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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:46 PM To: [email protected] 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/ 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/
