Conflicted atheism

I recently got into an impromptu debate with Hector Avalos over at David Marshall’s blog (Christ the Tao).

steve said...

    Somehow I don't think Hector's self-testimony to his own impartiality is...impartial.

    Avalos has an odd habit of fighting for the cause of atheism, even though, if atheism were true, nothing matters. He's a conflicted atheist.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    "I believe that we call that a false dichotomy."

    Calling it a false dichotomy doesn't make it a false dichotomy. Try again.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    "And, of course, nothing you say actually addresses the facts or arguments in my post on DC. Try again."

    If atheism is true, why do facts and arguments matter?

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “Your logic is still impeccable.”

    That’s one thing we agree on. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same thing for your own position.

    “Yours is a truism that applies to almost anything. Calling something a true dichotomy also does not make it a true dichotomy, and so you end up saying nothing meaningful by observing that ‘calling something a false dichotomy doesn't make it a false dichotomy.’”

    To the contrary, to point out that your allegation is just an assertion is a meaningful observation. You haven’t given the reader any reason to think my statement was a false dichotomy.

    “So, try telling us something that we don't know already instead of repeating slogans.”

    Given how much you don’t know, you’d have to clear your schedule.

    “Because lack of belief in any specific entity you call ‘God’ bears no necessary logical relationship to how I value facts and arguments anymore than lack of belief in Zeus means that ‘facts and arguments don't matter.’”

    You suffer from an artificially compartmentalized belief-system. If Christian theism is true, then that has logical implications for human nature, human responsibility, human destiny. Conversely, if atheism is true, then that has logical implications for human nature, human responsibility, human destiny.

    Same thing with the existence or nonexistence of Zeus. If Greek mythology were true, that would implicate a different worldview than Christian theism or atheism.

    And let’s not pretend that atheists merely disbelieve in God. Atheists typically have positive beliefs, like belief in naturalistic evolution.

    “After all, who made up the rule that facts and arguments only matter if one believes in your god (or in Zeus)?”

    i) For one thing, many atheist thinkers are moral relativists or moral nihilists. But in that event, we have no epistemic duties. Absent objective moral norms, we are under no moral obligation to have fact-based beliefs.

    You accuse David of dishonesty, but you are, by your own admission, a moral relativist. So even if David were dishonest, big deal?

    ii) A godless universe is indifferent to who is right and who is wrong. The corpse of Bertrand Russell has no advantage over the corpse of George Whitefield.

    Likewise, according to the standard secular narrative, humans are just a temporary stage in the evolutionary process. You and I are just primates. By your lights, David is a dishonest primate. So what? Are you equally concerned about the beliefs of gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees?

    According to the standard secular narrative, the human species will become extinct. So in the long run, what does it matter who believed what? If atheism is true, everyone loses.

    “If anything, I lack belief in your god because facts and arguments do matter to me, and you have offered no facts or arguments that I find convincing for the entity you call ‘God.’ Comprende?”

    You are not the standard of comparison. Sorry to disappoint you.

    “So, I think you need to update your reading on how modern scholarship is changing when it comes to references to the Christian god(s).We had a whole session about that at a recent Society of Biblical Literature convention.”

    That betrays your own bias. You’re illicit appeal to authority.

    Why should we take the Society of Biblical Literature as our frame of reference rather than the Evangelical Theological Society, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, or the American Catholic Philosophical Society?

    “So, do you ever feel a sense of shame for pontificating on things you don't read?”

    Why are you trying to shame David? After all, he’s just a primate. Do you also think gorillas should feel ashamed?

    Moreover, you’re an avowed moral relativist. Well, if moral relativism is true, then David is entitled to be a shameless Christian apologist, right?

    “First, you need to define ‘truth’ for me to even know how to answer your question properly.”

    Good question. From a standard secular perspective, truth is whatever your primate brain perceives to be the case. “Reality” is just a neurological construct. That’s a problem with Hector’s naïve appeal to the “facts.”

