Monday, December 05, 2011

The King's new Clothes, he's not nake he's just into the lack of clothes


Atheists want to use the story of the Emperor's new Clothes to say that theologians are such ideas they have nothing there but convince everyone that they do. If theolgoians are like he king parading around in invisible clothes, meaning he's really just naked and no one has the tuts to say it, the atheists are like the guys selling him the clothes. They have a movement based upon neither believing nor kn0wing anything. They turn the lack of understanding into a positive by calling it "the lack of a belief." That's what they really sell, the lack of a belief; which amounts to nothing. The try to pawn that off as wisdom and smarts and acuity and so so forth. In reality they merely anti-intellectual which is proved by their mockery of intellectual theology which they refuse to learn bout but still claim to understand.

Atheists are always coming up with little gimmicks. Anytime you trump them with real knowledge they get up set and find a gimmick. The Jesus myth theory was such a gimmick. Jesus was such a compelling figure and there is some decent evidence he rose from the dead, so to counter that they just pretend he never existed, and give it a little name and make up some pseudo intelligent sounding crap pertaining to it. The "default" and the "extraordinary evidence credo" these are all gimmicks atheists made up and they are passed off as pseudo official sounding quasi logical tactics that in actuality mean nothing.

The latest is the Courtier's reply. This is it:

I recently referred to the "Courtier's Reply", a term invented by PZ Myers to rebut the claims of believers who insist that their superstitious beliefs are ever so much more sophisticated than the simple version that Dawkins attacks.

PZ's response deserves much more publicity because it goes to the heart of the debate between rationalism and supersition. I'm going to post his original Courtier's Reply below (without permission, but I'm sure he'll understand) but before doing so I need to remind everyone about the original fairy tale [The Emperor's New Clothes].
This is a statement by a reductionist scientism king Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He's on a blog called Sand Walk.

So what this couriter's reply is saying is that if the sketpic says stupid things about theology and demonstrates that he knows nothin gabout it and the theist says "O your criticism is invalid because you don't understand what you are criticizing" then al lthe atheist has to do is say "that's the courtiers reply" and the theist is supposed to go "O my God, I've violated a law of logic!" and give up and stop believing in God. But in realty it's nto a log of logic, I never heard it in a logic class.It's not in a lgoic text book, and the menaing of it is silly. I'ts just saying 'You can't point out my ignorance of theology because I will not allow theology to have any kind of validity or importance and religous people may not not any sort of human dignity." That's all it's saying. It's nothing more than anti-intellectual stupidity.

Here is Myers statement about it:

The Courtier's Reply
by PZ Myers

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

In other words, knowledge of theological subjects is just plain bull shit and it doesn't matter if Dawkins doesn't understand it because it's not worth understanding. So it's not valid criticism of him to say that. Except the problem is, if he understood theology he would see that his criticisms are wrong. The criticisms he makes are almost always about fundamentalists views. Since he refuses to accept that there are other non fundamentalist types of theology, when you point it out he just says O that's ridiculous because all theology is crap so it doesn't matter--but if he knew that he might not make the criticisms becasue they don't apply. But it's not worthing knowing that. he's just reasoning in a cirlce.

Here's his logic:

Him: religion is evil superstiion because fundies believe X

Liberal: we don't beileve x

him: that doesn't matter becasue religion is all crap no matter what. so even if you don't believe the thing I say is crap you still your own crap that must be stupid because you are religious. I know it's stupid because religion is stupid. Of course that's based on the stuff that you don't believe but that doesn't matter.

Narrow minded anti-intellectual brinkman ship in a most unsophisticated manner.

A very emotionally immature atheist tried this on me recently. Here's how it went.

Brent: All religious people believe in big man in the sky.

Me: process theology doesn't believe in big man in the sky

Brent: that's nonsesne all religous people do so they mustt.

Me; you clearly don't know enoguh about theology to say that

Brent: Courteiers reply! Courtiers' replay!

Like some magic king'x X that's suppossed to mean something. Clearly it's stupid because they are only trying to dodge the fact that their criticisms are based upon things they don't understand and that don't apply. Its' an attempt to hide their ignorance. They are committing an informal fallacy with the use of this gimmick. It's called "ipsie dixit." It means "truth by stipulation." They are saying in effect "I simply stipulate that I will not allow you to have knowledge. AT this point on your knowledge is now void becasue I declare to be so, since it's religion and religion is stupid."

Again their reasoning is quite circular since the reasons they would give for reducing religion to superstition don't' apply to modern sophisticated theology, but the fact that it can be labeled "theology" and they don't even know what that means, they stipulate that it must be stupid. So even though their reasons don't apply they just demand that they must do so any way.

Again they are merely stipulating truth and insisting they are right without any just reasons. It's idiotic to try and criticize a whole field you know nothing about. To make up for appalling ignorance they imply a third rate gimmick that is actually made up of two informal fallacies: ipsie dixit and circular reasoning.


El White said...

We live in an impolite society. Few say "please" and "may I." Fewer even understand to ask "Will you?" rather than "Can you?" Little wonder discussion is uncivil over this and every other disagreement. Dialogue need not descend to sophomoric debate trickery. That just ticks me off.

Anyway, this is my take on the issue.

Let's say there's some problem in mathematics. A solution is offered using pure mathematics. OK. Applied mathematics won't take the solution as-is. Applied mathematics will check to see if the solution is valid according to the rules of applied math. If so, the applied-math validation is presented along with the pure-math solution.

In the same vein, when a supernaturalist argument is presented, naturalists don't accept it as-is. Naturalists check it against the rules of naturalism. If the argument passes the test, naturalists use the argument in much the same way that supernaturalists do. Ongoing discoveries and criticisms from both supernaturalists and naturalists continue to test the argument.

In the movie Back To The Future, the character Doc Brown cracked up audiences with his self-introduction "I'm a scientist." Nobody leaves it so vague.

I don't accept such an ambiguous self-description when anyone blurts out "I'm an atheist." It's like saying "I'm a vegetarian" while munching on an omelette. And no -- I don't want to hear him or her say "I'm a lacto-ovo-vegetarian." I don't gain respect for someone based on personal preferences. Likewise, I don't care a whit if someone says to me "I believe in God." Rather, I tend to lose respect for people who go around trying to one-up others through demonstrations of piety or iconoclasty.

So you can see, I have no sympathy for Islam any more than I like pornographer Larry Flynt for wearing an American flag as a diaper at an "atheism rally." If I weren't afraid of being arrested for "hate speech," when guys do the prayer-mat thing on the sidewalk, I'd say "Stop farting at me and get out of my way! And by the way, Mohammed, it's scientificially proven that marrying your cousin or niece produces imbeciles. Peace be with you, retard."

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

you are a jerk. you should learn to empathize with people and read more about foreign cultures. Go meet a Muslim. they are not all like you think. Don't be a bigot.

El White said...

Interesting response.

Which Muslim do you want me to meet? The former employer's wife whose public piety didn't match her endless attempts to get me alone in their bedroom? Or the long-time friend who rejected an arranged marriage in favor of only hooking up with skinny white crack whores. Or maybe the coworker who uses liquid soap from the bathroom as hair gel--before he goes out to "follow" his first cousin and keep her away from all other men in order to "protect the family honor"?

You see, that's why I had to leave Texas. To experience life and get my thinking beyond simple labeling according to the left-right paradigm.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If those are the only Muslims why worry about them?