Filed Under F for Frivolous

I recently ran across a blog entry where an atheist mentions numerous physical altercations that have transpired between various religious groups reaching back hundreds of years. The author made sure to tell, "Paul Manata and Victor Reppert may want to take note; or better yet, J.P. Holding and James White; or J.P. Holding and Steve Hays." Obviously linking our debates with pen to debates with the sword. Not sure how valid an inference that is, but . . .

It seems clear that this is meant as some kind of atheologetic. It means to function as some kind of reason we should be shaky toward our beliefs. The structure of the argument is not all that clear, though.

At any rate, I've already made mention of the inherent problems in this tactic as used against Reppert, Holding, Hays, White, or myself. It seems to ignore that atheists, indeed, all systems of thought, debate amongst themselves too.

Another problem with the argument is the argument. It invokes some kind of Principle like this:

[P] If you disagree with someone else about some statement(s) S, then both sides should give up their systems of thought (including S).

One problem with [P] is that I disagree with it. Therefore, the one who pushes [P] needs to drop [P].

But maybe that is too high a price to pay. So we have this Principle:

[P*] If you disagree with someone else about some religious statement(s) S, then both sides should give up their systems of thought (including S).

Is [P*] a religious statement, though? How is it known? It doesn't seem necessarily true. Perhaps it's known by intuition? If [P*] is a religious statement, then since I disagree with it, it is, again, self-refuting.

But perhaps [P*] is not a religious statement. I suppose a finer specimen of special pleading will never be found in all of mankind’s history.

Besides the above, this blog piece tried to make use of a pop atheist Quip that goes something like this:

[Q] Every religious person denies the existence of other gods, I just go one step further and deny theirs.

But [Q] is problematic on several fronts:

i) It's not clear everyone is being honest here. We are frequently told that the definition of an atheist is someone who does not deny God's existence, rather they lack a belief in God's existence. If this is so, then [Q] equivocates since theists (like me) don't "lack a belief" in, say, Allah.

ii) Seems Pyrrho could make a similar claim:

[Q*] Every person denies the truth of some claims, I just go one step further and deny all truth claims.

iii) This quip comes in usually at the beginning of the argument (cf. various atheist/theist debates). But this is sophistic and unwarranted. I do not just "deny" the claims of other religions. I have reasons for my denials. I also have reasons for the truth of mine. Thus [Q] could only function as an argument from parity by first showing why my religion was false.

But if my religion was false, then the quip is trivial. Of course people deny what is false.

iv) Furthermore, it's not just "one step further." The atheist is painting a false picture. Almost all religions (at least the main competitors) believe in the existence of a deity.

Thus, our debate may be roughly likened to a debate about a dog in the room viz. what kind of dog is it?

I may deny all the other claims as to what kind of dog is in the room.

We don't deny the existence of a dog, we deny the kind of dog that it is.

But, it is not "just going one step further" for me to deny the existence of the dog altogether!

Or, if you will, my math class and I may debate about who gave the right answer to a math test. But, it is not "just going one step further" to deny that there is a right answer altogether (i.e., the existence of a number that fills in the blank). We are agreed on that.

v) Thus, this famous quip may just well win the prize for the most overrated piece of atheological rhetoric since the claim that belief in God is just like belief in a celestial teapot.