On Sat, 16 May 1998 00:15:42 -0400, Ed Brayton wrote:
[...]
>>EB>Very well said, Glenn. If I were you, I would also demand that
>>>Stephen post examples of the "constant stream of ad hominem
>>>attacks" that he accused you of on Saturday. I have never seen such
>>>an example, and I doubt that Stephen can find any in your e-mail
>>>messages.
>SJ> First, you haven't been on this Reflector long enough to know;
>>second you will note that Glenn didn't deny it;
EB>I have not been on this particular reflector long, but I have interacted
>with Glenn for a long time on other mailing lists and other forums.
This probably explains what you wrote to me privately about soon after
you joined the Reflector! How about you sharing it now with all
Reflectorites, or give me permission to post it, since it bears on what we
are debating.
EB> I have never - repeat never - seen Glenn be anything but gracious to
>those he communicates with. And Burgy, who has been on this list a
>very long time (and invited me to join it as well) says the same thing.
I do not necessarily claim that Glenn is not "gracious", in some sense of
that word. My argument is not so much with how Glenn says it, but with
what he says.
EB>In fact, I would challenge you and anyone else out there who thinks
>that Glenn has engaged in ad hominem attacks to either support the
>charge or retract it. Is that not the ethical thing to do?
I could dredge up examples of Glenn's "ad hominem attacks" but I
haven't the time or the inclination. But I have started a thread called
"Glenn's ad hominems FAQ" where people can in future add to same.
>SJ>>and third, since your are "a staunch advocate of the theory of
>>evolution", doubt if you would be an impartial judge in this matter.
EB>That is certainly an odd statement, especially coming from someone
>who has already proven so presumptuous in his exchanges with me.
To date you have not given me any reason to change my presumptions
about you, Ed. Indeed, with every post you confirm them!
My presumption was that when you posted that you were "a staunch
advocate of the theory of evolution" you were able to explain: 1. which
"theory of evolution" you were a "a staunch advocate of" and 2. what
exactly you meant by "evolution". Evidently I presumed wrong?
EB>An ad hominem attack is a fairly simple thing to define and identify.
>If in fact Glenn has made ad hominem attacks, they should be very easy
>to point out. Why don't you do so?
Because I haven't got the time or the inclination. But to keep you happy,
I will start recording them from now on in the FAQ.
EB> And while you are at it, perhaps you could explain the causal link
>between acceptance of evolution and an inability to identify ad hominem
>statements.
I did not say there necessarily was a "causal link between acceptance of
evolution and an inability to identify ad hominem statements." My point
was that you and Glenn are both evolutionists and can be expected to be
biased in favour of each other in debates with creationists like me.
>>EB>As for his demand that you post your "Christian bona fides" (that
>>>was an amusing way to word it, don't you think?)
>SJ> As a "deist and "a staunch advocate of the theory of evoltuion",
>>you presumably do not think that "Christian bona fides" mean very
>>much? But if Glenn claims to be a *Christian* and asserts the right
>>to destructively criticise leading Christian apologists like Phil Johnson
>>and Hugh Ross, then it is relevant that Glenn states where he is
>>coming from. If, for example, Glenn does not even go regularly to
>>church, read his Bible and pray, then in the eyes of most of the
>>Christians I know, he would be regarded as not having the basic
>>Christian spiritual `credentials' to do the job.
EB>Could you please point out where Glenn has "destructively
>criticized" Phil Johnson or Hugh Ross
I have in the past, and I will in future, if he continues to destructively
criticise Christian apologists like Phil Johnson or Hugh Ross.
EB>and tell me what the distinction is between "destructive criticism"
>and "pointing out factual errors"? You seem to think that "destructive
>criticism" means "disagreeing with someone I agree with".
By "destructive criticism" I mean a criticism that is entirely negative and
has no constructive elements.
>>EB>, I think that Mr. Jones should either support his statement that
>>>you have engaged in a "constant stream of ad hominem attacks" or
>>>retract it before anyone feels compelled to take his claim of being a
>>>Christian seriously. That's what a "bona fide" Christian would do.
>SJ> Stick around Ed and see for yourself! I will point them out when
they occur!
