Note: This topic has a couple of potential homes. I have chosen to include it here in the Religion forum because the phenomenon I'm examining occurs mostly within its confines. Otherwise, Art & Culture might suffice, though Free Thoughts might work even better. As such, I invite our moderators to move this topic if they so choose.
Okay, what I'm curious about is how we're treating each others' words. This is a frustration down both sides of the aisle in the ongoing exchange between atheism and general theism.
Lately, I've chided a couple of posters about whether or not they read novels. It is, in fact, a serious point. To treat any work outside of specific scientific discourse with such lexical rigidity as we have been treating one another's posts would make the reading of those other works impossible.
The following citation comes from the book I'm spending the most time with of late, Cady's The American Writer (St. Martin's, 1999). I've chosen this citation because it's largely neutral, but allows an examination of the process I see at hand.
• Background: In discussing the phenomenon of social conscience in American literary history, Mr Cady examines several writers, including Hariette Arnow, James Jones, Budd Schulberg, Arthur Miller, and others.
Sadly, though, I would not expect such a position as I have extracted from Mr Cady's work to hold long; not so much to hold as legitimate, for that is its own issue. But I would not expect such a position to hold as a subject of debate. I see two immediate, glaring problems that, were it a theological discussion, can distract us:
• Subterranean: The position is invalid because it cannot demonstrate that consciousness exists underground.
• Six inches: The position is invalid because it asserts conscious extension under ground.
Frankly, neither of these points have anything to do with the debate. I think that much is obvious.
These points are common in our athesits' reactions to people's posts.
Some theists, for their part, would reject the notion of a simple equation because they might feel it implies they are stupid.
Both tendencies do exist on both sides of the aisle, and neither one of them makes sense.
I have, for instance, threatened to start holding some atheists' grammatical standards against them, but what, really, is the point of sinking the debates to that level of nitpicking and avoidance?
So the question becomes: Is this all we have? I've asked a couple of people what, aside from forfeiting speech, can be done to alleviate this. I've even invited one of our posters to come up to Seattle and cut off my fingers and tear out my tongue. Quite literally, it's becoming a "Don't speak unless you are going to affirm me," mentality.
I have no problem with people arguing loudly, being acerbic, or otherwise not experiencing a joyous harmony. However, I really, really wish people wouldn't work so hard to unravel the thread of their own Damoclean salvation.
So ...
• What are these silly lexical and grammatical standards people wish to hold others to which cannot be met even by the standard-bearer?
(I'm all for grammatical and lexical propriety, but--and I'm sorry if it's arrogant--how hard would people like me to drill them? I'm hardly a professional linguist or grammarian, but, to borrow a notion from Xev, people don't want to get into a grammar war with me. These standard-bearers who split grammatical hairs at such a ridiculous point that they cannot themselves meet their own standards--how many forms of "they" can I stick in there?--are at a severe disadvantage. My natural standard is, by reason of practice, higher than the artificial standards people are setting. What the standard-bearers are setting aren't even standards, but benchmarks for diversionary hair-splitting.)
• Is the best we can do for debate and discussion of religious ideas merely hair-splitting and evasion?
(My OmniDictionary gives me a total of five definitions for the word integrity, but considering overlap, offers me three distinct definitions. I am quite familiar with all of them. If our debates bear conceptual integrity--e.g. the state or quality of being complete; unimpaired, unadulterated, genuine state--then we can go forward despite our differences of perspective. If the argument forfeits conceptual integrity, a condition of doubt can arise toward personal integrity--e.g. moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence. With people offering self-contradicting arguments (lack of conceptual integrity) and focusing on evasion and hair splitting, it's really hard to take their arguments seriously--e.g. lack of personal integrity. Really, the more disparate the onslaught of allegedly-cohesive ideas, the easier it is to exploit their exposures.)
• Why bother debating?
