tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post9108067622676428159..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: The problem with external criticsmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-25320432878056979452014-04-03T18:21:24.816-07:002014-04-03T18:21:24.816-07:00Super_openid, those are good questions.
Are you...Super_openid, those are good questions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Are you claiming that people who were part of a religious movement and subsequently realized they could no longer hold the belief that supernatural beings actually exist never "had experience inside the [religious] movement?"</i><br /><br />Atheists are external critics of religion because they do not really have the interests of religion at heart. If I gave religious people "advice" on how to be religious, I would be concern trolling because of course I'm not actually interested in religious people fulfilling their own goals. However, I grant your point that some atheists have had experience in the religious movement and thus may have accurate impressions of religion.<br /><br /><i>Are you claiming the reader's impression has anything to do with the truth of the claim?</i><br /><br />As a practical matter, the reader's impression totally matters. We do not build our arguments from the ground up, we build them upon shared assumptions. Depending on who you're arguing with, you may share a different set of assumptions. If you tell someone "Here's what atheists say" and they disagree with your impression, then you are basing your argument on what you thought was a shared assumption, but which was not actually shared. When this happens, you must use evidence to argue that your impression is more correct than your opponent's.<br /><br /><i>At any rate, criticism isn't judged by where it originates. This entire argument is based on a genetic fallacy. The external critic's arguments stand or fall on its own merits, just like every other argument.</i><br /><br /><br /><br />I think you have more confidence than I do in the arguments that people commonly use. My personal impression is that the vast majority of arguments fail badly if they are judged purely on their "merits", without any degree of trust accorded to the arguer.<br /><br /><br />In particular, take the arguments discussed in this post. Most people who use the "Here's what you say" gambit do not support their assertions with citations. Most people who offer advice do not demonstrate that their advice is any good. We trust internal critics to have more accurate impressions and to have better advice. External critics do not have this trust, and thus should be judged more on the "merits" of their argument.<br /><br /><br />In the case you seem to care about most, atheists are certainly entitled to criticize religion, even as external critics. However, they should use decent arguments, rather than relying on assumptions that religious people do not share.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-83795531063545677492014-04-03T17:19:03.382-07:002014-04-03T17:19:03.382-07:00"Atheists are external critics of religion.&q..."Atheists are external critics of religion."<br /><br />Are you claiming that people who were part of a religious movement and subsequently realized they could no longer hold the belief that supernatural beings actually exist never "had experience inside the [religious] movement?"<br /><br />"You can lose this gambit as well, if, in the readers' impression . . ."<br /><br />Are you claiming the reader's impression has anything to do with the truth of the claim? I'll take the answer to this question as no considering the following: "You can cite people who in fact say what you said they say." A little confusing that you refute your prior claim, but it is what it is.<br /><br /><br /><br />At any rate, criticism isn't judged by where it originates. This entire argument is based on a genetic fallacy. The external critic's arguments stand or fall on its own merits, just like every other argument.<br /><br /><br />Last, and certainly not least, is the appalling assumption that religion should be left uncriticized atop the golden pedestal upon which it was placed. The atrocities caused directly and solely by religion should be the very first thing any decent human criticizes from the moment he/she is cognitively able to do so.<br /><br /><br />Nothing should be left uncriticized. Uncritical thinking is the root of all that is evil. To deny criticism by "outsiders" is petty and could even be argued to be immoral when applied to religion. It demonstrates an insecurity in a person's own movement to suggest it.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.com