Universalism

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But it's not a matter of someone "just saying" facts. If someone says, "2+2=5", has presented to him the logic that falsifies that, ignores that logic entirely and just repeats, "2+2=5" endlessly then it's the refusal to address the argument that seems to me to be a type of dishonesty.

I'd have no problem if instead he said, "OK - I've considered your logic/evidence and I think it's wrong for the following reasons". There'd be disagreement and perhaps further discussion, but at least it would be an honest exchange. Where's the honesty though in asserting "2+2=5" on an endless loop?     

And 'refusal to address the argument' is your opinion here that you are presenting as objective fact. Perhaps you should avoid this type of underhand tactic, or rather use of the begging the question fallacy. Most of Alan Burns stuff recently has revolved around the inability to falsify his belief, and that he eeroences things as if it were true. It might be that we think there are things he isn't seeing, and indeed I do, but that just means greater efforts to get him to understand.

[Stranger]

In order to be dishonest there has to be intent.  AB is perfectly sincere.

Since he previously conceded one of the main points:

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense...

I find it difficult to understand how he can be sincere unless he is totally failing to grasp the logic or is simply unwilling to consider it (in which case, he is being dishonest in the sense that he is only pretending to engage in a discussion).

Perhaps he can clarify how he has come to his conclusion given that he has admitted that he doesn't know how conscious awareness works and he obviously doesn't have a complete knowledge of the physical universe and its capabilities?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is shown to them and they just ignore it and assert the Thor claim again?

Surely 'overwhelming evidence' here is begging the question. Your approach seems to lead to anything you think is true because of what you see as overwhelming evidence should be seen to be true by others. This seems very like Alan Burns approach - you just think evidence is something different.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

But to people back in the day a god creating thunder was in it way a logical explanation for it in the absence of other understanding.

Yes I know. They were being honest about that to the best of their ability to be so.

If a devotee of Thor today still believes that it is because faith and logic don't belong together so much these days.  That's still a different thing from bean counting and then making up an answer.

Yes it is, but the term "dishonest" is quite nuanced. There's flat out dishonesty as you describe, but there are more subtle forms of it too. NS I think would say something like, "But if someone genuinely thinks he's being honest then he is" whereas I'd say that a belief is wilfully obdurate when it involves putting your fingers in your ears and - when it is - that a sort of dishonesty is in play.

[Shaker]

Surely 'overwhelming evidence' here is begging the question. Your approach seems to lead to anything you think is true because of what you see as overwhelming evidence should be seen to be true by others. This seems very like Alan Burns approach - you just think evidence is something different.

Unless I'm reading it all wrong this seems to sail very close to the "Ah well, I have my truth which is true for me but your truth is true for you" kind of relativistic morass that leaves us unable ever to say anything about anything.

[Nearly Sane]

Unless I'm reading it all wrong this seems to sail very close to the "Ah well, I have my truth which is true for me but your truth is true for you" kind of relativistic morass that leaves us unable ever to say anything about anything.

not really, it's only an issue here given the attempts to say :people who I disagree with who I think I have presented overwhelming evidence to that don't agree with me must be lying'

Evidence is athung that to make progress with you need to after what it means and how it is tested. We miss out that first step at our peril and end up with people using terms that mean completely different things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And 'refusal to address the argument' is your opinion here that you are presenting as objective fact.

No it isn't. Counter-arguments have been put to AB many times and, so far as I'm aware, he's never once tried to engage with them. 

Perhaps you should avoid this type of underhand tactic, or rather use of the begging the question fallacy. Most of Alan Burns stuff recently has revolved around the inability to falsify his belief, and that he eeroences things as if it were true. It might be that we think there are things he isn't seeing, and indeed I do, but that just means greater efforts to get him to understand.

Perhaps instead you should avoid your actual underhand tactic of claiming that I've behaved in a way that I haven't. IF AB said something like,"OK, I have considered your argument and I consider it to be mistaken for the following reasons" and I said that it was a fact that he hadn't then you'd have a point. That's not what he's done though.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it isn't. Counter-arguments have been put to AB many times and, so far as I'm aware, he's never once tried to engage with them. 

