Religious discussion and scattershot argumentation

[rpavich]

thank you very much for this, (and all) of your videos...they are valuable for equipping the Christian.

God bless.

bob

[elagentenumerouno]

I like this guy in the video, that it's one of the mayor problem when I talk to proud seeners about God, or about the importance of God's laws in the goverment, and teaching the truth to students at school.

[GENERAL1002]

LoL, so true man! Deserves more than 1000 views.

[MrEpictetus]

Ive read Plantinga's problem of evil.

Your work is outstanding, you must be a reformed presuppositionalist.

Samuel Clark, Boyle Lectures 1706 says there are three kinds of atheists

1. the intellectually destitute

2. the morally destitute

3 those who think atheism is a superior argument.

Its impossible to reason with the first two. Romans 9.

Your work Ive seen so far is very consistent.

[Evangelander]

What you are calling scattershot argumentation is also known as redirection. This may sometimes be intentional, but I think, more often, it is because they cannot truly refute what you are saying and to the deeper thinker, their ignorance of the "topic under discussion" is made very evident, which, in turn, substantiates your view.

I understand that you might have reasons for disabling your comments, but I find it troubling for those of us who might later discover your channel.

[harrycarayhere]

Ya need to get some posters on that wall, Prof.

[EvaSlash]

Ok so everything is fined tuned in the universe but our Earthly world is filled with crime, pollution, and ignorance and is a total utter mess? Hmmm makes you think.

[grammastola]

"Ok so everything is fined tuned in the universe but our Earthly world is filled with crime..."

Eva, I think you're responding to the wrong video. As a rule, I choose to keep the discussions on topic, precisely to prevent the scattershot argumentation of which I complained in this video.

As for your objection, crime, pollution, ignorance, etc. are the result of human free will. God can also have ultimate reasons for allowing that, as discussed in the works of Alvin Plantinga.

[ferguda]

I like this guy. I wish I knew more Christians like him. It's a world of information out there and if we Christians aren't prepared to give answers who have legitimate questions we aren't doing what we have been called to do.

[Evangelander]

Right on. We should always be "ready" to give a reason for the hope that is withn us.

God bless you.

[adipiscor]

I cannot deny that the extremely specific, not to say narrow, points of information that you generally argue for are balanced, interesting and intelligent, but would you be interested in perhaps tackling one of these meatier questions? I'm sure a lot of people would want to hear a discussion about whether Jesus was indeed "divine", and for some of us, what that actually means in the first place. Thank you very much.

[grammastola]

Thank you for your comment, adipiscor, and for understanding why I choose to address very specific issues. Regarding the "meatier" questions of which you spoke, I've already addressed some of them (e.g. the anthropic principle, theistic arguments from design, multiple universe explanations) in other videos. Regarding the divinity of Christ, that will come in an upcoming video, though it will take several weeks. (I've got a lot of backlog!)

[harrycarayhere]

Thanks for posting this video. I was recently starting to become vexed about this very issue. This "scattered thinking" in my mind is one step below ad hominem attacks on logic and reasoning, IMO.

[FasterPace]

Why aren't my comments showing up?

[grammastola]

"Why aren't my comments showing up?"

I choose to moderate the comments, and it often takes a while before I get around to doing so. I moderate them in order to filter out the abusive responses, and also to avoid having too many comments that drift far off topic. This makes some skeptics react with venom and outrage, especially when their remarks don't get posted, but I feel that it's a reasonable approach.

[FasterPace]

According to the approach I go by (the pragma-dialectical approach), obstructing people from voicing their standpoints, arguments or doubts is equally unreasonable to ad hominems. They both violate what is called the "freedom rule", the first of 10 discussion rules that you need you need to follow in order to get to a solution of a difference of opinion (agreement). Maybe that drifts too far off topic for you, so I think I'll make my own videos on it. Maybe you'd find it interesting as well...

[grammastola]

"According to the approach I go by (the pragma-dialectical approach), obstructing people from voicing their standpoints, arguments or doubts is equally unreasonable to ad hominems"

And in my view, that's a completey unreasonable viewpoint.

You call it "obstructing peoeple from voicing their standpoints." I say that abusive comments have no place in rational discussion, nor do comments that are greatly off-topic. Scattershot argumentation has no place in rational discourse.

[FastrPace]

By filtering out comments that "have no place in rational discourse", you're preventing people from putting forward their standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.

