Subject:
|
Re: Heads up, atheists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:41:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
Well, it’s an opinion piece, so we can only dispute the opinion as given. I
gather that Hattersly considers himself a nonbeliever, but his beliefs are
irrelevant to the validity of his argument, of course. Regardless, here are a
few notes:
Hattersly comments that the Salvation Army’s efforts have been augmented almost
exclusively by groups that “have a religious origin and character.” Well,
that’s largely due to the fact that Dubya’s webpage (I think it’s FEMA’s,
actually, but my home web-connection is too slow to facilitate documentation;
I’ll follow up later with more) lists faith-based groups exclusively as
donor groups, one of which feeds millions directly into radical cleric Pat
Robertson’s pockets. Secular aid groups exist, but these were ignored by Bush
(much like the levee warnings and scope of the disaster were ignored by Bush).
The piece contains an apocryphal anecdote about the noble mid-ranking Salvation
Army officer who ministers to the wicked despite their wickedness. Frankly, I’m
not impressed, nor do I believe the tale at face value. It may have happened,
but to say “an unnamed guy did something nifty” is witnessing and is wholly
unconvincing as argument.
The argument that “good works are done most often by people who believe in
heaven” is useless. Let’s say that in any group of 100 people, 51 believe in
heaven and 49 do not. If all 100 do good works, then “good works are done most
often by people who believe in heaven.” See? The statistic is meaningless
because most Americans do believe in heaven, so I’d hope that these
believers carry their share of the “good work” weight (which is to say “most of
it).
Beyond that, I reject the claim that heaven-believers are, per capita, more
likely to do good works than non-believers. Show me the data, Hattersly;
otherwise you’re just witnessing again.
If, in rhetoric, you encounter a phrase like “it is impossible to doubt,” then
the first thing that you should do is doubt. So when Hattersly opines that “it
is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand,” a reasonable
reader must object.
Hattersly declares that “believers answer the call.” Where is his evidence that
non-believers do not? He presents no data to back up his claim, so it must be
dismissed.
He follows with another absolute phrase: “the only possible conclusion.”
Therefore we must question his conclusion because he himself does not (or can
not) do so.
Essentially, Hattersly’s argument boils down to this:
“Based on my anecdotes and impressions, I have decided that people of faith are
more likely to undertake acts of charity in times of need.”
But because he doesn’t support his argument at all, and because he instead
assumes that his readers’ preconceptions will lead them to share his conclusion,
we must set his entire article aside because it doesn’t actually advance the
larger argument.
Sorry, but this opinion piece is simply preaching to the choir, even if the
preacher isn’t part of the congregation. Maybe he’s trying to shame atheists
into charitable action. Maybe he’s trying to goad uncharitable theists into
action. Who knows? But in any case he’s certainly not mounting a convincing
argument.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| (...) -snip- (...) I agree with Dave completely. Another key weakness of his opinion is that he ignores whether atheists could actively support religious charities for non-religious purposes. Although I am an agnostic, I regularly donate to Heifer (...) (19 years ago, 18-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| (...) Thanks for the response, Dave! Okay, so you'd tend to disagree with his supposition:-) What interested me about the piece is the fact that the author claims to be an atheist, so the typical "preaching to the choir" accusation doesn't quite fit (...) (19 years ago, 18-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
32 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
