If Hell exists, it’s frozen over, for I’ve devoted an entire post to cl. I’ve considered it before since he has a trail of nonsense that should anyone wish to go through it on various blogs they could expose a lot of his shit. However, that’s a considerable time investment and perhaps you’d question the value of it as I have. Is he worth that much of my time? What would be accomplished? And would having the spotlight and knowing that I devoted so much time to him provide him with massive stroke material? Well call today a perfect storm, a day when the stars have aligned to allow for this post to happen. I have work I want to avoid, I’m otherwise stuck where I’m at, and cl has made one post which allows me to really address most of what I’d ever want to address.
I just read cl’s full response to Greta Christina’s fabulous article asking believers for their evidence. The point of the post was to try and show that he’s not like those other theists who use all those tricks and excuses to argue for their god or to defend their beliefs. Technically he may have been successful. Have a look…
I don’t know what to say. I don’t give excuses for why I can’t provide evidence.
Alright, technically this may be true, because what he tends to do when asked is turn around and ask for definitions for what the questioner would accept as evidence or, in his own words, “[y]ou asked for evidence; I quibbled over your criteria.” Another tactic is to turn the problem of lack of evidence into a problem with the questioner, claiming that he actually does have evidence but “none that [the questioner] would accept”, which is actually a subtle ad hominem. That’s funny because as he’s said before, “I’m more than happy to point it out when my detractors descend into ad hominem nonsense.” Indeed he is, whether they do or not, but just like the rest of his poor behavior, he never sees it, conveniently ignores it or denies and distracts you from when he does it.
I don’t go on irrelevant tirades about mean atheists.
He goes on tirades all the time about how I allegedly bully him, but no doubt in his mind those tirades aren’t irrelevant though; therefore, technically, he may be correct, although he’d need some corroboration for that judgement, but then he’d argue that requiring corroboration or demonstrable evidence shows a fault in the one asking for them, or he’d just quibble over the criteria.
I’m more than happy to discuss the evidence for my worldviews – anywhere, anytime
Technically he may be willing to discuss evidence for his worldviews, but you somehow have to get him to actually state what SPECIFICALLY his worldviews are first. Good luck with that. Evo alone went through a stretch of time where that was nearly all he asked him, plus to give evidence for his god or why he believes there’s one until he grew tired of asking without getting a reply. Some of those exchanges are on my blog and SI’s, as well as Evo’s. MAYBE if you got past that step, he would discuss the evidence, provided you were clear on your definition of evidence, and were willing to overcome that definition to accept his definition, but that first step is a doozy.
Greta objects to many “conversational gambits” used by theists and other woo-types, like claims that the spiritual world is beyond the physical, saying, “if there really were a non-physical world affecting this physical one, we should be able to observe those effects.” Cl’s response is
I wholeheartedly agree, and further submit that the effects are there.
And yes, he has offered what he believes are those effects. Fair enough, and this is consistent with his definition of evidence – “data consistent with what we would expect were a given proposition correct.”
What he fails to offer, however, is why anyone should think they’re effects from the supernatural. As Greta explained, “[w]hen Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion, he had no clue what gravity was. For all he knew, gravity was caused by demons inside every physical object, all pulling at each other by magic. He tried for years to figure it out, and eventually gave up.” Again, he “eventually gave up.” Why? Because to posit demons or any other such thing would be irresponsible. Likewise, it’s irresponsible and irrational to believe something is a cause for an effect when there’s nothing to support that belief and no, claiming the effect is evidence for the cause is unacceptable for that’s simply circular logic. Oh, but then that’s probably my fault for not accepting evidence, right? Of course, which makes me “closed-minded”, but that’s skipping ahead.
The flaw in his definition for evidence is it ignores the issue of what’s a suitable proposition. Such a flaw then allows for his reported effects for the supernatural to be evidence for the supernatural, and for Newton to have claimed demons as the cause for the effects of gravity. I suppose if you want the supernatural to exist, then it’s not a flaw at all. It’s a stroke of brilliance, as any excuse which allows you to indulge in what you otherwise couldn’t or shouldn’t always seems to be. But fundamentally, the idea of individual definitions for evidence is itself a flaw, or perhaps another stroke of brilliance.
Unfortunately for cl though, he actually has argued that the supernatural is beyond science’s grasp…
Am I saying science can’t “prove” God the way it “proves” natural phenomena? Certainly… That one can’t “prove” God doesn’t mean one can’t approach the God question in a way that is scientifically grounded.
Have cake and eat it too. Why not? But this just ignores the flaw exposed above, on what grounds do we consider a god or anything else supernatural as a cause? He’s correct in asking, “[i]f X does exist or is true, what conditions would we reasonably expect? Conversely, what conditions would we reasonably expect if X does not exist, or is not true?” But why consider X? On what grounds do we consider X as a cause worth exploring, and if X can’t be “proven” like other natural phenomena can, then what’s the point of entertaining the X hypothesis, and how is that not an example of Greta’s conversational gambit of the spiritual world being beyond the physical? He says these things, yet they’re not examples of Greta’s objection? He also said he doesn’t claim a NOMA defense, yet says god claims are unfalsifiable. It naturally begs the question of why he’d say these things, but we can’t know.
Greta’s third conversational gambit is where theists argue that if you can’t disprove their beliefs with 100% certainty, it’s reasonable to believe them.” Cl tries to distance himself from that one…
By no means will I argue that one’s inability to disprove my beliefs with 100% certainty gives me reason to believe them.
Technically correct again. Instead, he uses that lack of 100% disproval as grounds for offering his alleged effects of the supernatural along with various arguments for the supernatural, which together he thinks make his belief reasonable. Possible, or perhaps I should say not impossible as far as we know, but reasonable? Well then the gravity demons are as well I guess, but if you’re scoffing at the gravity demons right now, guess what? You’re being closed-minded.
So when I say certain atheists are closed-minded, it’s not because I can’t come up with an argument or evidence for my position. It’s because time and time again, when I make some argument or present some evidence for theism, I get personally attacked, or banned, or censored, or denigrated, or the arguments get blindly dismissed.
Technically correct yet again? I’m not so sure this time. We’re back at the beginning again quibbling over what’s evidence, and naturally if you don’t accept his idea of what’s evidence, you’re closed-minded. That’s how it works. Point out the flaw in that or any other argument of his, and you’re personally attacking him. Express frustration over this consistently happening and you’re denigrating him or being dismissive.
Anyway, let’s take a look at what I guess would be open-mindedness to him.
[M]any can’t even fathom “the supernatural” because it just hasn’t happened to them. Because it hasn’t happened to them, and because science doesn’t allow them to believe in it, they don’t even need to think about it. That’s one thing I don’t understand about skepticism as a philosophical outlook: why limit your mind, when you can expand it?
And how can we know if it happened to us? The otherwise unexplainable should be assumed to be supernaturally caused? Now who’s limiting their mind, or should I say working with a limited mind?
For further on this issue of closed-mindedness, I can’t help but plug an earlier post of mine on the topic, but what really nails it is the following video. Enjoy!