This is unreasonable from a pragma-dialectical perspective: To avoid interfering with the process of resolving a difference of opinion, parties to a discussion must give each other unlimited freedom to put forward and to criticize standpoints and arguments.

reference·com/browse/wiki­/Pragma-dialectics

[grammastola]

FasterPace, it's obvious that you just want to retort in any manner that you see fit. You consider this to be "pragma-dialectical," but that's just psychobabble. It's also precisely the kind of "scattershot argumentation" of which I complained. It's what some people do when they can't address the content of a discussion; they choose to take potshots in whatever manner they can.

You are the perfect embodiment of this "scattershot argumentation" of which I spoke. Goodbye.

[HomeboundPilgrim]

EXCELLENT video; and dead on.

Kudos! *****

[FasterPace]

Btw, what you're talking about is called "Ignoratio elenchi".

[grammastola]

In some cases, it certainly is "ignoratio elenchi." In other cases though, it seems to be simply the result of scattered, undisciplined thinking and responses.

[FasterPace]

I opt for, instead of using the words "proof" and "evidence", using the word "argumentation" instead. Then, I challenge you or any theist to argue their standpoint that "God exists" without using the argument from ignorance and without discussing atheism, materialism, naturalism or any other belief system or "alternative explanation". These types of argumentation are unreasonable and ignore the possibility of entertaining a zero standpoint.

[grammastola]

With all due respect, FasterPace, I think your posting is a clear example of the scattershot reasoning that I was complaining about. In this video, I talked about the importance of focusing on the subject matter at hand, rather than bringing up extraneous discussions -- and here you are, responding to this claim by challenging me to prove that God exists! Do you see the irony?

Besides, there's a difference between "proof," "evidence," and "argumentation."

[grammastola]

BTW, why in the world would you challenge a theist to argue for God's existence without also discussiong atheism, materialism or naturalism? That strikes me as an entirely unreasonable demand to impose. Surely if you want to argue thoroughly for Statement A, one should also be prepared to deflect any counter-arguments that may come up.

And what do you mean by a "zero standpoint"? A neutral position? What if I reject the "zero standpoint"?

[FasterPace]

I would challenge them to do that, as materialism etc are separate discussions. Merely deflecting counter-arguments does not suffice as support. Just because, as to a proposition, the opponent of a protagonist (P) is unable to successfully defend the opposite of P's standpoint, doesn't mean that the opponent should accept P's standpoint. If someone successfully discards an opposite, what's left is ignorance. You can only 'reject' a neutral position by accepting a positive or negative standpoint.

[grammastola]

FasterPace, I agree that merely deflecting counter-arguments alone does not constitute a positive case for theism (or any worldview). However, I think it's unreasonable to say that people should defend theism WITHOUT discussing materialism, etc. Discussing materialism, etc might not be sufficient for defending a case, but that doesn't mean it should be prohibited.

[MiscellaneousP]

I never suggested that deflecting counter-arguments should be prohibited. I only *challenged* theists to argue their standpoint that "God exists" without bringing up other -isms. ...Any takers?

[grammastola]

"I never suggested that deflecting counter-arguments should be prohibited. I only *challenged* theists to argue their standpoint that "God exists" without bringing up other -isms."

I don't think that's a relevant distinction. If you're levelling this challenge, then presumably, it's because you think it's important to avoid bringing up atheism, etc. Otherwise, why add this requirement? That would be frivolous.

[carlsterinfiniteend]

The only thing that is certain is thought itself. Everyone should start their arguments from this statement and no where else.

[cowboy4ev2]

I love your videos...keep it up!

[faithfulslave]

I totally agree with ya brother. Lots of peeps just want to be argumentative instead of focusing on the topic at hand. God Bless ya. Peace

[mayartay]

I think of the scattershot arguments this way. You are hosting a formal dinner. There are many courses, all representing different possible discussion topics. The atheists and scientific materialists act like beasts roaming all over and indiscriminately devouring everything in sight. Basically they just assume that they own the entire banquet and that the "food" is all theirs to do with as they please.

[websnarf]

That's just a constructed (because its blatantly false) stereotype. You clearly have a prejudice against atheists. Amongst atheists you will find very cogent, analytical thinking in most forums by any standard. Why do so many of you theists work so hard to construct this bubble of unreality around you, as if all atheists are these monsters you imagine us to be? Is it too much to ask for some semblance of credibility in your claims?

[mayartay]

It seems to me like atheists don't know how to do anything other than fire out arguments like scattershot. You can see it in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and and Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters. Scientists or not, they either don't have good thinking skills or they are intentionally choosing to attack mostly straw man arguments and irrelevant arguments. Those are the only books I've read by atheists lately, but like you say it's all over YouTube.

