Cl – Peter Debate: Postponed Until Further Notice
Part Of: The Cl – Peter Hurford Debate on Needless Suffering
Cl, the judges, and I have some issues to work out, so I’m sad to say that the debate between us is going to be postponed until further notice. More on the details I’m not going to say until Cl and I agree on what should be said. Sorry. Also, I’m frustrated enough that I’m going to be taking a personal break from all philosophy of religion for a week or so, unless this gets settled earlier.
-
I now blog at EverydayUtilitarian.com. I hope you'll join me at my new blog! This page has been left as an archive.
On 23 Feb 2012 in All, Atheism, Problem of Evil, Responses, Site Updates. 56 Comments.
23 Feb 2012, 9:32 am
Real shame, hope you’re both okay, whatever problems can be resolved, and the debate can continue.
If it is the result of a difference of opinions, perhaps you can both produce a list of contentions and proposed resolutions and let your judges decide?
Anyway, thankyou both so far…
23 Feb 2012, 2:56 pm
Why? I would have hoped you would see yourselves as owing a greater duty of loyalty to your readers than to your opponent? If some difference of opinion prevents the debated from continuing, readers have a stake in understanding its basis.
I think the debate should have continued despite any differences or confusions. You each committed yourselves to the rules. If unanticipated circumstances prevents consensus on how they should be applied, that’s part of the reason for using more than a single judge. Judges should each apply the rules according to their best understanding. (If that’s good enough for the courts, it’s probably good enough for a debate.) If one or both debaters doesn’t like the way one or more judges intends to apply the rules, he should just suck it up: you agreed on the judges beforehand. If judges opt out, you’ve just got to make do with fewer judges.
When you commit to a debate, the show must go on!
25 Feb 2012, 8:15 am
Stephen, I’m pretty sure it’s about the scope of the debate, not about the judging. Peter was arguing that “needless suffering exists” and CL granted that “needless suffering exists.” Hard to press on without a goal. They’ll need to reframe the debate, call it a misfire, or something.
25 Feb 2012, 1:15 pm
CL implied there was some other way to read the debate. If the judges reject an alternative to the harsher interpretation, then CL conceded. The existence of needless suffering was the topic they agreed to, wasn’t it? CL should have realized he couldn’t defend the thesis before he committed.
Actually, I thought that the honorable thing for CL to do would have been to concede defeat once he realized he had botched the choice of topic. It’s just a debate, not a cosmic rejection of his theology. A rematch on a different topic would have been completely feasible. This outcome leaves me with a bad taste.
27 Feb 2012, 7:11 am
Regardless of what they decide to do now, this debate will still be interesting to read (not that I typically enjoy this format of discussion). It was still unfair for cl to do this to Peter, since he could have told him at any time before the beginning of the debate that he wanted to switch topics.
27 Feb 2012, 10:05 am
Personally I suspect CL still thinks that it was necessary for God to give Humanity Libertarian Free Will, and so God is not responsible, sp the question is now one of the Free Will Defense and what kind of free will God has…the suffering would become necessary in potential at the very least.
This is pure conjecture, I’ve held back for a few days…
29 Feb 2012, 1:12 pm
Stephen,
Will you quit whining? We put it on hold. That’s all that happened. My agreement that “needless suffering exists per Peter’s definition” doesn’t mean squat. I guess that’s one problem with the internet: gratification delayed = freakout.
Sorry we don’t live in Stephen R. Diamond’s perfect world. You speak of the “honorable” thing to do, yet you fail to realize I did the honorable thing: followed the evidence where it lead, regardless of the conclusion. That, Mr. Diamond, is the honorable thing to do. So, like you said, suck it up.
TE,
Whoa whoa whoa there buddy. I didn’t want to switch topics. I wanted to follow the debate wherever it lead. Peter is the one who refuses to debate his own so-called “non-controversial” assumption, so don’t go shooting your mouth off when you don’t even know the facts. I didn’t “do” anything unfair to Peter. All I did was say, “Yeah, according to your definition it seems needless suffering does exist.”
That’s it! The appropriate response is something along the lines of, “Well where do we go from here.” So, if you have any constructive criticism, let’s hear it.
29 Feb 2012, 1:38 pm
So where is it you see the debate leading to?