    Avalos keeps demonstrating that he’s a conflict atheist. His atheism is self-contradictory.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “I don't deny that atheism/theism has consequences. I simply deny that they are the specific ones you cite (e.g. that truth does not matter if one is an atheist, etc.). My argument also is THAT EVERYONE is a moral relativist, whether they are theists or not. So, you are still not understanding my position, since you seem to think that only atheists are moral relativists. As it is, you don't even seem to understand moral relativism.”

    Your objection is confused. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Christians and atheists are both moral relativists.

    That fails to explain your warrant for acting as if “facts,” arguments, and honesty matter. To claim that Christians and atheists are both in the same boat, ethically speaking, even if that were the case, does nothing to justify your own practice.

    If everyone is a moral relativist, then that includes atheists, as a subset thereof. If, by your own admission, atheists are moral relativists, then why do you keep acting as if we’re supposed to have a fact-based belief system? Why do you devote so much time and effort to disproving Christianity if, by your own admission, it is not morally incumbent on humans to respect the truth?

    “I've already explained many times that your theistic morality is circular: ‘X is right/wrong because X is right/wrong.’"

    I already rebutted your contention when I reviewed that chapter in the book edited by Loftus. In addition to my review, I also posted follow-up articles.

    “Nothing changes if you have what you call God in your moral system because it is YOU who have judged that whatever God says is right is right. So, how did you decide that God should be the moral arbiter in the first place unless you had a prior judgment that YOU made? How is that not just as relativistic as the moral judgments of anyone else who is also the judge of their own morality?”

    You’re conflating several different issues:

    i) To begin with, you repeat your initial confusion. Even if Christians and atheists are both moral relativists, that does nothing to justify your own practice. You act as if atheism is an intellectual virtue, while Christianity is an intellectual vice. Your practice is inconsistent with your avowed moral relativism.

    If you were consistent, you wouldn’t care what other people think. Since you can’t say it’s morally wrong for Christians to be Christian, since you can’t say Christians are derelict in their epistemic duties, what is your rational basis for trying to dissuade Christians from being Christian? Your practice is self-contradictory.

    ii) In addition, you’re conflating a value judgment with a factual judgment. My “deciding” that the Christian God exists is not a value judgment (or moral judgment), but a factual judgment. I don’t have to measure God by moral standards to conclude that God exists. Although there is a classic moral argument for God’s existence, arguments (or evidence) for God’s existence (and the Christian God in particular) are hardly confined to moral arguments.

    “You have provided no reason why anything God says should be regarded as right other than give us yet another circularity, such as: ‘Because he is a Supreme Being who makes the Rules’...or some other such nonsense that only reflects that YOU are the one making all the ultimate moral judgements about the standards you follow. You have NEVER been able to solve your circularity problem, and and so start there.”

    i) Since you’re not quoting or citing anything I’ve written on the subject, you’re in no position to say I failed to provide a reason.

    ii) You’re attacking a crude version of divine command theory. Perhaps that just reflects your ignorance of Christian ethics. For instance, your attack disregards natural law theory. Moreover, divine command theory and natural law theory are not mutually exclusive. God commands us to act the way he designed us to act. The “rules” are grounded in the nature God gave us.

    “The last time you tried, it ended in disaster for you --so much so that you had to take your post down---remember?”

    I think you have me confused with Paul Manata. So you’re the one whose memory is faulty. Your confidence outstrips your competence.

    “You lost all of my respect that day, and so quit wasting peoples time with your amateurish philosophical/apologetics arguments.”

    Notice that when Avalos is unable to win an argument on the merits, he resorts to emotional appeals. Why does he imagine that I value his respect?

    Avalos has forgotten that he’s just an ape. A disapproving ape.

    BTW, notice that in his response to me, Avalos chose to focus on moral relativism to the exclusion of other objections I raised to his position. I'm happy to take his evasive silence as a tacit admission that my other objections are unanswerable.

 

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    "So, if you just want a statistical sense of where biblical scholarship in general is today, then the SBL would be the place to go."