(Is it really the need to win an argument against someone? I'm learning very little about religion, gods, or atheism from the posts themselves, and one of the benefits I've found of my long posts that nobody reads is that, in the end, I'm the one left with the information. By and large, though, what I'm profiting from these debates is a plethora of suggestions about human nature. But very little about religion. But, seriously, there's people here telling each other that they want to discuss and understand while insisting that other debaters handicap themselves, thereby ending the discussion before it starts. So to our atheists directly: I'm sorry, but if you can't handle the notion of God outside your little bearded man with his seven days and heaven ... well? Crap, atheism in the US especially, with its focus on Christianity, does more to perpetuate the fundamentalist malaise that drags down Christian potential than it does to solve the ills of specific religious practice. Theists? Hell, all of us except for the Christians are quite aware of the specificity of religion when it pertains to God. In this sense, some theists have have had the wonderful experience of "religious multiculturalism", when the churches try to get along without talking about the gods. It rarely works, for obvious reasons. (Oh, and it is worth noting that some Christians are quite aware of the problem--by and large, though, insofar as we can see of the debates at Sciforums and the majority of social debates in life, there is a certain exclusionism that hangs over Christian thought. What, then, is it about? Who here wants to make the kind of fool of themselves that one of our theistic posters routinely did until his apparent departure?)
• What is this code of debating methods that is randomly invoked?
(It's just quite hard to watch people snipe about ad hominem debate or AFI when the complaining parties can be seen engaging in the same. Let's face it--we don't fight clean in this forum. We have two choices: continue to fight dirty or to clean up the fight. However, the occasional bitching about various debased methods of political debate that comes up is quite humorous.)
I mean, come on ... we've got how many theist/atheist topics carrying out here? And they're all the same, despite their titles and intent. A good part of what's taking place here is a matter of reading comprehension. Another significant portion is a matter of conceptual integrity, with some implications toward personal integrity.
So what, in the end, is the purpose of these debates? I mean, on the one hand, I'm trying to not call for a strict lexical standard. There is, however a good deal of idiocy flying around here that need not be.
People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.
And response is both encouraged and expected. That is, I figure someone'll have something to say about this. So let's see what we've got, and what we can figure from it.
We're not flying, we're not flying, we're not flying ... just naming all the stars. (Floater)
thanx,
Tiassa
Okay, what I'm curious about is how we're treating each others' words. This is a frustration down both sides of the aisle in the ongoing exchange between atheism and general theism.
Lately, I've chided a couple of posters about whether or not they read novels. It is, in fact, a serious point. To treat any work outside of specific scientific discourse with such lexical rigidity as we have been treating one another's posts would make the reading of those other works impossible.
The following citation comes from the book I'm spending the most time with of late, Cady's The American Writer (St. Martin's, 1999). I've chosen this citation because it's largely neutral, but allows an examination of the process I see at hand.
• Background: In discussing the phenomenon of social conscience in American literary history, Mr Cady examines several writers, including Hariette Arnow, James Jones, Budd Schulberg, Arthur Miller, and others.
On the one hand, I could point toward the current political climate and say that it is only in the last several years (e.g. Clinton forward) that Americans have understood the idea that society might (my phrasing) need to undertake the role once held by the extended family. This, for instance, might provide us an interesting topic for further examination and debate.
Sadly, though, I would not expect such a position as I have extracted from Mr Cady's work to hold long; not so much to hold as legitimate, for that is its own issue. But I would not expect such a position to hold as a subject of debate. I see two immediate, glaring problems that, were it a theological discussion, can distract us:
• Subterranean: The position is invalid because it cannot demonstrate that consciousness exists underground.
• Six inches: The position is invalid because it asserts conscious extension under ground.
Frankly, neither of these points have anything to do with the debate. I think that much is obvious.
These points are common in our athesits' reactions to people's posts.
Some theists, for their part, would reject the notion of a simple equation because they might feel it implies they are stupid.
Both tendencies do exist on both sides of the aisle, and neither one of them makes sense.
I have, for instance, threatened to start holding some atheists' grammatical standards against them, but what, really, is the point of sinking the debates to that level of nitpicking and avoidance?
So the question becomes: Is this all we have? I've asked a couple of people what, aside from forfeiting speech, can be done to alleviate this. I've even invited one of our posters to come up to Seattle and cut off my fingers and tear out my tongue. Quite literally, it's becoming a "Don't speak unless you are going to affirm me," mentality.