29 Feb 2012, 2:15 pm
Tom,
I’m game for any direction. I’ve tossed out options in our private emails, and I’m getting ready to just move ahead with or without judges and/or Peter (because I want to get back to writing!). Personally, I think Peter needs to confront his so-called “non-controversial” premise #2, since his refusal to do so effectively makes this a logical POE discussion when the question at hand was the evidential POE vis-a-vis needless suffering. However, Peter has stated that he has “no interest” in doing so.
Where do you see the debate leading?
29 Feb 2012, 2:50 pm
>Sorry we don’t live in Stephen R. Diamond’s perfect world. You speak of the “honorable” thing to do, yet you fail to realize I did the honorable thing: followed the evidence where it lead, regardless of the conclusion. That, Mr. Diamond, is the honorable thing to do. So, like you said, suck it up.
No, the honorable thing is BOTH to follow the reasoning where it goes AND suffer the consequences. If the evidence showed you lost, you should have conceded defeat. The first issue is one of intellectual honesty: the second one, plain ordinary honesty.
29 Feb 2012, 3:36 pm
Stephen,
You sure do talk much for somebody who doesn’t have the facts!
Uh, the debate never finished. I never authorized Peter to declare his so-called “non-controversial” premise #2 off-limits. The way I see it, Peter unfairly constrained the scope of the debate. All we agreed to was that the “ergo” part would be dropped. That’s it. I didn’t realize that Peter would interpret that as narrowly as he did (i.e., to the exclusion of other key premises). So, for you to sit there and say I should have “conceded defeat” shows just how little you actually pay attention to what’s going on.
29 Feb 2012, 4:11 pm
No sense of honor! If you didn’t publicly object, you ratified it. You don’t get to protest the rules after you discover you committed yourself to an untenable position in terms of the publicly presented rules.
Not that I like Peter’s conduct that much. You don’t invite public comment on a debate, get people interested on that basis, and then provide no information for a week. It’s duplicitous toward your readers.
29 Feb 2012, 4:16 pm
Apologies, I’ve been witholding comment out of respect of those involved in the ongoing dispute over how to proceed. Tensions have been high, and I didn’t want to lose my objectivity by slandering people. Instead, I’m waiting for the situation to be resolved and things to cool off a little bit.
I’ve been frustrated by this process, as noted in this notice, so I’m asking a little bit of trust and patience here. And not just for me, but for Cl too. This will get wrapped up in the next few days, promise.
I am glad you’re interested in what has been written, however.
29 Feb 2012, 4:21 pm
The lady doth protest too much:
How could I have publicly objected to that which was not disclosed until I read Peter’s opening statement? You see? You don’t even have the slightest clue what you are talking about. You *THINK* you know, but you don’t. Read, so that you may understand.
29 Feb 2012, 5:20 pm
Here’s what you posted before the debate:
So, what’s ambiguous here? Peter was to argue that needless suffering exists. You conceded that needless suffering exists. Your attempt to claim the terms of the debate left you wiggle room to admit that needless suffering exists is dishonest pettifogging.
29 Feb 2012, 5:20 pm
@ CL
It depends on what you and peter want to get out of your debate. If you want to win the debate, then discussing the premise that “a benevolent god would have no reason to allow needless suffering” is the way you would want to go. If Peter wants to win, then the next point of contention should be either the omnipotence of God, or the rationality behind a double standard of proof. If you cared more about learning than winning than you would seriously talk about all these things.
29 Feb 2012, 5:31 pm
Stephen R. Diamond,
Or perhaps you just don’t have everything all figured out like you think? Again: I took the “we would not be debating the ergo” part to mean just that: that we wouldn’t debate the “ergo” part. That *DOESN’T* mean, “we can’t debate other key evidential POE premises.” Peter just sprung that on us in his opening statement. He never said anything about that to me or the judges until the debate was well under way. Get it? Actually, nevermind. You probably don’t. It seems you just want to create the illusion of victory, so, the last word is all yours.
Tom Mitchell,
Are you assuming Peter and I haven’t seriously talked about these things? If so, that’s a mistaken assumption. We’ve talked at some length about these things.
If people like Mr. Diamond want to be pedantic and say I lost because I conceded that needless suffering exists, well… no big deal. To them, I lost. Let them revel in Pyrrhic victory. I don’t care about winning. I care about parsing down to truth.
29 Feb 2012, 5:31 pm
Peter,
I respect that reason, although it wouldn’t be my priority under the circumstances.
