FASDT: Theological illiteracy
Posted by RyftAug 23
Fundy Atheists Say the Darndest Things:
Dotard (12 Aug 2009) AtheistForums.org
You will always place your God outside scrutiny. Your God is outside science, logic, observation, testability—you name it, your God "transcends" it.
1. Are not science, observation, and testability all members of the same category? Crowding a statement with superfluous nouns does not add anything to it except linguistic incontinence.
2. That God is outside scientific observation and testability—which is a better way for it to be phrased—is not an ad hoc move of convenience but (i) a logical consequence of God being the Creator of the universe and (ii) part of the monotheistic metanarrative for thousands of years. Whereas the subjects of scientific observation and testability are by definition phenomena in nature, God by definition as Creator exists logically prior to and outside of our space-time manifold.
3. God is never placed outside of (or said to transcend) logic. Although anecdotal evidence may prove that individual Christians utter such nonsense, one should be suspicious of philosophical illiteracy and hesitate to take them as representative of Christian scholarship on the issue, of which there is no shortage.
(On a related point, it is a revealing inconsistency for atheists to require qualified or expert opinions on other matters but conveniently abandon such standards when confronting Christian philosophy.)
PDF 
4 comments
Comment by DampeS8N on 24 Aug 2009 at 18:51
The problem with this topic is that both legit sides of the debate are outnumbered by their own ignorant vociferous morons. There is no shortage of maniacs. And maniacs LOVE to talk religion!
So it is a little hypocritical for you to point out the nut-jobs on one side while downplaying the nit-whits on your own side. Both sides are crowded with crazy—to the point that I wonder how many people on either side really know what they believe.
Comment by Ryft on 25 Aug 2009 at 03:50
I’m sorry but where did I ever downplay the nit-whits on my own side? You may want to consider your posts thoughtfully before hitting ‘Submit Comment’ because I have not displayed hypocrisy at all, Will. Come on, now.
In reality, with the New Atheism sheeple not leaving any fallacy left unturned in their gratuitous invective against Christianity and making a raucous display of fundy wingnuts, I am going to put their own remarkable stupidity on as big a stage as I can here in my little corner of the internet. Every retarded argument I see them make, every fallacy I see them commit, I am going to make sure it is pointed out and publicized.
When I have Christians writing to me and wondering if these atheist attacks have merit, why wouldn’t I step up and point out how intellectually bankrupt these attacks are, exposing them as harmless puppies piddling on the floor in their exuberance?
Comment by DampeS8N on 25 Aug 2009 at 16:39
Your language in point three says, “Although anecdotal evidence may prove that individual Christians utter such nonsense, one should be suspicious of philosophical illiteracy and hesitate to take them as representative of Christian scholarship on the issue, of which there is no shortage.” This is carefully worded downplay. You admit they exist and poo-poo them as a scant minority, when the reality is that you, David, are of a VAST minority—so minor, in fact, that I have not met any others like you. My own evidence is, of course, actually anecdotal.
You should point out the poor arguments. You should ridicule those who are illogical. And you should do it to both sides. Atheists aren’t standing at town hall meetings shouting that Obama is a Nazi while holstering a gun. The religious nuts are dangerous, especially when their faith is twisted to do evil things like flying planes into buildings. And calling their existence anecdotal IS hypocritical.
The primary argument that Atheists are hit with is that God transcends logic. You are a good person. You have good ideas and can formulate your thoughts logically and completely. But many of those on the side of Christianity cannot. As can’t many of the Atheists.
What’s more, there is a cultural bias against Atheism in many places throughout the USA. Loud, ignorant people accost Atheists for their beliefs constantly. My own place of employment has the fun habit of praying at meetings, as do the civil servants we contract with. Atheists will make the bad assumption that you too think they secretly believe in God and want to be harassed until they have no choice but to admit it. This is one of the most common perceptions Christians have that I ‘come out’ to. Indeed, I have to hide my agnosticism from many of the people I work with. My immediate co-workers are tolerant, but many of the non-technical people we deal with are very religious and don’t take kindly to me not bowing my head while they pray over a birthday cake.
You downplayed this. I don’t think you meant to. But you did.
Now, in a completely unrelated direction: I like the new blog template.
Comment by Ryft on 27 Aug 2009 at 00:57
1. It was not a downplay, carefully worded or otherwise. There is such a difference between (i) anecdotal evidence for what Joe Christian says and (ii) verifiable evidence for what Christian theism affirms. I am cautioning people against the Straw Man fallacy of mistaking arguments from everyday Christians with little or no philosophical training as being somehow representative of actual Christian teaching. I said that if one hears nonsense like “God transcends logic” then one should suspect philosophical illiteracy and hesitate to take them as representative of Christian scholarship on the issue.
2. I did not dismiss (“poo-poo”) Christian nitwits as a scant minority. What you are reading into my comments is coming from somewhere other than my comments. I said nothing about their numbers at all. I said there is no shortage of Christian scholarship on philosophical topics such as this, because it’s true. There is centuries worth, with some of the most decisive work taking place from the middle of the 20th century onward.
3. You think I should point out the poor arguments and illogical nonsense of both sides. Let me tell you why I don’t. My writing targets atheists for one rather simple reason: they make a HUGE stink about (i) being rational and logical, and (ii) that rationality and logic somehow lead inescapably to atheism (e.g., “If this book works as I intend,” Dawkins wrote, “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down”). Such claims and attitude practically begs to be targeted. Moreover, I want my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to observe the incoherence and rational poverty of their atheist antagonists, especially the loud and vocal ones of the new atheists school.