    So you judge truth by the quantity of opinions rather than the quality of the arguments. No doubt that goes a long way towards explaining your anti-intellectual positions.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    "Nothing mysterious. I am not judging 'TRUTH.' I am reporting what most scholars might believe, and so you ask them, and then count them to get a statistical profile. Whether what they believe is 'truth' or not, is not what I am talking about. Are you really this obtuse?"

    Why should we care how many scholars believe something unless their beliefs are true beliefs? Just collecting opinions regardless of their veracity is irrational. But I do thank Avalos for once against illustrating his anti-intellectual priorities.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “The last time you tried, it ended in disaster for you --so much so that you had to take your post down---remember? You lost all of my respect that day, and so quit wasting peoples time with your amateurish philosophical/apologetics arguments.”

    Aside from confusing me with Paul Manata, Avalos is the one who’s still smarting over that incident. Manata contacted some philosophers to ask them what they thought of Hector’s argument for moral relativism. When they said they thought his argument was logically inept, Paul quoted them.

    With his face turning redder that a beet, Avalos then contacted the philosophers to pressure Manata into withdrawing the comments he found so acutely embarrassing. Having lost the argument, Avalos resorted to censorship to cover his humiliating retreat.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    "So, keep up. We are not all from an RTS school."

    Avalos said this in reply to Billy Squibs. Why does he think Squibs is from an RTS school?

    BTW, Avalos teaches at Iowa State U. Is that an Ivy League school?

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “You have provided no reason why anything God says should be regarded as right other than give us yet another circularity, such as: ‘Because he is a Supreme Being who makes the Rules’...or some other such nonsense that only reflects that YOU are the one making all the ultimate moral judgements about the standards you follow. You have NEVER been able to solve your circularity problem, and and so start there.”

    i) That’s another example of your muddleheaded thinking. In addition to what I already said, there’s a basic difference between “making the rules” and making a moral judgment based on the rules. That’s not circular. Rather, that’s applying the rules rather than making them.

    Likewise, you’re confounding moral epistemology with moral ontology. Even if (ex hypothesi) my regard for the rightness of what God says were a reflection of my making all the ultimate moral judgments about the standards I follow, that wouldn’t make me the source of the standards I follow. God can still be the source of my standards even if (ex hypothesi) God is not the source of the knowledge of my standards. So it’s not circular to ground my standards in God. Although appealing to epistemology to justify epistemology would be circular, appealing to metaphysics to justify epistemology (e.g. value theory) is not. Sorry if you can’t grasp those rudimentary distinctions.

    ii) However, your imputation is false. I don’t defend Biblical ethics because it always jives with my preconceptions.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    Before responding to Hector’s latest tirade, I’d like to point out that he’s resorting to a double diversionary tactic. To begin with, because he couldn’t refute my arguments in this thread, he tried to change the subject to deflect attention away from his intellectual failures.

    In addition, his pride was wounded when prominent philosophers panned his argument for moral relativism. So he tries to distract the reader from registering that additional failure by concocting an imaginary ethic lapse on the part of Triablogue. Hector’s efforts to rehabilitate his tarnished image are remarkably clumsy.

    “No, you are whitewashing your role in his pranks…”

    Avalos is in no position to know what role, if any, I had in Manata’s decision.

    Moreover, what Manata did was hardly a “prank.” Rather, he asked some philosophers to evaluate Hector’s argument for moral relativism. That’s not a prank.

    “…and you are also flat out lying about what your blog did.”

    i) Notice that Avalos hasn’t documented a lie.

    ii) It’s not “my blog.” It’s a collaborative blog. I’m not even the site owner.

    iii) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I “flat out lied,” Avalos is a moral relativist, so, from his standpoint, lying is never wrong.

    “It wasted professors' time.”

    i) The fact that professors took the time to answer Manata’s inquires demonstrates that it wasn’t a waste of time from their viewpoint. They were under no compulsion to answer his questions if they thought it would be a waste of time to do so.

    ii) Even if, for the sake of argument, it was a waste of their time, since Avalos is a moral relativist, he can’t say it’s wrong for Manata to waste their time.

    iii) Since Avalos is an atheist, human activity has no objective purpose. A human can’t waste time, for nothing he does with his time has any intrinsic significance. To “waste time” presumes a standard which atheism denies.