I’m wondering why the judges didn’t immediately come to a consensus (or even to a majority position). If the judges can’t agree on a simple interpretation of the rules, I wonder how anyone can expect objectivity on substantive matters. I have to wonder whether philosophical commitments correlated with the judges’ positions on the procedural questions.
29 Feb 2012, 5:38 pm
@ Cl
If you have seriously talked about all those things, then I feel that you should be in agreement that Peter has no logical argument for the first and you have no logical argument for the later two. Meaning that elements of both your positions define what should be considered true.
Also P.S I am still waiting to hear your response in God is Unproven.
29 Feb 2012, 5:43 pm
This is pure projection (in the psychiatric sense). YOU want to create the illusion of victory (actually, of avoiding defeat). It’s the only way to explain your outrageous post-debate behavior. I was uninvested in the debate outcome. I just resent someone (you) trying to get away with the pretense to intellectual honesty when you pull this crap.
Come on! What you can or can’t bring up is hardly to the point when you announce that you’ll be opposing the needless suffering claim. I mean, your position is just plain ridiculous, and if the judges don’t say so, there’s something very wrong. Whatever you think you might have brought up (without specifying it in your public announcement!), regardless, you can’t expect to sustain your position when admitting Peter was right on the central announced issue. We readers have the right to judge the parties based on the public information supplied. From that information, your whining about “other POE arguments” (whatever that’s supposed to mean, once you exclude the ergo) is stupidly dishonest.
Readers, too, have something to say about interpreting the public rules of a debate. If this were a court case, you’d be proclaimed a vexatious litigant.
29 Feb 2012, 5:49 pm
Tom Mitchell,
Problem is, I don’t know how you’ve loaded the string “later two.” For example, I have no idea what “double-standard” you allude to.
29 Feb 2012, 6:01 pm
@Cl
Hmmm that’s weird, because a second ago you say
If you have no idea what double-standard I am alluding to why did you originally say that not only did you know what I was talking about, you had already talked about it at length??? When you said “Are you assuming Peter and I haven’t seriously talked about these things” a part of me felt guilty for my assumption. Only a part though, becauseI was fairly certain that if you had talked it out seriously we would not be at this impasse. What was your basis for assuming you knew what I was talking about, dismissing it, and mildly reprimanding me instead of just simply asking what I meant?
29 Feb 2012, 6:16 pm
In my first response I made provisional assumptions: that “omnipotence” referred to some alleged discrepancy between God’s power / desires and the existence of needless suffering, and that “double-standard” referred to my objecting to Peter’s “given Y, probably ~X.” We talked about those things (although we barely graced the issue of omnipotence). Your subsequent response pressed the matter further, so now I feel it’s important enough to be fully clear. Specifically, your remark about “no logical argument” lead me to wonder if my provisional assumption was wrong.
So?
29 Feb 2012, 6:27 pm
@ Cl
I am not 100% if your assumption of the issue of omnipotence is what I was referring to, since what you said in your post was not entirely clear to me. What I meant by the issue of omnipotence is the questions of how could humans defy a all powerful god.
As to the logical double standard, again I am not clear as to what you are saying, but what I was talking about has nothing to do with Peter personally, or your debate. It has to do with the inconsistency in how you prove a theological point and how you justify a theological perspective.
29 Feb 2012, 7:11 pm
Yeah, I guess I was way off:
All it requires is that they have the freedom to do so.
What inconsistency?
29 Feb 2012, 8:02 pm
@ CL
I don’t really feel like talking any more on the matter until I get a response for my comment to you here:
http://www.greatplay.net/essays/god-is-unproven
29 Feb 2012, 9:58 pm
So there you go. I responded. Now, what inconsistency?
29 Feb 2012, 10:53 pm
Evidence and logical methodology are used to prove a theological point; be it dissuading opposing theories, or providing justification for beliefs. Legitimate points are made through presenting evidence through a logical methodology. However adoption of a theological perspective is not held to the same standard. There is no evidence or logical reason required for why you should believe that the bible is true or that God exists.
That is the inconsistency. An a priori statement is accepted on faith, but then all things built off of it are evaluated empirically or logically.