EB>Well, Stephen, you didn't say "Glenn will engage in ad hominem
>attacks in the future". You said that he regularly has engaged in ad
>hominem attacks on this list in the past. Surely it is not too much to ask
>that you support or retract that statement?
See above. It *is* "too much to ask". I have *megabytes* of mail from
Glenn and it would take me *weeks* to go through it all looking for ad
hominems and listing them all. Glenn hasn't denied that he has "engaged
in ad hominem attacks". And no one else (evolutonist or creationist) who
has been on the Reflector and in a position to know has denied it either.
>SJ> I would have absolutely *no problem whatsoever* stating my
>>Christian "bona fides"! And I am not worried in the slightest (for
>>myself) that you a deist, do not take my "claim of being a Christian
>>seriously." According to your worldview, claiming to be a Christian
>>would not mean all that much factually.
EB>How on earth do you know how I would deal with the question of
>who is a Christian "from my worldview"? You really are amazingly
>presumptuous.
It is not "presumptuous" at all. If you really are a "deist" (as you claim to
be), then you must deny that God could (or would) supernaturally
intervene in the world, including His giving a special revelation in the
Bible:
"deism ... Belief in existence of God, WITH REJECTION OF
REVELATION AND SUPERNATURAL DOCTRINES OF
CHRISTIANITY. " (Coulson J., et al, eds., "The Oxford Illustrated
Dictionary," 1980, p222. My emphasis)
"deism. ... 1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason
and nature only, WITH REJECTION OF SUPERNATURAL
REVELATION (distinguished from theism). 2. belief in a god who
created the world but has since remained indifferent to his creation..."
(Delbridge A., et al., eds., "The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary",
1991, p244. My emphasis).
"deism A system of belief that, in contrast to theism, takes God as the
philosophical beginning, NOT AS A PERSONAL GOD WHO
REVEALS HIMSELF TO HIS CREATURES. Deism was an ANTI-
CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT in England in the late 17th and early 18th
centuries that REJECTED THE SCRIPTURES. Deism, often TENDING
TOWARDS ATHEISM, had more influence on German and French
thinkers including Voltaire, than in England." (Isaacs A., et. al., eds.,
"The Macmillan Compact Encyclopedia," 1989, Pan Macmillan: London,
1994, p158. My emphasis)
If you reject "supernatural revelation" including "the Scriptures", and the
"supernatural doctrines of Christianity", then by definition you would not
do not take my "claim of being a Christian seriously", at least in the sense
that I mean it. And also, you must believe that Christianity is " factually"
wrong in the main things it affirms, namely the Incarnation of God's Son
Jesus Christ, and His resurrection. Otherwise, you are not a "deist" in the
normally accepted meaning of the word.
EB>For the record, I do not doubt that you are a Christian, nor would I
>think to challenge your claim to be one. But your behavior here is
>certainly not Christ-like, either in dealing with Glenn or with me a few
>weeks ago. When even your fellow Christians think you've gone too far,
>it's time to look in the mirror.
Let's face it Ed, If you are a deist then you must think that "Christ" is
either a fraud or a mental case:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things
Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a
lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he
would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man
was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or some thing worse. You
can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon;
or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not
come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human
teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis
C.S., "Mere Christianity," [1952] Fount: London, 1977 reprint, p52)
So your idea of what is "Christ-like" would not mean anything flattering.
The Jesus I read in the gospels made many enemies by his straighttalking
and was eventually crucified because of it. All I did with you was ask you
what you meany by "the theory of evolution" which you claimed to be a
"staunch advocate" of. To date you have never answered that simple
question.
>SJ>Indeed, your support of Glenn actually helps my argument. Non-
>>Christians would like Glenn's attacking of Christian apologists. What
>>Glenn apparently fails to realise is that his desteructive attacks on
>>Christian leaders just confirm non-Christians like your in their existing
>>views. No non-Christian would ever become a Christian because of
>>Glenn's destructive criticism of leading Christian apologists.
EB>Nonsense. I find far more merit in the behavior of Glenn than I do in
>your behavior.
This proves my point. You find "merit" in Glenn's "behavior" of
destructively criticising Christian apologists."
EB> If anything is going to give someone a negative view of
>Christianity, it is your presumptuous attitude, your willingness to
>throw around accusations without bothering to back them up, and your
>notion that anyone who criticizes a "christian apologist" is being
>destructive.
