So after being subconsciously inspired by Sarah G. to eat White Castle after a dreadful day of boredom, I am now in the mood to take my pissed-offness out on somebody in the form of a philosophical rant. I will prelude this blog post with an warm thank you to school, and papers, and finals, and laziness for not have given me the desire/ability to post in awhile. For this, I apologize for failing my devoted disciples.
I will also start out by saying that I got a B minus in logic which (by my standards) qualifies me to make logical deductions and assertions. This last sentence may be illogical in itself and if so then we are in quite the philosophical/paradoxical/logical conundrum. Go ahead, ponder away on that one. Anyways, let us progress with my thoughts.
I just started reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. I think that it’s important to also say that I’m only 100 pages in so I will try and limit my remarks and refrain from drawing conclusions about the nature of this book. My reasoning for mentioning my current read was to state where my inspiration for this post came from which is in regards to atheism and its typically flawed logic. As I said in the above paragraph, I might not be the best but I’m sufficient in identifying faulty logic, misinformed information, and bullshit* opinions. I also should say that this post is not my attempt to convert the atheists of the world but rather to enlighten them on how they should approach me when building an argument.
The first step that I take in deciphering someone’s thoughts especially on a touchy topic is to see if they are respectful. There is a logical fallacy called “Appeal to Ridicule” which is a line of fallacious logic that uses ridicule in order to support a claim that is contrary to the original position on the basis that the original thought is supposedly nonsense. (Example 1: “Josh, God is like a fairy and fairies don’t exist, do they? [the ridicule] Therefore your idea that God exists is preposterous. [the conclusion that is based on the ridicule]”) How does your degrading make my thoughts invalid? If you were to ridicule my position how does that make my position wrong.
Appeal to ridicule is Dick Dawkins’ logical fallacy of choice and should be eliminated from the outset. As he uses ridicule with his philosophy, it is sometimes hard to read with much patience. If one is to assert a certain claim then he/she must eliminate all fallacies. Even though Dawkins includes in chapter two a section which is titled “Undeserved Respect” where he warns his reader of sarcasm, he still owes a certain level of respect for all philosophical positions that aren’t the same as his if he himself wants respect.
Atheists seem to latch on to the appeal to ridicule (which is quite annoying). So you ask yourself, “Josh, aren’t you guilty of logical fallacy right now by saying that because they are guilty then they don’t present good arguments?” If I were to say that Dawkins isn’t making valid points only because he is unable to communicate respectfully, then yes I would be making a fallacy. But I believe that he does make significant claims that should challenge every reader. This blog post was not intended to disprove those claims or to support my own but rather to inform those who aspire for logical arguments to look out against falling to the transgression of the appeal to ridicule or disrespect.
I think that we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson was a wise man but when Dawkins quotes him saying, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus,” then I think that we can also agree that something is wrong with his logic. Of course the idea of the Trinity cannot be comprehended but I’m not here to argue for faith. Rather, I am here to say how crazy of an assertion it is to say that when you are having a discussion with anybody who doesn’t believe in the same thing that you do then ridicule is the only way to make any sort of progress. I might only be speaking for myself but when I have a conversation with somebody who talks to me like I’m three, I just want to punch them in the throat. If you want to have an intellectual conversation with me or even if you want to have a shot to convert me to Atheism then talk to me like an intellect and do not degrade my knowledge or beliefs by alluding to God as a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, “Little Green Man”, or “a fairy at the bottom of a garden”. Or to talk on the Trinity and Mary like so, “But it is especially the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The Trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, ‘Queen of Heaven’, a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers.” (all within 70 pages of The God Delusion) Tell me what was necessary about any of this. And how was this at all intellectual? If you want to convert me then present me with evidence that is stronger than my evidence without sarcasm.
I may not have done very well in my Logic course but the first rule of conversation is to not be disrespectful especially in debate. Richard Dawkins, this goes out to you: I’m sure you have very compelling reasons for atheism, I just pray that I can have the patience to read them.
Anyway, this is a promise to my loyal readers, my next legitimate post will not take 3 months to write.
May God bless you for reading all of this. And if you don’t believe in God then I genuinely pray that you have a wondrous day.
*On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt is an excellent short essay