1 Mar 2012, 12:29 am
cl,
Look, I wasn’t trying to blame you. Call that a subjective observation and not a factual statement. I don’t know what the heck is going on behind the scenes. I’m really more or less decrying this debate format. The reason why you guys are in this pickle to begin with is due primarily to the rigidity of the discourse being used. I believe you when you say that it just recently dawned on you that, according to Peter’s definition, needless suffering exists. I have no problem with that.
You really have to take into consideration that you’re talking to the very guy who brought up “non-contentious” assumption #2. Why not debate that? Why not work toward a mutual understanding of “evil” or omnibenevolence? I feel like both of you need to be more charitable to each other. Sure, it’s silly to expect God to be a “cosmic coddler,” but it’s also pretty warped to think there’s any defensible reason for the suffering caused by natural disasters or the suffering in Africa. Call that a subjective judgment, but I’m calling it like I see it. This lack of willingness to mildly concede seems to be why a lot of POE (a)theist discussions reach impasse so quickly.
Your argument regarding how humans could have avoided needless suffering is (1) unproven since you cannot know that and (2) like saying that a person who falls in a well doesn’t deserve to get saved from drowning in it because he was playing around it in the first place. I don’t care what God told them. Humans are fallible. C.S. Lewis was right when he said that experience is a cruel yet effective teacher, but he was right for all the wrong reasons. The theological perspective and analyses of the fall and original sin need to be discussed in the oncoming debate rounds.
1 Mar 2012, 2:12 pm
TE,
No hard feelings.
Therefore, doesn’t it follow that you should suspend judgement? That’s all I was getting at, perhaps too brashly. I apologize.
I agree. Lack of crystal-clear communication also plays a lead role.
That’s why I like atheists (or agnostics) like you and joseph more than the ones who simply flip out and make accusations of dishonesty when they don’t even know the facts.
Why are you asking me? Peter was the one who declared–without anyone’s permission–that said assumption was off-limits. Why don’t you ask Peter why he told me he has “no interest” in debating that?
Then you’ve misunderstood either the terms at play in my argument, the argument itself, or both. True, we don’t “deserve” to get saved, but God made provision in love.
1 Mar 2012, 4:24 pm
Yeah, no hard feelings either, of course. These discussions often get heated and I hope you, also anyone else I’m talking to, realize that I truly enjoy having these discussions. Learning that one is wrong is way more important than preserving one’s position.
Humility is an important virtue. If atheists can learn anything from the Bible, it’s how to be modest. I can’t speak for joseph, but I get the impression that he’s here to learn and not to spew polemic. I’m the same way. The atheists that want to go around saying stuff like “Christians are often morally inferior to atheists” or “Christians hate gays” make me cringe. I’m glad you and your company tend to take care of these types so they stop commenting! Besides, I don’t see any dishonesty going on. You’re correct in saying that needless suffering isn’t incompatible with your theology. You did a good job showing why, too. However, I already voiced that I disagreed with your reasons why.
Hey, this is Peter’s blog, isn’t it? He’ll see it too! ;) I apologize if those remarks seemed like a shove. You’re right, though. I find it weird that he wouldn’t want to debate the issue further, but I also find his reasoning compelling when it comes to his definition of omnibenevolence.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I agree that God made provision out of love, but why did a perfect being have to? Yes, partly because of careless and ungrateful humans disobeying him, but why not look at it from the other perspective?
So you don’t think a guy who falls in a well deserves to get pulled out?
1 Mar 2012, 4:37 pm
Just so everyone knows, I’ll respond to everything that’s been said here within ten hours or so. I don’t want anyone thinking I’m being intentionally silent, I’m just a bit busy. Give me a bit of time.
I appreciate all the dialogue that’s been going on here in my absence, though.
1 Mar 2012, 4:52 pm
Also cl, I asked some questions about dualism here.
1 Mar 2012, 5:10 pm
Humility is fine, but what about truth and fairness? CL implies that I call CL (I can’t even say he or she; that’s how secretive it is) I’m prejudiced against theists (and you ratify cl’s slanders) when cl knows that I am equally condemnatory of dishonest nonbelievers. I place intellectual honesty before any doctrine.
But intellectual honesty isn’t being “nice” in the manner you presuppose; in fact it’s incompatible with it. You would have the debaters compromise on substance, based on your “subjective reaction,” without there being shown any reason your reaction can be anything other than subjective For an atheist or probably even an agnostic, the “POE” question is inherently absurd. How do you complete the counterfactual, “If a benevolent God existed, He would (or wouldn’t) …” Who could possibly know what a benevolent God would do, a God who could determine the laws of physics themselves? We don’t even know the looks of an alternative recipe for the universe. Or whether there is any that’s coherent. (Einstein’s question: Did good have any choice in the laws He used to create the universe?)