    Once again, Avalos constantly reminds us that he’s a conflicted atheist. He keeps forgetting the implications of atheism.

    “And at last one of them thought that what your blog was doing was stupid…”

    Actually, what bothers Avalos is that it made him look stupid.

    “And unethical…”

    “Unethical”? But Avalos denies moral realism. So, by his lights, nothing is unethical.

    “Because they were not told what Manata's true intentions were…”

    Manata’s “true intention” in asking what they thought of Hector’s argument was to find out what they thought of Hector’s argument. Is there some reason to think that wasn’t Manta’s true intention?

    Perhaps Avalos is trying to say, however maladroitly, that Manata had an additional intention which he did not disclose to his respondents.

    Is Avalos taking the position that’s always unethical to request information unless the inquirer tells the respondent what he plans to do with that information?

    Certainly there are situations in which that might be unethical, but that’s hardly a universal norm. Suppose an atheist corresponds with a seminary prof. to learn more about Christianity. Suppose the atheist intends to use that information to attack Christianity. Is that unethical?

    “…nor where they notified that any of their comments would be published.”

    What does Avalos feel about sting operations with hidden camera to expose a fraudulent business practice. Is that unethical?

    “Nor were they examining my arguments, but rather my arguments as filtered through Manata.”

    Can Avalos document that allegation?

    “When i explained it to them, at least one of them thought that Triablogue was not conducting itself well.”

    What does it mean for a moral relativist (Avalos) to accuse Triablogue of misconduct?

“You were part of that blog, and so you saw what was happening, but YOUR THEISTIC ETHICS did not seem to be functioning at that point.”

    What I saw happening was Manata quoting philosophers who, in their professional judgment, deemed Hector’s argument for moral relativism to be inept. How is that contrary to theistic ethics?

    “The proof is that YOUR BLOG TOOK IT DOWN. If your cause and motives were as you portray them, then you would not have done that.”

    I didn’t delete the post. I didn’t object to the post in the first place.

    “Then, for your part, you gave one of most cowardly answers I've see on your blog when asked why it was taken down.”

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that my answer was “cowardly,” since Avalos is a moral relativist, he doesn’t consider cowardice to be morally deficient.

    Avalos is an intellectual fraud. He claims to be a moral relativist, yet he works himself into chronic fits of indignation.

    “Could you not have asked Manata?”

    It was Manata’s prerogative to post it, and his prerogative to delete it.

    “Where were your ethics at that point?”

    I’m under no obligation to ask Manata why he took it down. He can make adult decisions–which is more than I can say for Avalos.

    “Why did you not give Michael the answers you gave me?”

    Different questions, different answers.

    “You clearly are not one who values ‘truth,’ and taking the post down confirms that. Period.”

    Manata’s post truly quoted philosophers who panned your argument.

    “It is because of that incident, which showed your lack of scruples…”

    Why is a moral relativist (Avalos) so concerned about scrupulosity?

    “Is Allah an appropriate name for God?”

    It’s appropriate for Arab Christians who use an Arabic designation to denote the God of the Bible.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “Don't confuse my lack of response to some triumph on your part. There are many reasons why people are not always willing or able to spend time educating you on the entire history of philosophy, theology, biblical studies, history, etc. We usually charge tuition for that kind of time.”

    An obvious smoke screen. Avalos spends loads of time picking fights. He’s not responding to some of my arguments because he has no counterargument.

    “RTS franchises and like-minded vocational schools are confessional, with no tolerance for dissent or real academic freedom.”

    Avalos is a secular confessionalist. He had no tolerance for his erstwhile colleague, Guillermo Gonzalez. Avalos redefines “real academic freedom” as the freedom to agree with Avalos. Dissenting from methodological naturalism is intolerable.

    “Try saying that you are an atheist there, and see what happens. RTS is a place where you go to hear echoes, not true debate.”