Perhaps instead you should avoid your actual underhand tactic of claiming that I've behaved in a way that I haven't. IF AB said something like,"OK, I have considered your argument and I consider it to be mistaken for the following reasons" and I said that it was a fact that he hadn't then you'd have a point. That's not what he's done though.

He considers you wrong for what to me seems bad reasoning, he seems to me inconsistent, confused,but that does not mean he is lying. That he argues badly or missed the point doesn't mean you can claim something about his intention 'refusal' as a fact.

[Shaker]

not really, it's only an issue here given the attempts to say :people who I disagree with who I think I have presented overwhelming evidence to that don't agree with me must be lying'

I agree that it's not necessarily conscious, deliberate and explicit dishonesty, but the other option - sheer obtuseness - isn't great either.

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi,

Yes I know. They were being honest about that to the best of their ability to be so.

Yes it is, but the term "dishonest" is quite nuanced. There's flat out dishonesty as you describe, but there are more subtle forms of it too. NS I think would say something like, "But if someone genuinely thinks he's being honest then he is" whereas I'd say that a belief is wilfully obdurate when it involves putting your fingers in your ears and - when it is - that a sort of dishonesty is in play.

If someone is avoiding being honest, then that would be dishonesty and that's what your approach here would requite. You still haven't shown Alan is avoiding being honest merely asserted it by your personal incredulity.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that it's not necessarily conscious, deliberate and explicit dishonesty, but the other option - sheer obtuseness - isn't great either.

there only is conscious, deliberate explicit dishonesty. It's part of the term as it is used here. As to 'sheer obtuseness' that's a false dichotomy.

[Shaker]

there only is conscious, deliberate explicit dishonesty. It's part of the term as it is used here. As to 'sheer obtuseness' that's a false dichotomy.

In the context of the current discussion, I'm not convinced that it is. When a claim is made or an argument is advanced by A, and B demonstrates that the claim is baseless and/or the argument fallacious, and A comes back with exactly the same all over again not just once, but repeatedly, time after time, then it can only be down to dishonesty or sheer obtuseness - you call this a false dichotomy but I can't see a third (at least) option.

One now ex-member of this forum (naming no names) was notorious for using the negative proof fallacy aka appeal to/argument from ignorance. It was explained to said poster many, many times by many different people for an extended period of time that this is an invalid argument and - crucially - the reason why it's invalid. Yet the poster concerned carried on using it exactly the same as though those explanations never existed. What's your explanation for such behaviour?

[wigginhall]

I have often said that AB is dishonest, for example, he has quote-mined my posts, i.e. chopped a bit off, thus changing the meaning.   I am not going to go back and find an example, however.   Also, as others have said, he just ignores objections, and then says the same thing, as if the objection had not been raised. 

I suppose you could argue that this is not dishonest but forgetful, or imprecise.   That is certainly charitable.   Well, I will make sure to highlight the next example that I see, and it won't be long probably.

[Nearly Sane]

In the context of the current discussion, I'm not convinced that it is. When a claim is made or an argument is advanced by A, and B demonstrates that the claim is baseless and/or the argument fallacious, and A comes back with exactly the same all over again not just once, but repeatedly, time after time, then it can only be down to dishonesty or sheer obtuseness - you call this a false dichotomy but I can't see a third (at least) option.

One now ex-member of this forum (naming no names) was notorious for using the negative proof fallacy aka appeal to/argument from ignorance. It was explained to said poster many, many times by many different people for an extended period of time that this is an invalid argument and - crucially - the reason why it's invalid. Yet the poster concerned carried on using it exactly the same as though those explanations never existed. What's your explanation for such behaviour?