You intentionally confound procedure with substance, taking the procedural impasse as a manifestation of irreconcilable substantive positions. You haven’t shown any connection: your argument is but a vehicle for espousing an overall moderation: your personal milquetoast agenda masquerading as commentary on the stalemate.
cl’s dishonesty is patent in pretending the public rules contain an ambiguity that is nowhere to be found. We are to believe there were additional rules that were “secret,” completely implausible but if, hypothetically true, would just mean that a negative result would be a just comeuppance for such gross negligencre in stating the actual rules. You can’t be honest and hide behind private rules in a public debate. This is the dishonesty, it isn’t the doctrine cl defends.
This has nothing to do with the conduct of atheists or theists. In fact, I think with regard to such conventional indicia of honesty, theists probably on the whole do better than nonbelievers. It’s a question of personal character.
But which nonbeliever has the guts to call cl on ethics, when the overarching theme is tolerance, knowing as they must that cl wll play the theist card.
1 Mar 2012, 5:32 pm
This is the kind of catty comment that should be subject to universal rebuke. It contains the slightly veiled implication that some improper conduct is more typical of one ideology than another based on the debate behavior of individuals. This habitual stereotyping is vile, and it is poisonous for any discussion. [But why not, from cl’s perspective–when it cows judges and opponents.
Peter hasn’t asked for advice, but regardless, I wouldn’t continue the engagement in debate. Too much bad faith shown.
1 Mar 2012, 6:05 pm
TE,
Because we are not perfect beings.
What other perspective do you allude to?
Yeah, that didn’t come out quite right. All I meant to say was that people who knowingly break the law deserve the consequences.
1 Mar 2012, 7:28 pm
Stephen,
How on earth did you get that from what he stated? What I got from that was it’s better to be cautious and understanding than aggressive. Not that I think you’re being aggressive, I should say. I can understand your frustration with cl after reading the conversation, but I don’t relate to it. Hell, I’m not even a theist!
Why are you telling me what I think of intellectual honesty? I know this (BTW, I never presupposed that), but I think being “nice” is overwhelmingly important in these matters. If someone is going to act like a condescending prick and just be an intellectual bully, then screw him. Can’t you see why I would advocate niceness? Mean-spiritedness is itself a form of intellectual dishonesty; it shows an unwillingness to continue an exchange productively.
I’m not asking for any reduction in substance. Again, I must ask where you’re deriving this from. I was asking (perhaps on the other post, I’ve lost track) for more argumentation about the fall and original sin and premise #2. I don’t give a shit about the “debate” part of this per se, and I haven’t since day one. Who cares? Sure, needless suffering exists, but so what?
Let that soak in. This “so what?” is precisely what’s yearning to be argued about. I think Peter is begging the question when he states that needless suffering exists, ergo no omnibenevolent God. His definition of omnibenevolent means a being would eliminate all needless suffering. He’s stating the same thing twice, which is a textbook example of begging the question. Moreover, this makes his argument logical rather than evidential. If he thinks we can derive the non-existence of God as a proof from needless suffering existing and thereby contradicting Peter’s own definition of omnibenevolence, then that’s a logical POE. The evidential POE grants that evil is compatible with God, but the existence of such should count against the truth value of belief in theism. Peter was clearly using a logical POE.
The definition and property of omnibenevolence needs to be debated as well. Since this is the Christian God, the Bible is also relevant.
cl,
1. No, we’re not perfect beings. God knew this. Assuming a literal or at least semi-literal interpretation of Genesis then, why did he create the malevolent snake? The snake tempted Eve, and this is an important point. Let’s be honest with ourselves. God’s omniscient, which means he has perfect foresight. How did he not anticipate this problem? This isn’t even mentioning how he had the negligence to just leave the tree there in the first place. Why not move it? It was dangerous. Why risk having it there at all?
By the way, if God wanted perfect beings, he could have made them. Nobody’s fault but his own there. He didn’t have to make us at all! We would have never known any difference. It feels like he’s forfeiting responsibility for us when he sends his son to save us.
