Over at the Triablogue, I made a comment which seems to have triggered an irrational response from Steve Hays. Read it for yourself, and tell me if you disagree. My original comment, summarized?
It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.The crux of Steve's response?
The question at issue is not what kind of people my readers are, but what kind of people you and nsfl are.
I realize that you don't like it when people like me hold people like you to your own words.
nsfl made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference
My original comment was in response to his contention that Christians were justified in "answering a fool according to his folly", and esp. that this justified them using sarcasm, deprecation, and insults to respond to those unbelievers and skeptics of us who (had the apparent audacity to) ask questions and challenge his beliefs.
Now, in response to his justification of this behavior, I pointed to the great irony of my situation that very day. I had been discussing the topic of civility and respect for our "cultural competitors" (those who promote values in opposition to secular humanist values) at a conference with other skeptics and freethinkers. As it just so happened, we had all pointed to the desperate need for dialogue in an increasingly polarized and hardened culture. We all agreed that insults were not only meritless, considering the great intellect and valid arguments of theists such as Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, but that they immediately shut down dialogue as it requires mutual respect.
Steve went digging through the public forums of the CFI, where anyone (not just a CFI member, and not just a humanist, and not just an atheist) can start a thread on anything, and found some threads which had insults to Christians. The CFI did not write these threads, anonymous persons did. The CFI does not value censorship. There is nothing on the CFI website, or anywhere in the CFI literature, which in any way deprecates or insults theists, or anyone of any sort. They sponsor a public forum where free speech is exercised by anyone who cares to participate...and this means...what, again?
Besides all of these facts, it really didn't address the fact that I had indeed just that day been in unanimous agreement with the 70 other students and the conference organizers that we needly to strongly encourage mutual respect and enjoy the dialogue with theists such as Steve.
The irony is obvious: whilst the moral "high ground" is often claimed by our cultural competitors, and while they are often dubbed "value voters", (as if we atheists, skeptics, and humanists do not have values, and/or do not vote in support of them) we often hold to standards of conduct which apparently are not agreed with by our theist friends. Not only do they disagree with the "tit for tat" strategy of mutual respect and fairness, they deliver to us these insults wrapped in phrases such as, "The question at issue is ... what kind of people you and nsfl are."
Interestingly, Steve does not go on to clarify exactly "what kind" this is, or why John and I are lumped together. After all, the only shared component of our worldviews, so far as I know, is that of our lack of faith in a god. I am not sure of John's daily ethical principles or practices, and I'm quite sure that Steve isn't aware of them either, or how they compare to mine.
Steve goes on to declaim, "nsfl made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference."
Of course, the problem with this is that Steve made a "self-serving claim" in trying to present information which would somehow "falsify" that I was, indeed, that very day, discussing with other atheists and skeptics and humanists the need for respect and civility in our dealings and debates and dialogues with theists. How was that fact belied by your "fact" that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, in opposition to the values that I hold, joined a public forum and insulted Christians?
What kind of person am I, Steve? I'd love to know. What kind of person is John? Or, do you care to lump all atheists into one definition of baramin?
"Maybe he didn't know any better at the time he said it, but now he does," Steve concludes.
Indeed, I know better than to attempt to continue engaging in dialogue with you, because it appears that you do not value mutual respect and civility in your dealings with those who disagree with you.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, CFI, Values
Now, in response to his justification of this behavior, I pointed to the great irony of my situation that very day. I had been discussing the topic of civility and respect for our "cultural competitors" (those who promote values in opposition to secular humanist values) at a conference with other skeptics and freethinkers. As it just so happened, we had all pointed to the desperate need for dialogue in an increasingly polarized and hardened culture. We all agreed that insults were not only meritless, considering the great intellect and valid arguments of theists such as Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, but that they immediately shut down dialogue as it requires mutual respect.
Steve went digging through the public forums of the CFI, where anyone (not just a CFI member, and not just a humanist, and not just an atheist) can start a thread on anything, and found some threads which had insults to Christians. The CFI did not write these threads, anonymous persons did. The CFI does not value censorship. There is nothing on the CFI website, or anywhere in the CFI literature, which in any way deprecates or insults theists, or anyone of any sort. They sponsor a public forum where free speech is exercised by anyone who cares to participate...and this means...what, again?
Besides all of these facts, it really didn't address the fact that I had indeed just that day been in unanimous agreement with the 70 other students and the conference organizers that we needly to strongly encourage mutual respect and enjoy the dialogue with theists such as Steve.
The irony is obvious: whilst the moral "high ground" is often claimed by our cultural competitors, and while they are often dubbed "value voters", (as if we atheists, skeptics, and humanists do not have values, and/or do not vote in support of them) we often hold to standards of conduct which apparently are not agreed with by our theist friends. Not only do they disagree with the "tit for tat" strategy of mutual respect and fairness, they deliver to us these insults wrapped in phrases such as, "The question at issue is ... what kind of people you and nsfl are."
Interestingly, Steve does not go on to clarify exactly "what kind" this is, or why John and I are lumped together. After all, the only shared component of our worldviews, so far as I know, is that of our lack of faith in a god. I am not sure of John's daily ethical principles or practices, and I'm quite sure that Steve isn't aware of them either, or how they compare to mine.
Steve goes on to declaim, "nsfl made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference."
Of course, the problem with this is that Steve made a "self-serving claim" in trying to present information which would somehow "falsify" that I was, indeed, that very day, discussing with other atheists and skeptics and humanists the need for respect and civility in our dealings and debates and dialogues with theists. How was that fact belied by your "fact" that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, in opposition to the values that I hold, joined a public forum and insulted Christians?
What kind of person am I, Steve? I'd love to know. What kind of person is John? Or, do you care to lump all atheists into one definition of baramin?
"Maybe he didn't know any better at the time he said it, but now he does," Steve concludes.
Indeed, I know better than to attempt to continue engaging in dialogue with you, because it appears that you do not value mutual respect and civility in your dealings with those who disagree with you.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, CFI, Values
4 comments:
Yes, I disagree. Steve has made a better response than your's. And please don't talk about mutual respect. You obviously have none of that.
Care to elaborate as to why Steve's response is "better"?
By the way, Frank, with all due respect, you really ought to work on the grammar. Possessives like "its" and "yours" have no apostrophe. It makes you look uneducated to write so carelessly.
And why exactly do I have no mutual respect?
LOL, hey genius, "meritless" isn't a word. And you talk about grammar?! Check what you wrote here: "The CFI did not write this threads, anonymous persons did." You really ought to work on the grammar. It makes you look uneducated to write so carelessly. Please, stop the hypocrisy, nsfl-poo.
Take care, my friend,
Frank
Let's be honest, nsfl. We all lose our tempers when we shouldn't. Of course, it always makes us look foolish when we do it. Or it should.
It's good to see that you've come to agree with the point that we should always try to be courteous. However, none of us is perfect. We must always look to our own side, as sadly too often our opponents believe this is special pleading, seeing how many times our own side gets into the insults stage.
I have to admit that I've been challenged by my conscience about loving those with whom I have a disagreement, especially when they get into ad hominens or just plain insults. If I'm serious about corresponding with atheists I have to be serious about praying for you chaps, too.
Frank, trust me, meritless is a word. Like Atheistical or artless. An old word, largely fallen out of use, but a word nonetheless.
Again, I may get it in the neck for saying these things, but a Christian cannot hold grudges. The problem is that insults are fun, as well as less hard work, and those of us who come across aggressive atheis types all the time tend to become tempted to answer those fools according to their folly. Take your feud with Frank Walton.
Post a Comment