Thing is, I've seen the same frustration from theists who don't understand why when they point out all the miracles they've seen and how aren't living creatures brilliant and but there's like that Kalamazoo thing and Jesus, what a dude, and bunnies and... and... and... And they can't believe that I am not god dodging because just look look look look at the evidence!!!!


Maybe they haven't got the base parts of the arguments agreed, maybe ecerytime they've gone 'that's the god works in mysterious ways justification', they haven't made it clear how and why, maybe because I see somethings differently so the next faithful step doesn't feel that way to me, maybe even horror of horrors they have to explained something so badly that every time they make the point, I lose the thread of their argument again.

[Shaker]

Any who, perhaps we should get off the personal track and finally steer the discussion away from specific individuals before the Dark Lord Gord On puts us on the naughty step.

[Brownie]

Who cares about the norty step?  Good company there, I expect.  Still I agree it's not good to be dissecting a particular person.

I've been accused in the past of being Universalist.
To me it means believing that there is more than one way and seeing the integrity in beliefs that are not our own.

[Shaker]

I've been accused in the past of being Universalist.
To me it means believing that there is more than one way and seeing the integrity in beliefs that are not our own.

It's a kindly and humane belief for sure, but doesn't fit with a belief system such as Christianity or Islam which makes absolutist claims - this is the truth and the only truth.

Thinking that there are lots of valid paths within a belief system that insists on only one valid path must be a tricky position to maintain.

[Brownie]

It's not difficult if you believe that faith is ever evolving.  As time goes on and mankind learns new facts it is quite natural for our faith to take a different path and to have our eyes opened to what others believe.   The Quakers believe that but, originally, when George Fox kick started the movement, they were conservatively Christian - up to a point, difficulties arose with other Christians because of their belief that we all carry God within us (The Light);  now the Friends are less exclusive and recognise 'The Light' in non-Christians.

Quite a lot of churches adopt the same principle which shows in their attitude towards non-Christian faiths - hence Interfaith.  They do not seek to convert.

After I posted my previous offering it occurred to me that there almost certainly are religions in which I would find it difficult to see the integrity (there is a programme on TV tonight about a cult which imprisoned some of its members), but I was meaning most of the well known faiths:  Judaism in all its forms, Islam of various shades, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc, and many branches of Christendom.

[wigginhall]

You would think that universalism is contradicted by some Protestant churches, which believe that salvation occurs through Christ alone, and in fact, through the correct beliefs in Christ.   In this framework, universalism renders Christ redundant.   Also true, I think, of conservative Catholics; liberal ones, I don't know.

Here you go: 'in universalism, Satan can work his false doctrines through its adherents'.   

https://carm.org/danger-universalism

[Brownie]

Oh yes, many Christians are against it and some churches have a definite drive to convert non-Christians.  That's how come I've been accused of being "Universalist", it wasn't meant as a compliment :-).  It didn't bother me and when it first happened I looked it up because I hadn't heard of it before.

[wigginhall]

Well, it's a binary approach, to say that salvation is through Christ, the rest are damned.  Or I should really say, dualistic, as with Zoroastrianism.   It's not a coincidence that those against universalism, often talk about Satan, as they believe in a kind of dualistic universe, whereas universalists don't really.   I suppose a lot of the New Testament is dualistic really, but I am not going to check!   (By dualistic, I don't mean matter/mind, but God/Satan, or if you like, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (Zoroastrian)).

[Shaker]

Manichaeism, man.

[wigginhall]

That's it.  Old Mani. 

[Nearly Sane]

That's it.  Old Mani.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_(musician)

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

there only is conscious, deliberate explicit dishonesty. It's part of the term as it is used here. As to 'sheer obtuseness' that's a false dichotomy.

No there isn't. Here's Wiki for example:

Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible) defined in criminal law such as fraud.

Lying is dishonest, but not all dishonesty is lying. Selective quoting is one example of "lacking in integrity" but I wouldn't go so far as to call it lying. That's why I used the term "dishonest" rather than "lying".

As I don't suppose we'll agree about this though, I'm not sure there's any more to discuss.