2. The humanistic perspective. Okay, our bad, we disobeyed you, God. But who’s fault is it for having the tree in plain sight and reach? Who’s fault is it for creating a malevolent serpent? Who’s fault is it for not intervening between the serpent and Eve? Why can’t a being of unlimited compassion see this perspective too? How is it fair to punish everyone after Adam and Eve now?
3. I would not define “breaking the law under duress” the same as “knowingly breaking the law.” Besides, God could have intervened at any time. He chose not to, and I don’t know if there’s any way around that. You can’t argue that he didn’t have the capability to intervene. You’d have to make the case for him purposefully refraining, and that makes no sense given his eventual provision to us. Like I said, why bother with that when it could have been prevented?
1 Mar 2012, 7:40 pm
ThinkingEmotions,
I would hug you were it not for the matter and distance that separates us. Thank you for being so candid. You get awesome when you get fired up. Get fired up more!
I think I will address your questions in a post on my own blog, since they don’t really relate to this thread and Mr. Diamond isn’t contributing much of anything positive.
1 Mar 2012, 7:54 pm
T.E.
CL wrote:
That’s why I like atheists (or agnostics) like you and joseph more than the ones who simply flip out and make accusations of dishonesty when they don’t even know the facts.
You question how I reached disparagement of atheists from this comment.
“I like Jews like Schlomo and Schwartz more than the ones who…”
See it now? Why single out atheists, rather than saying “I like debaters…”
CL is constantly mouthing this kind of prejudicial crap, like when on his blog he said he had thought I was different from “those other atheists who….”
It is one thing to oppose mean-spiritedness; another to coddle poisonsers of wells.
CL says my comments aren’t “productive” (why does he act like it’s his blog). In fact, this thread is drifting to substance. CL would love to ignore his procedural sins by dissolving the discussion into POE and topics for future debates. Procedure counts; the excessive laxness or indifference to rules I observe undermines rigor.
1 Mar 2012, 8:10 pm
Alright, I said I’d leave a certain someone alone, but these I can’t resist:
I didn’t single out atheists, you bright. It’s the same thing as when I say, “I don’t like Christians like Spacebunny,” or, “I like evolutionists that aren’t like Dawkins.” Well, I like atheists and agnostics that aren’t like you. People like TE, Peter and I have a fairly long history of tolerance and getting along with one another. I’d venture to say we’ve had some respectful, productive discussions. Contrast that with your boorish and bullyish demeanor. Who are you, some atheist martyr out to expose all the duplicitous apologists online?
Yeah, constantly. Come up with something empirical instead just blathering out of scope. The vast majority of my posts confront contemporary issues in philosophy of religion. I rarely ever go on anti-atheist tirades, but when I do, I always identify a specific target because anyone who knows me knows I’m not the type to paint in broad strokes against all atheists (or all anyone for that matter). I often take the atheist side in confrontations, too. So get over your silly little atheist persecution complex.
Uh, I’ve actually been acting like it’s *NOT* my blog. Didn’t you notice I’ve ignored your tangential blathering for quite a few comments now? Didn’t you notice continued acknowledgement of the thread’s central topic (cf. declining to answer TE’s questions here)? Yeah, didn’t think so, because you’re too busy seeing what you want to see. The whole world is pink through rose colored glasses, Diamond.
So, feel free to continue maligning my character when you don’t know beans. I assure you I won’t respond again, and I have no problem admitting I was a horrible judge of character when I spoke highly of you on my blog.
1 Mar 2012, 8:29 pm
CL challenges me to come up with something empirical, which I did. But here’s another. After a debate in comments, CL wrote changed the topic title and wrote, “This post was formerly titled, “Oh, There’s A Contradiction Alright!” but I changed it in honor of Angra Mainyu because it is such a shining example of the sophistry and willful ignorance so prevalent on the atheist side of contemporary philosophy of religion.”
[Changing a title after a debate is dishonest to begin with.}
CL doesn’t want to have to be at risk for answering me, so he constantly says he wont’ respond–a commitment a person of honor would regard as binding. Questions CL doesn’t want to answer must include, regarding:
Let’s make this empirical. I’ll admit my criticism was misguided (although still relevant) if CL can demonstrate where he said this about “Spacebunny.” I think it’s a lie, and cl is a liar. But I’ll apologize if he can show this claim is true. In his criticism of said bunny and its master, there was nothing of the kind of specious generalization and group-baiting evident in the comments about atheists.