If Christianity is true, you are dead wrong. If Christianity is false (as you
must believe if you are a deist), then from your perspective it should be
*good* that I "give someone a negative view of Christianity".
EB>You can easily dismiss me because I am a deist.
I don't dismiss you at all. That's why I am debating with you. But if you
are a deist, then certain consequences follow regarding your view of
Christianity. You seem to want to keep your cake and eat it too. You
can't talk meaningfully about being "Christian" and "Christ-like" when
you regard Christ as being dead wrong on His central claim about being
God.
EB> But when your fellow Christians find your attitude embarrassing,
>isn't it time for a little self-evaluation? Wait, let me guess...they're not
>"real Christians"?
Ed, I try to have a "time for a little self-evaluation" every morning.
And I've *never* said of anyone who claims to be a Christian on this
Reflector that "they're not `real Christians'".
No doubt a small number of the more evolutionary minded Christians on
this Reflector may find my pro-creation/anti-evolutionism
"embarrassing", but if they do, that is *their* problem. Christians who are
anti-creation/pro-evolution are a tiny minority within Christianity and I
have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of my "fellow
Christians" in the real world would support me rather than them. Even on
this Reflector I regularly get messages of support from my "fellow
Christians".
On Sat, 16 May 1998 00:19:13 -0400, Ed Brayton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>But my argument is not that these Christian apologists should not be
>>corrected if they are wrong, but you never say anything *positive*
>>about them. You attack your fellow Christians with a hostility that is
>>relentless. I cannot square this with the New Testament understanding
>>of how Christians are to think and act.
EB>Wow. I'll take amazing hypocrisy for $1000, Alex. What is "this
>ironic statement from Stephen Jones"?
I am not sure what you are saying here. Who is "Alex"? Why is "this
ironic statement from Stephen Jones", in quotes? Please clarify.
EB>Where in the New Testament does it say that you should accuse
>someone of making ad hominem attacks and then refuse to support or
>retract that accusation?
I have explained that I haven't the time to go back and collect all Glenn's
"ad hominem attacks" and nor do I particularly want to. Neither Glenn or
anyone else who has been on this Reflector for any length of time denies
that Glenn makes "ad hominem attacks".
But I have started an FAQ list of Glenn's "ad hominem attacks" from
now on. I will be happy if it never gets added to becuse Glenn stops
making "ad hominem attacks".
EB> Is that what Jesus would do?
As a deist, you don't believe that Jesus was God. Yet He claimed to be
God. Therefore, you have to believe that Jesus was either a liar or a
lunatic. So how, on your principles can "what Jesus would do" be
normative?
But for myself, I see nothing inconsistent with what I am doing and
"what Jesus would do". In the gospels, Jesus accused the religious
leaders of his day of various things without supply detailed evidence of
same. There was no need to because all those involved knew about it first
hand. The same applies here in respect of Glenn's ad hominem attacks on
me and other creationists.
On Sat, 16 May 1998 11:18:08 -0400, Ed Brayton wrote:
[...]
>EB>>In fact, I would challenge you and anyone else out there who
>>>thinks that Glenn has engaged in ad hominem attacks to either
>>>support the charge or retract it.
>CL>The point of the term 'ad hominem' is irrelevancy and evasiveness
>>in argument about a topic. I for one have lost sight of your topic.
EB>Ad hominem is the fallacy of concluding that a position is false by
>attacking the person espousing that position. Stephen Jones has charged
>that Glenn Morton has regularly and repeatedly engaged in ad hominem
>attacks on "Christian apologists".
You are conflating two claims. My claims were: 1) Glenn has "regularly
and repeatedly engaged" in *destructive criticism* of "Christian
apologists" and 2) that he has "regularly and repeatedly engaged in "ad
hominem attacks on" *his creationists opponents on this Reflector*
including myself.
EB>I have simply asserted that Stephen should either support that claim,
>or retract it.
I have supported the claim(s), but not in the way you want me too.
EB>In fact, I would go even further and say that in the absence of
>supporting that claim, Stephen is coming rather close to engaging in an
>ad hominem attack himself. Fairly simple and obvious, I would think.
See above.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------