My experiences here on Gather have included a number of interchanges with devout Christians. Most of these have been pleasant enough, but I am a nonbeliever, so many of them were somewhat contentious. A few were downright nasty. I try not to respond “in kind” when someone aims an abusive or insulting post at me, and I think I succeed most of the time. I can be provoked, though, so I am not claiming to be “holier than thou,” if that is possible for one without religious faith.
Some of the debating tactics used by believers are pretty darn clever. They have tripped me up a few times with their crafty little traps. I am slowly learning to recognize some of them.
I recently read a book titled “Biblical Nonsense,” by Jason Long. The book is a difficult read, tedious and repetitious in many parts, and the writing quality is stilted. But the author relentlessly attacks the Bible on many fronts, and his arguments are methodical (to a fault!) and well reasoned for the most part.
An early chapter of the book discusses the subject of this piece. He calls it “Poor Christian Reasoning.” The purpose of the chapter, he says, is to “assist you in being able to recognize when such disingenuous methods of argumentation are used.”
Herewith are some excerpts from his list of creationist argument tactics, and examples of their typical use in religious debate. I am including the formal Latin names just because I really like the sound of them, followed by a translation and one or more examples.
NOTE: You can Google most of these and find more information.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Example: The virgin birth of Jesus must be fact because nobody has ever found any evidence that there was a conspiracy to fabricate the story. Using that argument, I could claim that I saw a flying pig ten years ago, and to prove me wrong, someone would have to find evidence that I am lying. This is also an example of shifting the burden of proof which is discussed separately later.
Argumentum ad nauseam (repetition makes it true)
This is the method of propagandists. Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, understood this very well. If you repeat something often enough, some people will believe it. Creationists sometimes argue that the massive quantity of literature generated in support of Christian beliefs proves that it’s true. No matter how many times it is repeated, a statement is no more true the last time that it was the first.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (people have believed it for a long time so it must be true)
People have believed in the Bible for thousands of years. Any belief that has lasted that long can’t be wrong. The age of a belief is obviously not a measure of its legitimacy.
Argumentum ad novitatem (It’s newer than those old faulty beliefs so it must be true)
This is a New Testament argument. The death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus happened in “modern” times of recorded history. It could not have been faked or based on old myths, so it must be true. Well then, how about Allah and his prophet Mohammed? They are newer yet, so they must supersede the older Jesus myths. Just because it’s newer doesn’t make it true.
Argumentum ad crumenam (Rich people believe and they’re smart, so it must be true)
As Tevye said in the song, “If I Were A Rich Man,” from Fiddler on the Roof, “When you’re rich, they think you really know.” Multibillionaire believers are touted by creationists as proof of the truth of Christianity. (The Bible disagrees…read the “eye of the needle” quote from the Bible.)
Argumentum ad lazarum (Poor people believe and they’re virtuous, so it must be true)
The Bible glorifies poverty, urging people to give up their worldly possessions. Not many take this advice seriously, but the poor are seen as more religious, and therefore more virtuous. Or is it the other way ‘round?
Argumentum ad verecundiam (Famous leaders believe, so it must be true)
Um…like Bush? An oft-repeated claim is that the founders of our nation were Christians. Some of them were; many were not, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Madison, among others.
Argumentum ad numerum (Lots of people believe, so it must be true)
Two billion Christians believe in Jesus. Are you smarter than all of them? Christianity currently has the largest following of any religion, with around two billion self-described believers. Islam is not far behind with about 1.5 billion, and birth rates in Islamic nations are higher than in most nations favoring Christianity, so the Christian lead is dwindling. But are sheer numbers the criterion to use to determine truth? Is truth determined by an election? What if ALL religions are wrong? One of them will still win the election.