I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Since unlike cl, I’m a person of honor, I can be believed. If you can quote and cite specifically to where you said this of “spacebunny” or another Christian inerrantist, I’ll bug off and admit I misjudged the situation. I would conclude that I was irked by this mannerism of cl to the point of thinking it was more vile than it is. I’ll admit it was rash of me to do so. Otherwise, cl is not only a debate cheat but a liar who’ll say anything to win an argument.
1 Mar 2012, 8:40 pm
Are you keeping context in mind here? I really don’t think this counts as poisoning the well. By the way, let’s face it that there are some atheists that are idiots and some that are not. In the meantime, let’s also admit that there are a lot of idiotic Christians and Jews.
I think you’re an incredibly intelligent and discerning guy, by the way. Your blog shows this. I’m not doubting you or calling your good faith into question. I just also happen to think that cl is probably (I must reserve some skepticism… I can just never know for sure!) a nice guy and you should give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s been doing this stuff for years. If he was an insincere d-bag, then it would have been more transparent at this point. How long have you known him, anyhow?
I should also admit that it’s hard for me to care about what goes on behind the scenes anyway. That’s political mumbo-jumbo. Let’s wait for Peter’s side of the story. He seems rather upset. If something comes to the surface that cl said or did something that was really intellectually dishonest, then I’ll revise my opinion.
1 Mar 2012, 8:45 pm
T.E.,
That said, I won’t resist commenting on the POE discussion further.
If a theist argued, “There’s no unnecessary evil, ergo, God exists,” the assumption that evil is unnecessary would be, to say the least, suspect. But that’s not the argument. The theist argues there’s no God-caused suffering because he claims to believe on independent grounds that God exists. The theist knows that unnecessary suffering seemingly exists, and seeks to make it palatable by saying it’s all part of the grand plan. That we don’t understand why is precisely the point of introducing a God so far beyond us we can’t understand the plan. I don’t think it’s objectively compelling to argue that God probably doesn’t exist because we can’t find good reason for His acts. That we can’t is part of the “theory.” And accepting its assumptions, it can’t really be faulted. How could we claim to understand the motives of an omniscient being: the gap between Him and us is greater than than between us and a virus.
The POE is influential for noncognitive reasons. It arises when people resent the evil they’re presented with so much that they can’t contain it with faith.
I’ll confess there’s an ulterior reason I’m not fond of the POE. God’s benevelonce seems an unnecessary assumption for a theistic world view. I believe that when confronting a position, you should deal with its strongest version. If the benevolence hypothesis weakens theism cognitively (although surely not affectively), that just means that Christianity isn’t the most compelling version of theism, which is what deserves critique
1 Mar 2012, 11:09 pm
TE,
Exactly. Mr. Diamond mistakenly assumes that my expressed dislike of atheists like him constitutes an attack on atheists in general. It’s not as if I like hypersensitive theists with persecution complexes, either. I assure you that I dislike everybody equally, when their behavior permits, of course. You already seem to know that.
:)
2 Mar 2012, 12:06 am
@Stephen Diamond
Ummm…the whole space bunny thing was not a lie. I won’t pretend to be a man of honour but take my word for it.
2 Mar 2012, 12:37 am
> It’s not as if I like hypersensitive theists with persecution complexes, either.
Uncovering your meaning perhaps requires that sensitivity to subtle pragmatic implications for which you once praised me.
So, again, let’s be empirical. Let’s simply see if you’re capable of telling the truth and whether I’m capable of making psychological inferences. You said, “It’s the same thing as when I say, “I don’t like Christians like Spacebunny.” So, as I already suggested, cite to where, before the present discussion , you made the same bitchy remark about “spacebunny” or any other self-professed Christian inerrantist.
Address it: I’m calling you a liar.
2 Mar 2012, 12:46 am
Joseph,
It’s not a question of your honor but of whether we agree on what’s being sought. I know that cl had a dispute with “spacebunny” and was banned. What I want to see is where, as cl claimed, cl said “I don’t like Christians like spacebunny.” From what I saw, cl criticized spacebunny for being unchristian. It seems obvious that cl would not imply, as the statement would have, that spacebunny’s obnoxiousness was a product of her Christianity. And my point is that this is what the statement, “I like atheists like you better than….” effects.
So, I’ve got to see it; hearsay doesn’t count. But I will indeed apologize to cl if he really did talk that way to spacebunny.
