Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This video is a rejoinder to Youtube apologist "inspiring philosophy". I respond to his accusations
of intellectual dishonesty, and offer publicly verifiable evidence of his own perfidy, before
telling him to go away in Anglo-Saxon.
Cue my darkly ironic titles, that only middle-aged British people will get:
So then, it seems that Jesus poppett 'Inspiring Philosophy', rather than responding to actual
criticisms of his arguments, has gone in for a spot of quote-mining and slander with regards
to what the "extraordinary" in 'extraordinary claims' might mean.
"Now you could do as Gary Edwards did and attack my objection to Sagan's phrase by building
a straw man:
'Cautious atheists may use the term in a more technical sense, meaning in apparent violation
of natural law. And its is in this sense in which reports of miracles
are extraordinary.'
Gary, never once did I argue in my previous video that claims of miracles are evidence.
I argued that the arguments put forward by natural theology, not miraculous claims, should
at least entail that the best inference is that God exists."
This rather disappointing conduct is neither 'inspirating nor 'philosophical'.
Alas, for you IP, curious viewers of a forensic bent can verify your offences against intellectual
honesty, for themselves, by following these annotated instructions:
(1) First, they should watch the section of your original video wherein
you depict the cautious atheist's idea of "extraordinary" as being mere subjective
astonishment.
(2) Next, they should watch my response to that specific claim.
Noting that:
I cite David Hume, not you, on claims of miracles. And that I do so as a guide to what cautious
atheists could mean by "extraordinary"
3. Finally, they should re-examine your criticism of my words from that section
Noting that:
You assert that I cite you, not Hume, on claims of miracles.
You ignore my actual account of what atheists could mean by "extraordinary".
And you attempt to leave your viewer with the impression that it is I who has dishonestly
interpreted you!
This demonstrates that you have quoted your opponent out of context, and attacked his
character so as to avoid dealing with his argument. But there's more. You proceed with
a passage from a later section of my video, as if it follows on seamlessly from your previous
citation:
"At the very very least, and to put it with excessive modesty, scientific naturalism is
in the running when it comes to offering the best explanation of phenomena like apparent
fine-tuning or consciousness. It also doesn't seem to have dawned on IP that scientific
naturalism may contribute to natural theology, rather than assault it. Perhaps he needs to
be reminded that to do natural theology is to do little more than to reach conclusions
about God based on reason and observation, rather than revelation and scripture..."
Oh please, spare us the rhetorical record-***. What next, mock indignation?
"...Look Gary, if you don't agree with me thats fine..."
That'll be a yes then.
"...But don't put words in my mouth. At least address what I said, not a straw man..."
"...I didn't use scripture as evidence in my other video. I also never denied that science
contributes to natural theology. Remember the inferences I listed? Clearly, I acknowledged
that science contributes to natural theology. I would agree that natural explanations are
preferred. I never denied this. My point was that things like the hard problem of consciousness,
and the beginning of the universe, do not have adequate natural explanation. And infer
something beyond the natural. If there was a perfectly rational naturalistic explanation,
I would not have listed them.
Again, for anyone to see what you've perpetrated on your viewers, and against your opponent,
they need only follow these annotated instructions:
(1) Firstly, they should watch that section of your original video where
you claim that science based atheism is impotently hammering away at natural theology.
(2) Next, they should watch the section of my response where I respond to that specific
claim
Noting that.
I don't say you use scripture or revelation. I merely define natural theology in terms
of not doing that. Neither do I say you deny the contribution
of science to natural theology. Rather, I say that you overlook that science, properly
understood, can contribute to atheism as natural theology.
(3) Finally, they should re-examine your response to that claim
Noting that:
You accuse me of saying that you use scripture and revelation.
And you accuse me of saying that you deny the contribution of science to natural theology.
Again then, honest viewers can see your attempts at avoiding your opponents actual argument,
by quoting him out of context and trying make him look dishonest.
In conclusion then.
To IP. Tell me, is this your attempt at being a good Christian or a good philosopher? Because
frankly, until you can cultivate the virtues of at least one of those identities, you're
more than welcome to *** off.
To everyone else, thank you for listening.
[end card]