Argumentum ad populum (Popular celebrities believe, so it must be true)
Endorsements...companies use them to sell products. Creationists use them to sell religion. It’s called “witnessing” but it is really just a sales pitch.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with the fact, therefore because of the fact)
If it’s a good thing (decrease in crime, divorce, whatever) and it happened at the same time that church attendance went up, then that must be the reason. Of course, if it’s a bad thing, then religion had nothing to do with it. Cause and effect need some logical link…not merely the coincidence of concurrence.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact)
The same as above, except the good thing happens after church attendance goes up.
Denial of the antecedent (attempts to link a failed hypothesis to valid ones to discredit them)
Early evolutionists believed that man descended from the apes. This idea has since been discredited. Apes and man are now known to have descended from a common ancestor. Nevertheless, some creationists claim that the discredited theory invalidates all of evolutionary theory. They clearly don’t understand the Scientific Method.
Ad hoc reasoning (explanation offered after the fact)
Many creationists believe the earth is only about 6000 years old. When presented with all manner of evidence that it is much older, they often fall back on the ad hoc notion that God created it to look old, to test the faith of believers. I find this idea particularly pernicious, because it suggests that faith-based belief should trump what we perceive as reality. Creationists sometimes claim that our perception of reality is not necessarily valid. It could all be an illusion, created by God or Satan…or both, I suppose. Such thinking denies the validity of ALL scientific knowledge, and it reminds me of the statement by Martin Luther: “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.” That way lies ignorance, superstition and intolerance.
Slippery slope argument (lack of belief will lead to a cascade of other bad things)
Prohibiting prayer in schools will lead to a decline in morality of the students, teen-age pregnancies, crimes committed by children, etc. There is no evidence that this is true, but that doesn’t stop the toboggan ride by believers.
The No True Scotsman fallacy (in this case, No True Christian)
Attempts to discount the immoral actions of Christian individuals by separating them from the greater mass of Christians who don’t do such things.
“John is a Christian, and he committed adultery.”
“No true Christian would ever commit adultery.”
Naturalistic fallacy (If it doesn’t happen in nature, humans shouldn’t do it.)
This is a fallacious argument often used against homosexuality. It is false for lots of reasons. First, homosexual acts have been observed in other animals. Even more obviously, there are lots of things that animals don’t do that humans do, like drive cars, fly airplanes, take pills, drink beer, read books other than the Bible and use condoms. (I just had to slip that in.)
Petition principii (begging the question)
Basing conclusions on invalid premises.
Premise: The basis of all moral standards is the Bible.
Conclusion: If you don’t read the Bible, you have no basis for moral standards.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular reasoning)
The classical example:
Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was written by God.
I’m getting dizzy.
And last but not least, shifting the burden of proof (attempts to make the questioner of faith-based beliefs prove that they are NOT fact)
I had an example of this in a recent thread. The creationist gave several examples of miraculous events that were described in the Bible. When I stated that there was no proof that these had occurred, he challenged me to prove that they hadn’t.
Finally, creationists often revert to the use of anecdotal evidence, sweeping and hasty generalizations and loaded questions. Here’s an example of the latter that I saw recently in a Gather thread:
A creationist asked, "Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that God created the world with an appearance of age?"
If you argued that no, it wasn’t a reasonable conclusion, you would still be acknowledging that God created the world. The right answer in this case is that the question is moot, since there is no evidence that God exists. Note that this question also tries to promote the previously discussed ad hoc notion that God deliberately set out to deceive scientists by making the earth look older than it is, just to test their faith. That is truly one of the most outrageous and hilarious of all creationist claims.
Okay, now that I have given you this set of tools for recognizing the clever debating tactics of a creationist, what should you do with them?
It’s up to you. You can just use the knowledge to reject fallacious arguments when you see them, and let it go at that. Or, you can point them out to the perpetrator, if you don’t mind the confrontation.
