[MD] Metaphysics

[Mary]

Hello Matt,

Enjoyed this post immensely.  You make a lot of sense.  I want to believe
that people respond to reasonable fairness.  Being fair is a high quality
value in my book.  I see a lot of cheap shots being fired back and forth in
this group, and though I get as much entertainment out of it as anybody, I
don't think it does much good to further the conversation.  

When I open my inbox after a couple of days offline, I sometimes feel
overwhelmed by the ocean of testosterone.  Wow.  Sort of reminds me of why I
have had so many names.  I can only take it just so long. :)

She of many names,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:46 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics


Krimel said:
I have not found Dawkins or for than matter Dennett 
particular interesting in this respect either. But I think 
classifying them is rigid ideologues misses the point. Are 
you familiar with Lee Stroble, Josh McDowell, Francis 
Hitchings, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe or William 
Dembski? These guys are on the rational edge of the 
fruitcake fringe and their writings should be offensive to 
any thinking person. If Dawkins, or Dennett or Hitchens 
come off as "angry" then I would class it as the same 
kind of righteous indignation that motivated Jesus to 
throw the money changers out of the temple.

Matt:
I don't think you and I, Krimel, disagree that much here.  
For instance, I'm not sure that classing Dawkins' book, 
God Delusion, as a rigid, ideological polemic misses the 
point of the book at all: and that's because I agree with 
you that the "angry" in Dawkins and Hitchens (I have 
never seen Dennett be angry) is based on the context of 
their writings, and the only way to fight hard ideology is 
with hard ideology (just as the only way to fight violence 
sometimes is with violence).

I have no problem with righteous fervor in general, but 
for my purposes, I don't find it that interesting.  Because 
I don't feel the need to stand up and join the ranks of 
the polemicists, and this because they're already fighting 
a fight for me that I don't have any better ideas at 
fighting, I don't find the polemic typically that interesting.  
It's just not my thing.  I like to think of it as a division of 
labor.  Because you, Krimel, are fighting Platt's fire with 
fire, I don't feel the need to join in.  I don't really like fire.  
However, sometimes I find that the fire-fighters start 
flaming people that I don't think really need to be flamed.  
These are people who need different instruments to be 
engaged with.  That's what I mean about exacerbating 
already hot situations.

Krimel said:
As for dialog, seriously Matt, you think this issue that has 
raged from boiling to simmering for more than 150 years 
can be resolved by a chat over coffee at Starbucks?

Matt:
Heh, I didn't say it would be.  But if you think every battle 
is best fought with the same weapons and strategies, I 
have a war on terrorism to sell you.

I've read, for instance, Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson.  
Hell, I've even read Ken Ham.  And what I've found, since 
I do not write for large audiences, is that what is required 
of me in this larger war is to fill in the nuanced cracks that, 
say, Dawkins and Hitchens cannot fill in given the tools 
they're working with.  I.e., I dialogue individual 
people--that's my role.  Because I've read some of the 
opposing ideology, I can detect the arguments when I 
hear them, and because I've thought about them 
beforehand, I can meet them when needed.  But most of 
the people I consider worth spending time with 
(linguistically speaking) are genuine inquirers, not sparring 
partners.  When you treat a genuine inquirer with 
Dawkins-inspired weapons, you turn them into a sparring 
partner who is about as likely to Socratically self-examine 
as the weapons you are using suggest you are going to.  
Righteous indignation doesn't promote a dialogue, and 
I'm only concerned with the dialoguing typically.  Other 
people got my back with the righteous indignation.

If I sound oh-so too reasonable, you've never seen me 
handle a bigot.

Krimel said:
What tone would be an appropriate to address the level 
of ignorance, abuse of reason, self righteousness and v
ile rhetoric proceeding from the other side of this issue?

Matt:
I would strongly suggest making a distinction between 
the purveyors of stupidity and the people who it acts on.  
Bash Pat Robertson, but when an individual Christian 
wants to talk, trying talking first before deciding whether 
or not they just want to parrot their talking-points.  
Because you have to ask yourself: does opposing "vile 
rhetoric" with your own "vile rhetoric" (which is what the 
purveyors would describe your opposing righteous fervor) 
_have_ any effect on suicide bombers, televangelists, or 
idiots?  If those people are beyond the pale, and not the 
people I'm talking about talking to, then you have to think 
of who your actual audience is, and what kind of tone and 
rhetoric would have the best chance of persuading them 
of your righteousness.

You're not trying to reach Platt, Krimel.  The person you're 
actually speaking to is someone else, an invisible lurker 
who thinks Platt makes some sense.  If this invisible 
person thinks Platt makes _total_ sense, then that 
person is as lost a cause as Platt.  So that's not who I'm 
talking about.  The person you're countering Platt's 
rhetoric for is someone that needs to be knocked a little 
off balance--if you come on too strong, they'll see how 
fast you're coming and they'll lean into your rush and just 
discount what you're saying.  What you really want is to 
meet Platt's ideology with enough measure that someone 
might go, "Hmm, Platt made some sense, but then so did 
Krimel...."  Shit, if you can do that, then the ball is rolling 
for self-examination, which is really the only thing that 
changes people's minds most of the time.

Flesh and blood minds don't get tackled by arguments.  
The trick is to knock a mind off-balance and make it do 
the work in righting itself (by then showing how it might).

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/