I have no problem with people arguing loudly, being acerbic, or otherwise not experiencing a joyous harmony. However, I really, really wish people wouldn't work so hard to unravel the thread of their own Damoclean salvation.
So ...
• What are these silly lexical and grammatical standards people wish to hold others to which cannot be met even by the standard-bearer?
(I'm all for grammatical and lexical propriety, but--and I'm sorry if it's arrogant--how hard would people like me to drill them? I'm hardly a professional linguist or grammarian, but, to borrow a notion from Xev, people don't want to get into a grammar war with me. These standard-bearers who split grammatical hairs at such a ridiculous point that they cannot themselves meet their own standards--how many forms of "they" can I stick in there?--are at a severe disadvantage. My natural standard is, by reason of practice, higher than the artificial standards people are setting. What the standard-bearers are setting aren't even standards, but benchmarks for diversionary hair-splitting.)
• Is the best we can do for debate and discussion of religious ideas merely hair-splitting and evasion?
(My OmniDictionary gives me a total of five definitions for the word integrity, but considering overlap, offers me three distinct definitions. I am quite familiar with all of them. If our debates bear conceptual integrity--e.g. the state or quality of being complete; unimpaired, unadulterated, genuine state--then we can go forward despite our differences of perspective. If the argument forfeits conceptual integrity, a condition of doubt can arise toward personal integrity--e.g. moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence. With people offering self-contradicting arguments (lack of conceptual integrity) and focusing on evasion and hair splitting, it's really hard to take their arguments seriously--e.g. lack of personal integrity. Really, the more disparate the onslaught of allegedly-cohesive ideas, the easier it is to exploit their exposures.)
• Why bother debating?
(Is it really the need to win an argument against someone? I'm learning very little about religion, gods, or atheism from the posts themselves, and one of the benefits I've found of my long posts that nobody reads is that, in the end, I'm the one left with the information. By and large, though, what I'm profiting from these debates is a plethora of suggestions about human nature. But very little about religion. But, seriously, there's people here telling each other that they want to discuss and understand while insisting that other debaters handicap themselves, thereby ending the discussion before it starts. So to our atheists directly: I'm sorry, but if you can't handle the notion of God outside your little bearded man with his seven days and heaven ... well? Crap, atheism in the US especially, with its focus on Christianity, does more to perpetuate the fundamentalist malaise that drags down Christian potential than it does to solve the ills of specific religious practice. Theists? Hell, all of us except for the Christians are quite aware of the specificity of religion when it pertains to God. In this sense, some theists have have had the wonderful experience of "religious multiculturalism", when the churches try to get along without talking about the gods. It rarely works, for obvious reasons. (Oh, and it is worth noting that some Christians are quite aware of the problem--by and large, though, insofar as we can see of the debates at Sciforums and the majority of social debates in life, there is a certain exclusionism that hangs over Christian thought. What, then, is it about? Who here wants to make the kind of fool of themselves that one of our theistic posters routinely did until his apparent departure?)
• What is this code of debating methods that is randomly invoked?
(It's just quite hard to watch people snipe about ad hominem debate or AFI when the complaining parties can be seen engaging in the same. Let's face it--we don't fight clean in this forum. We have two choices: continue to fight dirty or to clean up the fight. However, the occasional bitching about various debased methods of political debate that comes up is quite humorous.)
I mean, come on ... we've got how many theist/atheist topics carrying out here? And they're all the same, despite their titles and intent. A good part of what's taking place here is a matter of reading comprehension. Another significant portion is a matter of conceptual integrity, with some implications toward personal integrity.
So what, in the end, is the purpose of these debates? I mean, on the one hand, I'm trying to not call for a strict lexical standard. There is, however a good deal of idiocy flying around here that need not be.
People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.
And response is both encouraged and expected. That is, I figure someone'll have something to say about this. So let's see what we've got, and what we can figure from it.
We're not flying, we're not flying, we're not flying ... just naming all the stars. (Floater)
thanx,
Tiassa