You can even have some fun with them, by suggesting even more ridiculous arguments using their techniques. The Latin for that, by the way, is reductio ad absurdum.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 122
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/10/22/christianDebateTechniques101.html
Jason Long is not a great writer, Kristi. There is a LOT of information in the book, but it is somewhat repetitive and not written in a very entertaining fashion. If you can wade through it, you will learn a lot about the Bible, though. He knows his stuff.
The truth through repetition one is especially favored by Cheney, Dick Armey, et al.
And Hitler. No coincidence there.
I have always felt that a belief in a higher power may be born in humans. I was brought up purposely not to believe in anything religious, but gradually I came to believe in a Great Spirit from reading books about Indians. Also you can't grow up in New England without being exposed to Puritan ideas. So I tried to believe as all my peers did and got myself baptized at aged 15. I figured it couldn't hurt. Would a child raised by wolves or some other animal instinctively have a faith in some higher power that he would call on in a threatening situation? Probably not - he would call for his wolf friends. Has there been any scientific studies on this subject that you know of? Do you know of any primitive people who don't have some kind of faith in mythical powers or gods?
I would like to read all the books you have mentioned, but I have waited too long. I doubt if any are printed in LARGE PRINT.
I personally do not think religious belief is innate in humans. I certainly don't have any at all. But I was raised in an unusual situation, I suppose. My parents were not believers or churchgoers, and although they never talked about it, I am sure I was influenced by their nonbelief. Likewise, most of my friends' parents were believers and churchgoers, and they were surely influenced by them.
What would happen if a child were not subject to any parental or societal pressures? Would they believe? The question is rhetorical, of course. No child will ever grow up in such an environment anywhere in the world. We are all influenced by our parents, friends, teachers and others. There is no escaping it...nor should there be. So...is that where we get the "infection?"
I think so...but of course I can't prove it.
It's another side of the coin that Ruth Magill mentioned re: losing one's faith-foundations.
That explains why the process of natural selection may have favored children who tend to believe what their parents believe, but it doesn't explain why religion developed...why, as Alex says, the brain may be "hard wired" to believe in god(s).
But stubborness is actually a "discord" value of determination, which is a function of Will rather than of Thought. Many character/personality traits have both "discord" and "harmonic" values, and it's often an object lesson to recognize and "flip over" the discord values that are stopping your own progress in developed life understandings. Simply, stubborness is something that people use whenever they refuse to think about what they're doing, whereas determination is something that people use whenever they're thinking about what they want to do.
I just read the link Kristi provided and I hear myself in some of those Christian questions. I don't believe the usual Christian dogma or the Bible except as a sort of journal by many ancient men that give us insight into ancient history and human nature, but I can't avoid thinking there had to be some kind of sentient power to create the Universe. But maybe Earth and all its inhabitants was created by a bunch of smarter beings in a distant galaxy. But then what created them? I have some other theories I never heard from anyone else but they create more questions than they answer. Oh heck! I'm tired. I think I will just say my prayers (just in case) and go to sleep.
There are theories, but nobody has any real answers.
The only place I disagree with you is when you say, "there had to be some kind of sentient power to create the Universe." Humans love cause and effect, and hate mysteries and the unknown. Your feelings about this were probably shared by the earliest humans. They invented supernatural entities to answer those questions and give them a feeling of security. But what if the universe just...happened? Maybe it's only one of millions or billions of universes that have come and gone in the last quintillion years. Of course "year" is a very egotistical word when we are talking about multiverses, isn't it? Other planets in our solar system have a different "year." It's so easy to fall into the trap of thinking we are the one and only...the chosen. But there is no reason why that should be true.
The universe/earth came into existence long before earth's' man.
Thus I was able to clear that idea.
answered. Religion is answers that may never be
questioned." author unknown
Thank you sir. One of the skills that many people have never learned is that of critical thought. Even schools teach what to think...not how to think.
One of the problems of discussing logic with SOME Christians is that the entire matter of religion is founded on the demand for faith. Faith provides a method for the human mind to rationalize that which has no rational or logical basis and this process of rationalization is habit forming. Non logical thought becomes the standard because rationalization allows one the luxury of believing anything that makes him feel safe or comfortable or that excuses him of his personal responsibilities and accountability.
