suppose that someone starts killing atheists in the name of Christianity, and an atheist calls on Christians to condemn that behavior.
Would your argument apply there as well?
If not, then why not?
After all, differences of degree, no matter how big, do not play a role in your reasoning above.
Angra Mainyu
Delete"How does your conclusion follow?"
How does it not follow?
"Are you suggesting that whenever an atheist calls for Christians to behave in a certain manner, they are appealing to moral beliefs resulting from Christian beliefs?"
It wouldn't make any sense to call for Christians to behave in a certain way by appealing to moral beliefs resulting from atheistic beliefs. That would have no traction with Christians.
"
Perhaps, Jeffery is just demanding that Christians condemn a behavior he assesses is immoral..."
But Christians don't automatically share the moral assessments of an atheist. What he deems to be immoral may not be what we deem to be immoral. Jeff cant' begin with that presumption.
And even when we agree on what's immoral, we disagree on what makes it immoral.
"Moreover, he may well believe that it's in conflict with some of the moral beliefs of some Christians..."
That's not something he's entitled to take for granted.
"Based on the post you're replying to, there is insufficient information to make any such assessments."
There are only two theoretical options: either he's appealing to Christian ethics or secular ethics. But the latter has no purchase on Christians.
"But let's suppose that someone starts killing atheists in the name of Christianity, and an atheist calls on Christians to condemn that behavior. Would your argument apply there as well?"
Yes, it would apply there as well.