    Try saying that you are an intelligent design theorist there, and see what happens. Iowa State U is a place where you go to hear echoes, not true debate.

    “That is why an education at such seminaries is not regarded very highly by many in the rest of the academic world.”

    Avalos is a slave of social approval.

    “So, as I've seen it with you many times, you start to think that what is taught at RTS and like-minded religious vocational schools represents academic scholarship on biblical studies or philosophy, etc., when it is merely representing a small sectarian mindset.”

    Notice how Avalos always frames the issue. Yet what counts is not whether it represents “academic scholarship,” but whether it represents truth.

    “That is why you have trouble understanding what I am saying about the SBL, which had to do with measuring the beliefs of its members, and not with measuring the “truth” of those beliefs. You can measure how many people may believe X without any necessary implications about whether those beliefs are true.”

    You keep highlighting your anti-intellectual priorities.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “I have read enough of your blog posts to know your basic arguments.”

    In other words, you can’t back up your specific allegations.

    “I have not seen your peer-reviewed academic publications by you on these issues, and so I may have missed your more serious arguments. Forgive me on that score.”

    Let’s see: you contributed to two books edited by John Loftus: Were The Christian Delusion and The End of Christianity peer-reviewed academic publications?

    You also contribute to the Debunking Christianity blog. Is that academically peer-reviewed?

    “Any statement you make about God is unverifiable to the rest of us, and so you are simply giving us YOUR version of what you call God does and does not do.”

    “The rest of us”? You mean your coterie of atheists? That’s hardly the rest of us.

    “Thus, you end up with something like this: ‘I believe God designed us for X purpose because I believe that God designed us for X purpose.’”

    Do you apply that reasoning design claims generally?

    Thus, Avalos ends up with something like this: ‘I believe Ettore Maserati designed cars for X purpose because I believe that Ettore Maserati designed cars for X purpose.”

    “You have not demonstrated that what you say about God is anything other than your own opinion, which is relativistic because not everyone has the same idea about what God is or wants.”

    Avalos hasn’t demonstrated that what he says about the Bible is anything other than his own opinion, which is relativistic because not everyone has the same idea about what the Bible is.

steve said...

    Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    “Dear friends, I am going for some R&R for a few days,and so I will not be responding to your nifty posts. But here are a few things to occupy your time while I am away.”

    Avalos covers his ignominious retreat in a hail of decoys.

    “Here is a fellow, also trained in a reformed seminary, who tried to use your theistic epistemological maneuvers in a debate with me. You can see how well he did here, and how well he was perceived by independent reviewers of the debate in the comments thread.”

    He’s not me. That’s no substitute for your performance on this thread.

Paul said...

    Oh, Hector Avalos is still around? I thought I sent him into hiding after I cited the world's leading ethicists mocking his arguments.

    Let's see, he always provides so much fodder:

    HECTOR: "This is just more nonsense, and I am quoting you here. Any statement you make about God is unverifiable to the rest of us, and so you are simply giving us YOUR version of what you call God does and does not do."

    It's YOUR idea that it's just nonsense.

    IOW, "I believe it's nonsense because I believe it's nonsense."

    It's YOUR idea that 'any statement [Steve] makes about God is unverifiable.'

    IOW, "I believe any statement about God is unverifiable because I believe any statement about God is unverifiable."

    (Hint: that *universally quantified* claim *itself* is actually unverifiable.)

    It's just YOUR idea that Steve is giving us just his version of what God says and does.

    IOW, "I believe that Steve is just giving us his version of what God says and does because I believe Steve is just giving us his version of what God says and does."

    You have not stepped outside our perspective and, from the 'view from nowhere' *demonstrated* any of your claims. It's all of this form: Well *IF* I'm right about such and such, *THEN* it follows that such and such. Of course, you can't *demonstrate* the antecedent is TRUE.

    It is just YOUR opinion, but you just try to dress up with philosophical jargon. This type of sophistry can fool some people, but please don’t think it works on everyone.

    Regards,

    Achilles