So to attempt to argue religious beliefs, using logic, with a person who does not understand logic is like speaking another language to them.
I want to contribute more of my thoughts on this matter...but my time is short at the moment. Another very good book one can use to help train oneself to be able to catch logical fallacies in his conversations with others is "Crimes Against Logic" by Jamie Whyte.
Witnesses would come to my door, I always managed to free myself from a discussion fairly quickly, but, they did continue to come by until. . .
The last time, they were here I just said outright, that
I had discovered it was impossible for a believer and a non believer to have a discussion without insulting each other and that I had no interest in insulting them.
One of the group began with a statement that required belief, I interrupted and said, see, that insults me, you are implying I have no ability to think without your sense of religion, that I am "wrong."
They left, and I haven't seen them since.
They look at my face...and walk away, thinking, I am sure, that this one is a hopeless case, headed for Hades.
Hmmph, I'd better make a comfortable place for myself here in hell 'cause I think I'm going to be here awhile. lol
I can remember evan as a teen not finding the description of heaven to be much fun, NO Rock & Roll!
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian,"
"Why is it necessary for people to argue about their beliefs in the first place?"
Because the "as long as" stipulations you have mentioned are not being observed. . Remember Liz...if not for the actions of the religiously evangelical, there would be nothing to counter. When our money doesn't have the "in god we trust" printed on it and the Congress stops giving my tax dollars to religion based efforts...when Congress doesn't have an opening prayer and when all the blue laws are retracted...when all the morality laws are overturned and when homosexuals are guaranteed the same rights as the rest of America..WHEN RELIGION REALLY IS A PRIVATE MATTER... you'll hear nothing further from me about religion.
But...to Liz...it is human nature to share your ideas with others, don't you think? And when there are disagreements, to question opposing ideas. Of course, evangelicals are commanded by their religion to "go forth and spread the word." And atheist and secular humanist organizations are publishing magazines and promoting their ideas.
Whether we like it or not, there is a struggle going on in this country over religion in government and, possibly more importantly, in the schools. If we nonbelievers just remain silent, we will be steamrollered by the Bible pushers, so I think we HAVE to argue with them and challenge them.
Bert you are correct and I do enjoy discussing such matters. I just have a tendency to speak of them amongst those who have spiritual interests. I do not believe any two people can possibly have the same beliefs but they can have common points upon which to explore. For instance: if an atheist and one who believes in a spiritual nature [and they each wish to maintain the separation of church and state] are brought together in conversation it behooves such persons with those same interests and goals to be allies in the fight to keep church and state separate.
Slim, as usual I can disagree with nothing that you say.
So, to be Christian, means to seek converts.
The new Testament book of Acts is all about this 'missionary work"
And when Jesus called his two Disciples who were fishermen, it was to "come be fishers of men."
I have no familiarity with Isalm, so I don't know where in the Koran they are called to seek converts.
Yes, we must keep our Government institutions free from religion.
"For instance: if an atheist and one who believes in a spiritual nature [and they each wish to maintain the separation of church and state] are brought together in conversation it behooves such persons with those same interests and goals to be allies in the fight to keep church and state separate."
I want you to meet Barry W Lynn who has been the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since 1992. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, and a prominent leader of the American religious left.
AU and the ACLU are very important organizations that oppose the Religious Right and their organizations. Barry has been the target of "imprecatory prayers" from fundamentalist nutcase preachers who have urged their followers to pray for his death.
I think he is dead wrong. In order to had freedom of religion, we must have freedom from religion.
"What many do not realize is that the work that he does in great part secures religious freedom."
Only those who support the melding of church and state don't realize that Liz....or they are not willing to acknowledge that. You made this statement...