[websnarf]

This is an unfounded statement. You can find what appear to be scattershot arguments by some atheists. But in open discussions, you will find the strongest threads of intellectual discourse amongst atheist regardless of your denials otherwise.

[AwokenSpirit]

Finally his questions became so numerous and so random that I felt that he was not showing signs of someone who was interested in debating or exploring a point but rather someone who was simply attempting to make disparaging comments about my beliefs.

[AwokenSpirit]

I know exactly what you're saying. I just came out of a two-hour conversation with an atheist, and although he was quite intelligent, I felt that every time he detected that I was effectively refuting one of his points he would ask a different question instead of allowing me to finalise my argument. -- cont --

[Savagery34]

I posted a video of me playing guitar. There are a lot of comments on it telling me how much I suck. If I removed them and kept the compliments, I sure would FEEL dishonest.

[grammastola]

"I posted a video of me playing guitar. There are a lot of comments on it telling me how much I suck. If I removed them and kept the compliments, I sure would FEEL dishonest. "

And if I were simply removing all comments that attack me personally, you would have a point. I do not though, as evidenced here. You're presenting a strawman.

Moreover, the reviews of your music are at least on topic, whereas I do not consider your other comments to be relevant to the videos in question.

[Savagery34]

My comments in the other video were not off topic. My comments in this video were just agreeing with websnarf.

Enough is enough? That's pretty funny. If that was the atheistic threshold of tolerance, youtube would suck.

[grammastola]

"My comments in the other video were not off topic. My comments in this video were just agreeing with websnarf."

I've already said that your previous comments were off-topic, so it's your word against mine. Moreover, your comments here go far beyong merely agreeing with websnarf, for reasons that I've detailed at length.

We are obviously not going to agree on this issue, so please stop wasting time.

[Savagery34]

"so it's your word against mine"

Quite right. Too bad there's no public record.

[LBSdrumz]

that beep on the background from the smoke detector is annoying...J/K!!!!!!....lol

amen to this video brother :)

[grammastola]

The background squeak is indeed annoying, but it wasn't from a smoke detector. Rather, it came from some floorboards in my apartment. Thankfully, I'm moving out in a few days. :)

[SaveTheTapirs]

You make really good points. You're not just exposing the mistakes of atheists, you're helping Christians argue more effectively. Oh and by the way, change those batteries in your smoke alarm! haha

[Veritas48]

Gramm I get this all the time now. It is very frustrating. To me, it can be a sign of a lack of objectivity. People, on either side of the spectrum who engage in this type of argumentation aren't really game players and they just have an ax to grind regardless of the topic at hand.

[joness105639]

AMEN!!

[istheretruth]

you're going to run into much of this off topic thing, atheists are notorious for off topic & subject objections to presentations.

[ZeroShift5000]

You haven't explained why you look buff in this video! lol

[grammastola]

Heh, and thanks. Frankly though, I think it shows that I need to trim down a little bit.

BTW, I'm posting your comment since it was clearly mean to be light-hearted... and since I want to show that I'm not just being a killjoy. I think there's a big difference between light-hearted asides and challenges that are intended to be serious, but are completely off-topic.

[ZeroShift5000]

Thanks for seeing that, I hoped my off topic post on a video about going off topic would be seen as the joke it was. If it wasn't I would feel like a jerk.

[Prophetes]

Atheist/Unbelievers do that a lot. Good job of exposing them.

[Edella]

As grammastola said, Christians are guilty of the same thing on occasion. IMO, believers and non-believers do this equally. I subscribe to grammastola because he is and intelligent, articulate, fair minded person who has the ability get his points across. I would suggest viewing videos by "websnarf" if you want to see (what I consider)similar qualities from an atheistic viewpoint. Peace.

[grammastola]

Yes, atheists do that a lot. In fairness though, I think that many Christians do as well. Within the general populace, I see it everywhere. Among those who choose to debate these issues regularly though, I see it on both sides, but a lot more frequently from the atheist camp.

As I said, I think this happens when people are more interested in getting their licks in rather than engaging in real discourse.

[websnarf]

A conversation requires give and take by both sides. If you chose all context and all avenues of discussion then you might as well block all comments. If you have some point that assumes other context which is highly questionable, then what do you expect? Who are you to dictate what is scholarly or disorderly thinking?

[grammastola]

"Give and take" is not the same as having a free-for-all. In fact, I submit that part of this "give and take" is making an honest attempt to address the arguments raised in these videos, rather than castigating someone over matters that are beyond their intended scope.

