How to argue effectively - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
War & Peace
in response to reader comment: Shermer and reality

Submitted by Michael Geiser, Nov 3, 2006 09:32

I'm glad that your passionate in your views, but do you really think the agruments proposed by Stenger or Rossown or anyone else hasn't been presenteed in some form or another already? Do you really think that any argument will be compelling enough to convince a lifelong believer to abandon their faith? Do you think that you'd read an essay that would make you be born-again?

I'm sure the essays you cite are well thought out and reasoned, but you're "Preaching to the Chior" (yes, I enjoyed working that in considering the context...); you're already convinced and most of the arguments I've read on "Disproving God" require at least some key assumptions that you have to take on faith as it we

Stenger has an interesting presentation here:http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Fail.pdf but there are problems even on slide two. Stanger argues:

1. Assume a god who has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.

2. Look for such evidence with an open mind.

3. If such evidence is found, conclude that this god is viable.

4. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a god with the assumed attributes does not exist.

Do you see the problem with this arguement? It's a Strawman; you're picking the attributes upon which you're proving God does or doesn't exists. Even if Pat Robertson (or instead someone else religious that I would actually respect) picks the attributes, who said he's picking the right attributes or the only attributes of God? In Stenger's case, the conclusion in #4 does not follow; there are holes in the argument.

Do not be too convinced with how clever your arguements are, especially the ones that support your own cherished viewpoints. These are the things the opposition will use against you.

Michael Geiser

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
Religion and science share a few characteristics that ought to make anyone with a toe-hold in either science or religion... [MORE]	Julius Barber	Nov 8, 2006 18:00
Anyone who has spent any of time talking to folks whose basic language is god-speak knows that there are two... [MORE]	Bob Zimmermann	Nov 4, 2006 19:50
The only reason why humans need a god is the fear of death, which includes the refusal of a definite... [MORE]	Roberto Hollnagel	Nov 4, 2006 16:39
Let's say that we look at our reality with an open mind, not with any agenda. It's a miraculous adventure... [MORE]	cause and effect	Nov 3, 2006 20:55
Intelligent Design usually involves some aspect of life and its development. I wish to present a fact of chemistry / physics... [MORE]	Ed Bonds	Nov 3, 2006 19:49
Shermer's an interesting character. I'm not sure he's consistently right, but he's got something charming to him, so I listen.... [MORE]	K. Smith	Nov 3, 2006 16:54
This article summarizes consdierable material that is already in print, but does so in an illuminating way. I would only... [MORE]	Stanley Krippner	Nov 3, 2006 12:25
Religion stems from a deep need of people to have the feeling they are being taken care off. The need... [MORE]	Yohanan Brada	Nov 3, 2006 10:54
Michael Shermer has a remarkable ability to take on an idea and flex it like a Rubik's cube to show... [MORE]	Frank P. Araujo	Nov 3, 2006 10:27
I found the last three paragraphs of this article particularly interesting and, truly, baffling. Shermer assumes that the supernatural equals... [MORE]	Mark Hausam	Nov 3, 2006 10:26
see title [MORE]	bob huff	Nov 3, 2006 10:04
Just like always, Dr. Shermer scientifically explains the steps of evolution by scientifically reasoning rather than mythical stories of creation... [MORE]	Sara Smith	Nov 3, 2006 07:51
The three counties south of Cincinnati called northern Kentucky have evolution/creation living side by side. Big Bone Lick State Park,... [MORE]	Mr. Andrew O. Lutes	Nov 3, 2006 07:11
As a strong atheist, anti-theist,I am proud of Dr.Shermer now being a fellow atheist and will read his new book... [MORE]	morgan-lynn lamberth	Nov 3, 2006 06:41
I'm glad that your passionate in your views, but do you really think the agruments proposed by Stenger or Rossown...	Michael Geiser	Nov 3, 2006 09:32
As usual, the theists response is that the argument isn't to their liking; therefore there is an error in it. Simple... [MORE]	Bill Henry	Nov 4, 2006 12:32
Morgan-Lynn Lamberth wrote, "As a strong atheist, anti-theist,I am proud of Dr.Shermer now being a fellow atheist ..." Dr. Shermer did... [MORE]	George Slusher	Nov 4, 2006 12:34
Bill: You mistakenly lump me in as a "theist". And what's with you going all "Ad Hominem" on me there Kemo... [MORE]	Michael Geiser	Nov 6, 2006 15:20
Don't know why you thought my response was aimed at you. I suspect I accidently checked a box or something. I... [MORE]	Bill Henry	Nov 6, 2006 17:06
Michael, choose all possble attributes , only to find that none work!Stenger is so right after all.One has to make... [MORE]	Morgan-Lynn Lamberth	Jan 31, 2007 19:52
The trouble I still have is in the logical consistancy of the argurement and not the passions behind them. From your... [MORE]	Michael Geiser	Feb 1, 2007 12:36
An excellent article, with some pithy observations, but one major error: Richard Dawkins' TV show was on Channel 4, not... [MORE]	Tony Kehoe	Nov 3, 2006 04:04

Reader comment on:War & Peacein response to reader comment: Shermer and reality

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on War & Peace

Reader comment on:
War & Peace
in response to reader comment: Shermer and reality