"For instance: if an atheist and one who believes in a spiritual nature [and they each wish to maintain the separation of church and state] are brought together in conversation it behooves such persons with those same interests and goals to be allies in the fight to keep church and state separate."
My response was in support of your statement and I offered an example of such a person (persons). Another example is Jimmy Carter...a deeply religious person who knows that in order to protect his right to worship as he pleases, we must protect that right for all of us...including the right to NOT worship.
"
This is important to me for a couple reasons, one being because as a person growing up in a non-religious household I figured that I was doing just fine without religion ... especially because so many of those religious that I knew, were hypocrites anyway, and not as nice of people as were the non-religious that I knew.
Even later in life when I looked for deeper meaning to life, finding out much later that what I was seeking was a generic spirituality ... which at the time I was not even aware that it existed because religions had always claimed an ownership to spirituality ... thus when I rejected those religions I had done so to spirituality also because I thought then that they were one and the same ...
Nowadays, I use every opportunity I get to explain that difference between generic spirituality, its GOD, and the God of "branded" religions ... I want others to become aware of what I was deprived of ... having nothing to do with "me" now, but everything to do with "them" (whoever they may be)(the vast reading audience ?) ... (and the other, the "second", reason I speak out, is that I was spiritually instructed to do so, it is my spiritual mission)(believe it or not) :-)
Catholic, Protestant, Baptist . . . which version of Christianity, hasn't come up just yet.?
How do you expect you would be greeted and treated?
But, I only have one question.........
"If you had a theory which predicted that certain things will happen but never predicted that anything cannot happen. How would you test it?"
Do I understand your question? I'm not sure...
Yet, how can a scientific theory be formed if someone is attempting to predict something that either simply has not happened yet, or else the specific conditions for it to occur do not yet exist?
Furthermore, how can any scientific theory predict that something will not or can not happen in the future?
Afterall, any theory, no matter what it is or what it pertains to, can only be based upon the cumulative knowledge and experience of the theorist.
If a predicted outcome is not contained in or comprised of the cumulative knowledge of the theorist, or at least a part of that theorist's reasoning process, how can any yet-unknown predictable outcome be proved or disproved (or even understood) by the theorist?
I agree with what both of you are saying...nobody can devise a test for the faith-based belief in the End of the World...the Apocalypse.
I suppose that is what you are both referring to. But that is true for most faith-based ideas, including the existence of the god(s) of any religion.
If you are arguing that this is a shortcoming of Science or the Scientific Method, I disagree. Science can not prove or disprove any faith-based belief.
An example of that: A few years ago, some scientists decided to devise a test to find out if prayer was really effective. I won't go into all the details, but it was a very carefully designed triple-blind test that involved church congregations praying for ill individuals in hospitals to make good recoveries.
The results were, as expected, no significant difference between prayed-for and not-prayed-for groups. Religious leaders scoffed at the results, claiming the tests were invalid. Of course, if the tests had shown a positive effect from prayer, I am sure it would have been trumpeted from every pulpit.
If that is how you feel and what you believe, Bert, then perhaps I have somehow misread your post here.......
Because that is precisely what you appear to be attempting to do (at least, to me) with the concept of Creationism.........
Even "young earth" beliefs cannot be proven wrong...if you consider the argument that God put the fossils and the archaelogical evidence there just to deceive us and test our faith. how can science disprove such a notion?
If creationists reject ALL scientific evidence and rely solely on their faith-based beliefs, there is nothing a scientist can say to them that will change their mind.
They can always claim that their faith overrides all scientific data.
You cannot disprove such a thing.
"They can always claim that their faith overrides all scientific data.
You cannot disprove such a thing."
Claims don't prove anything AND the burden of proof is owned by those who make the claim..."Extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim".....some claims have extraordinary evidence against them.
The Christian Luddites here have not been as succesful...so far...in shutting down the growth of scientific knowledge. they try, but, much to their dismay, they are largely ignored. For that reason, we have passed the Islamic nations in political, cultural and technological development. Left them in the dust.