For example, I could (in principle) criticize you for failing to defend atheism in your post. I won't though, because that's beyond the intended scope of your comment. To do so would be unscholarly in the extreme.

[websnarf]

False dichotomy much? Your argument assumes a context, thus that context becomes *part* of your argument. If you expect people to address a narrowly tailored argument then it must start with premises and assumptions that everyone already agrees with.

My post does not *ASSUME* an atheist context, or address an atheist issue. That comment is non sequitur.

[grammastola]

websnarf, I mentioned atheism because I knew that you argue from an atheistic viewpoint. I've seen your profile.

Moreover, if by "context" you mean the underlying assumptions, I do NOT object to comments that address the context. In my video though, I complained about accusations and challenges of an entirely different nature, e.g. complaining that one has failed to prove Christ's divinity in a video that's only meant to address what Nicea said.

[Savagery34]

I completely agree. I made 4 comments on one of his videos, only 2 showed up, each with a rebuttal, and my reply to that never showed up. The ones that did show up, took over 24 hours and didn't show up without a rebuttal. This is definitely a trend on christian channels. Do you know of any atheist channels that feel such a need to control what is said?

[grammastola]

Savager34, I don't know which videos you're referring to. However, I would like to point out that I'm under no obligation to respond within 24 hours. I am not your personal servant.

Furthermore, I disallow comments that are severely off-topic precisely for the reason that I gave in this video -- they obscure rational discourse. I allow comments that disagree with my views, but only if they're relevant to the scope of the discussions.

[Savagery34]

You are under no obligation to do anything. I wasn't off topic, and I was relevant to the scope of discussion. We all know why you do what you do. It's the same reason that most christian channels tightly regulate the argument.

[Savagery34]

Thank-you for posting that.

[grammastola]

Savagery34, you say "you are under no obligation to do anything," yet you vehemently complain that I did not post your comments within 24 hours. There's an obvious contradiction there.

You also say that your comments were not off-topic. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with that. We all know why you do what you do -- it's to sling mud and grind an axe.

BTW, I normally choose to respond with more diplomacy that this, but there comes a time when enough is enough.

[grammastola]

So here you are, Savagery34, throwing a hissyfit because I did not post your comments within 24 hours. You even complain that I posted rebuttals to your commens. Good grief!

This is a perfect example of the kind of behavior I lamented -- posting with an axe to grind. It's the response of someone who's only interested in getting their licks in, rather than engaging in true discourse.

And yes, if your posts are abusive or off-topic, don't be surprised if your comments are disallowed.

[Savagery34]

My complaint was that ONLY 2 out 5 comments showed up and none violated anything you now talk about.

[grammastola]

"My complaint was that ONLY 2 out 5 comments showed up and none violated anything you now talk about."

So you say. I disagree. If only two comments were posted, it's because I deemed the others to be inappropriate. I have no problem with posting contrary opinions, but I do want to keep the discussions focused... and your own comments in this thread show why they are not always appropriate.

[websnarf]

One of my atheist friend YTers here recommended I look you up, because you supposedly present a rational, intellectual argument for theism. But I don't think its reasonably possible for such a reasonable discussion to occur between us so long as you act as arbiter and advocate at the same time. So you are robbing yourself of real debate, not encouraging it. Which is why you don't get the kinds of comments you are looking for.

[grammastola]

"But I don't think its reasonably possible for such a reasonable discussion to occur between us so long as you act as arbiter and advocate at the same time."

I recognize that moderating comments can impede discussion. The trade-off, however, would be to allow the kind of chaos that I lamented in this video. I don't pretend that it's a perfect solution, but neither is a free-for-all discussion. You yourself mentioned "give-and-take," but a free-for-all seldom produces that.

[websnarf]

I am trying to figure out how your argument is even one iota different from that of a censor, say from China, or the old Soviet Union or any other country that doesn't have any kind of freedom of speech/expression.

[grammastola]

websnarf, if I were refusing to post any opinions that differ from mine, your analogy might have some validity. I don't, though. I allow people to disagree, and I will frequently (but not always) respond. This is vastly different from being a censor who refuses to allow freedom of speech.

Perhaps you can invent some magical solution that allows everyone to have their say AND keeps the discussion on track. As far as I'm concerned though, there is no perfect solution.

[websnarf]

And I wonder what data you have to back up your last claim. All my videos have free for all discussions under them. Although there is occasional chaos (pretty much entirely coming from theists), there are also challenging and fulfilling discussions there are as well. I learn from these discussions -- its something I don't think would be possible without open comments.