2 Mar 2012, 1:00 am
While there’s still more in this comment thread I would like to address (with over 70 comments in the past two days, I’m playing catch up!), I think a bulk of the debate-relevant commentary has been adequately responded to in my newest essay, “Cl – Peter Debate: The End of a New Beginning”.
I refer you there if you want to hear my responses to how the debate fell apart, where the debate is headed, and all this stuff about why I’d rather debate the argument from ignorance than address my oft-mentioned allegedly non-controversial premise #2.
2 Mar 2012, 1:03 am
T.E.,
Are you sure it’s “him”? Not long at all. He or she played to my vanity by praising one of my other blogs. But you may have a point about doing this for years. I don’t know how to put that in perspective. You surely haven’t been following cl that long; you would, I think, have been too young five years ago. Mainly, I don’t know who he would or wouldn’t be transparent to. If cl has gotten respect from nonbelievers over a five year period, I’m probably over-valuing my personal intuitions. But I don’t think I’m impressed by his being accepted in a like-minded environment.
Anyway, because I can’t be sure of my character inferences, I’m putting the matter to the test. If cl was able to avoid deceitfulness, even in the course of defending herself against allegations of deceit, she’ll ge my apology here.
2 Mar 2012, 1:17 am
@Stephen Diamond
Yes; “Spacebunny’s obnoxiousness was a product of her Christianity” was not said.
I am unsure if the precise words “I don’t like Christians like spacebunny” were said, but very much to that effect.
I won’t provide a link as it seems you have thrown the gauntlet, and I believe CL should answer you him/her/it/schlim/schler -self.
2 Mar 2012, 3:12 am
I refer you there if you want to hear my responses to how the debate fell apart, where the debate is headed, and all this stuff about why I’d rather debate the argument from ignorance than address my oft-mentioned allegedly non-controversial premise #2.
How is premise #2–whether needless suffering rebuts God’s existence–being controversial or not relevant to what’s being debated, when premise #1 is the subject of the debate? CL seems to contend that since the debate was about POE, the debate couldn’t have been simply about needless suffering, because needless suffering alone doesn’t sustain the POE. But there’s nothing weird or illogical in separating the claim about needless suffering, regardless of whether it bears unequivocal theological implications.
12 Mar 2012, 3:47 am
Just out of morbid curiosity, I’ve looked back over the archives quite a bit. Cl seems only to state that spacebunny is not a real Christian and is acting un-Christian like, not that cl dislikes “Christians like her”.
12 Mar 2012, 3:49 am
Also, I’m pretty sure my responses in the post and comments of “Cl – Peter Debate: The End of a New Beginning” and in the comments of Cl’s “DBT 01: My Response to Peter’s Closing Statement” adequately cover all questions asked in this comment thread. If you feel like I’ve erred and overlooked an important question, let me know and I’ll answer it.
13 Mar 2012, 4:02 am
@Steven R Diamond & Petet Hurford
“Cl seems only to state that spacebunny is not a real Christian and is acting un-Christian like, not that cl dislikes “Christians like her”.”
In that case I am wrong and apologise.
21 Mar 2012, 5:44 pm
Peter,
I wish you would at least pay me the charity of a link when you paraphrase me. The fact is, I make no claim as to whether Spacebunny or anyone else is a “real Christian,” and that’s because I can’t possibly know. However, I can say, and have said, that various actions are not Christlike. Please don’t confuse the two sentiments because they are not the same.
Also, out of my own curiosity, when you say you went back over the “archives,” to what are you referring? Surely you don’t refer to the many, many comments of mine that Spacebunny deleted, right?
Nonetheless, it should be obvious that I don’t like “Christians” who spout venomous, profane insults, in the same way I don’t like a certain atheist in this thread.
Besides, though no apology was forthcoming, Mr. Diamond has at least admitted he was in error:
Odd choice of words for a legal brief writer who claims to spurn verbosity (conscious intent is a necessary prerequisite for lying), but I appreciate Mr. Diamond’s small step towards the integrity and honor he so excruciatingly demands from others.
10 May 2012, 2:16 pm
Here’s something curious I came across:
http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2011/04/01/on-galen-strawsons-basic-argument/
(Comment 108)
In May of 2011, cl believed suffering was created by human sin, the position he months later sprung on Peter, claiming it was his new conclusion.