I think it is a source of great frustration to them. They try to demonize us...the Great Satan...but even people in their own countries know better.
The danger is that within our own country lurk similar forces who seek to undermine our scientific advances and return us to the same ignorance and blind faith that the Muslims have.
That is the road BACK. Back to the Middle Ages, with all its ignorance, superstition, oppression and poverty. But FAITH! Yes, blind, unthinkng faith. Intolerance of ANY opposing view...persecution of any who doubt.
Do we want to go back to that?
He holds his own and makes many of the points that religious people...including you...make in response to my arguments
"This thread does not contain any "pretend conversation." "
Sure it does. You have presented select points, and select arguments about them, which you then present. One could easily do such a presentation of select points, and present selected "evolutionist" arguments that are weak, and declare victory too . . . but what would it actually prove? Any bozo can pick and chose the weakest arguments they've heard or imagined, and then declare they are wiser than any that might challenge their reasoning, BFD.
Wow! Bert is smarter than some "creationists" about some aspects of the matter . . . congratulations! ; )
You just don't like it when somebody presents information that you don't agree with, John, and I do that pretty often, don't I?
Maybe Ruth is right...you can't stand the competition. :)
John - Bert has found an interesting and very successful way of sharing spiritual and philosophical ideas with other peope who then are inspired to share their own views in return. Do I detect in you a bit of jealousy concerning Bert's success or do you just enjoy being contentious?
"Do I detect in you a bit of jealousy concerning Bert's success or do you just enjoy being contentious?"
I can kick his ass in a real debate, that's all ; )
But your earlier comment...disparaging my "conversations" with my fictional character Al...suggests that you did not even read this piece before commenting. You had already made up your mind how to respond, because you knew I was the creator of the piece.
So, it appears that you have decided to become a "troll," jumping into the middle of comment threads, leaving a "deposit" and disappearing.
Kinda like a seagull...land, shit and leave.
But let me ask you...if you can indeed "kick my ass" in a debate, does that make you right? Or just clever?
Doesn't make me anything, I don't figure . . it makes you a coward that posts imaginary debates with imaginary people ; )
If vindictive and insulting behavior are a measure of debating prowess, once again, you win the grand prize. Your comments in my threads have been short on substance and long on insults...which is the usual refuge of those who have nothing substantive to offer.
I think your strategy is to try to lure me into responding in kind, but I won't give you that satisfaction. I would prefer to let others judge you.
The whole freakin' article is "vindictive and insulting behaviour", you numb-skull. You don't hear it I guess, cause you've dehumanized the people you're mocking and accusing. It's just those people you're portraying as stupid, illogical and mean, not anybody that really counts, right?
Bigots don't think of themselves as bigots, of course. They see themselves as realists, naturally ; )
Okay, John, here it is. Listen up. I am tired of your crap. You come in here and disrupt civil discussions, draggin them down into barrages of personal insults and diatribe. I am tired of it. You are, probably deliberately, interfering with civil interchanges in my threads. I have tolerated you for too long. Others have told me to get rid of you. Quite a few others. I am reluctant to ban you from my threads, but if you do not "clean up" your posts, stick to the issues and stop the gratitutious personal insults...you are gone. Got that?
Sorry so late to the party, folks. Thanks, Bert.
The State AG for Louisiana is JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
I believe Caldwell is Keith Bardwell's boss (Bardwell is the asshole JP)
Below is the contact info for the LA AG division of "Justice of the Peace and Constable"
MAIL: P.O. Box 44365
Capitol Station
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4365
PHONE: 225-326-6048
FAX: 225-326-6793
EMAIL: JPC@ag.state.la.us
Sadly THIS idiocy happened in the town I grew up in. Had I still been there, I'm pretty sure I would have made the evening news, in cuffs.