[grammastola]

websnarf, perhaps the discussions in your videos remain on track despite being "free for alls." Maybe, or maybe not. My experience has been entirely different though -- possibly because the skeptics are more likely to use scattershot argument than the theists are.

Besides, even if you're right -- even if unmoderated discussion is best -- that does not refute anything in my video, which says that people need to avoid introducing extraneous, NON-CONTEXTUAL accusations into a discussion.

[grammastola]

BTW, websnarf, note that I allow your comments despite the antagonism. That's because I welcome rational discourse. However, if someone were to pop in here and demand that I prove God's existence (as often happens), I would be quick to point out that it's beyond the intended scope of this discussion.

Your comments do pertain to the "context" that you mentioned, and so I welcome them. As my vid shows though, what do NOT support are comments that are beyond the intended scope of the videos.

[JESUSISLORDAMEN]

God bless you brother, I love your videos and your blog

[websnarf]

If you assume the existence of god as a premise, then you are forced to address the issue of whether or not he exists. Someone claiming you have to prove it, is just a strident way of bringing up the issue. An intelligent response would give a good reason for the assumption, concede it as an unsupported assumption, or in fact, supply a proof.

In an open academic or scholarly discussion, challenging the assumptions is part of the game.

[grammastola]

"If you assume the existence of god as a premise, then you are forced to address the issue of whether or not he exists."

I don't deny that, but that's not relevant to any of the examples I cited. For instance, does God's existence have any bearing on whether Christ's divinity was decided as the Council of Nicea? Obviously not! That premise may be relevant to his actual divinity, but it's irrelevant to the question of what the Council of Nicea governed.

It's as simple as that.

[websnarf]

You assume 1) Jesus existed, 2) the fact that Jesus exists matters, 3) that his divinity is a well defined concept, 4) that divinity being decided upon makes sense (shouldn't that be up to "god"?). And all of this is premised on 5) the existence of god (god not existing, makes all of this irrelevant.) So long as these things are connected and not fully established (or not acknowledged as unestablished assumption), they are all clearly part of the discussion.

[grammastola]

None of that is relevant, websnarf. Even if Jesus did not exist, for example, that has no bearing on what the Council of Nicea discussed. If he did not exist (a notion that is dismissed by virtually every historian), that simply means that the Council debated in vain. It does not mean that they his divinity was invented at AD 325.

[websnarf]

If they debated in vain -- of course it matters, because then it wouldn't matter! It would be like going over the detailed explanations for a perpetual motion device; a futile exercise from which you will not ultimately learn very much.

[grammastola]

You keep missing the point. If there is no God, then this would simply mean that the Nicean councilors were engaged in a futile exercise. I fully acknowledge that.

However, my video was intended to dispute the notion that Christ's divinity was something that was decided at Nicea. It was not, PERIOD. It's unreasonable to say "You still haven't proven that he was God" if that wis not what the video purported to address. This is precisely why I call that "scattershot reasoning."

[grammastola]

To continue...

You may deny that God exists, or that Jesus existed, or that his divinity makes sense. None of this proves (or disproves) that the Council voted on his divinity at Nicea. It's simply irrelevant.

This is a perfect example of the irrelevant, off-topic stuff of which I complained. Heck, I don't believe in unicorns, Bigfoot or the Kraken. Does this have any bearing on whether people used to debate their existence? Obviously not! Those are different issues altogether.

[websnarf]

How can you say its irrelevant? If all true, then there is an issue on the table of real consequence and it matters that it is well analyzed. If all untrue they you are talking about nothing, and need not and should not be addressed at all. I just don't see how you can say its irrelevant.

[grammastola]

Websnarf, of course it's a good question; in fact, I SAID SO in my video. However, it's irrelevant TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE VIDEO. Does God's existence determine which subjects were debated at Nicea? No. It is therefore dishonest to criticize the video by saying "You haven't proven that God exists!" if that was not its intention or premise.

This distinction keeps eluding you. Yet if I were to point out that none of your comments here prove atheism, I suspect that you'd cry foul. Sigh.

[websnarf]

If you look around at the atheist channels (in fact just most channels period), you will find that comments tend to be wide open, with very few comment deletions or blockings. Even some of the more reasonable theists like TogetherForPeace and snow3585 will open comments.

In restricting comments you brand yourself a censor, which will always intrinsically undermine your credibility.

[grammastola]

Hey, if these atheistic channels what to have wide open discussion, more power to them! In my experience though, this tends to produce chaos, precisely for the reasons that I cited in my video.

[zamonkey]

Amen brotha.