Mens culusque is est quisque. (The man's mind is all the man): Marcus Tullius Cicero
Possunt Quia Posse Videntur (they are able to because they believe they are able to) Apocryphal
Well said.
But we have digressed from Bert's topic: Creationist Debating Tricks.
I would just like all to know that I give Evolution two opposible thumbs-up.
Haha! Well said, Anita. It's okay that the subject has strayed. As I have said before, I am not a "Topic Nazi." The JP in Louisiana needs to be exposed.
Peter Facione describes a limitation that occurs with all types of thinking: A person can be good at critical thinking, meaning that the person can have the appropriate dispositions and be adept at the cognitive processes, while still not being a good (in the moral sense) critical thinker. For example, a person can be adept at developing arguments and then, unethically, use this skill to mislead and exploit a gullible person, perpetrate a fraud, or deliberately confuse and confound, and frustrate a project.
There is no moral sense to critical thinking. If a person uses his skills of critical thinking to mislead and exploit a gullible person, the guilt lies with the person ...not the skill (of critical thinking).
The Facione quote that you have posted is followed by these words...
" The experts were faced with an interesting problem. Some, a minority, would prefer to think that critical thinking, by its very nature, is inconsistent with the kinds of unethical and deliberately counterproductive examples given. They find it hard to imagine a person who was good at critical thinking not also being good in the broader personal and social sense. In other words, if a person were "really" a "good critical thinker" in the procedural sense and if the person had all the appropriate dispositions, then the person simply would not do those kinds of exploitive and aggravating things.
The large majority, however, hold the opposite judgment. They are firm in the view that good critical thinking has nothing to do with... any given set of ethical values or social mores. The majority of experts maintain that critical thinking conceived of as we have described it above, is, regrettably, not inconsistent with its unethical use. A tool, an approach to situations, these can go either way, ethically speaking, depending on the character, integrity, and principles of the persons who possess them. So, in the final analysis the majority of experts maintained that "it is an inappropriate use of the term to deny that someone is engaged in critical thinking on the grounds that one disapproves ethically of what the person is doing. What critical thinking means, why it is of value, and the ethics of its use are best regarded as three distinct concerns." </</strong>em> { from Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts }
Bert - watch for lectures at Fullerton. I used to really enjoy going to the UC-Irvine lectures that both the Brain Imaging Center (BIC) and Biology Departments presented for free to the public.
Now I go to Harvestt Festivals and the like. Saw my first Rodeo two years ago.
I would like to go to one of Michael Shermer's lectures sometime. If I recall correctly he is at Cal Poly. I enjoy his eSkeptic Newsletter.
I never noticed the structure you are describing in Lake Forest...could it be Rick Warren's church...the evangelical megachurch preacher that Obama picked to give a prayer at his inauguration? His church is down there somewhere.
We have gone to to lectures and concerts at CSUF, but more often at Chapman University, a small liberal arts college here in the center of Orange.
They have very fine music programs, and are gaining recognition in other fields, particularly economics. You may have read recently about them hiring John Yoo for their law school. He's one of the guys who found some farfetched legal reasons why Bush could torture detainees. There was a big stink about it. Some of the other faculty protested, but the Dean stuck to his guns, and I guess they did indeed hire the....
I have Emailed with Shermer a few times, commenting on stuff in his books. I have read several. He's very nice, answers every one, and is very polite, almost folksy. Seems like a nice guy, along with being very intelligent.
THis is on the west side of the 405. Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) , which is the world's largest religious television channel. TBN programming is televised by over 5,000 television stations, 33 satellites, the Internet and thousands of cable systems around the world. TBN was founded by Paul and Jan Crouch for Christian programming in 1973. TBN headquarters are currently located on Bear Street in Costa Mesa, California.
"If there really is a God who created the entire universe with all of its glories, and He decides to deliver a message to humanity, He will not use, as His messenger, a person on cable TV with bad hair." ~Dave Barry
confabulation