Dismal replies to Grayling
Aug. 23rd, 2008 04:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sawylThe letters column of today's Guardian contains a bumper crop of muddle-headed objections to AC Grayling's recent piece in praise of David Miliband's atheism. While a couple of the letters are reasonable, most of them are so incoherent that they're a positive embarrassment.
One writer, a soi-disant atheist, claims that Messrs Bush and Blair cannot have been been encouraged to invade Iraq because the Pope, also presumed to be in contact with the divine, disagreed with them. Another writer contributes the incoherent assertion that, by insisting on the primacy of reason, Grayling himself is being unreasonable.
A third corespondent provides a particular fine example of cheap rhetoric. After asking a legitimate question about the justificatory facts underpinning Grayling's secular society, they respond with a series of laughable responses by citing Darwinism, of a distinctly Spencerian bent, and Niezschean supermen. Had the writer even the slightest desire to be charitable, I'm sure they'd have been able to answer their own question: Grayling's facts would presumable be the common semi-Kantian ideals that underpin most modern theories of liberal politics.
I don't object to these arguments purely because I disagree with them — although I do! — but rather because they cheapen the debate. If you disagree with someone's arguments, fine. But if you want to persuade others, you have to come up with rational reasons for your position. You cannot put forward apparent objections which actually agree with and strengthen the original argument. You cannot assert that reason is useless and then try to employ it on your own terms — remember, if you employ a universal acid, it is just as likely to burn holes in you as it is your opponent. You cannot simply set up straw men or answer your own questions in your own way, without regard to your opponent's likely responses, for doing so does not advance the argument in any useful way.
One writer, a soi-disant atheist, claims that Messrs Bush and Blair cannot have been been encouraged to invade Iraq because the Pope, also presumed to be in contact with the divine, disagreed with them. Another writer contributes the incoherent assertion that, by insisting on the primacy of reason, Grayling himself is being unreasonable.
A third corespondent provides a particular fine example of cheap rhetoric. After asking a legitimate question about the justificatory facts underpinning Grayling's secular society, they respond with a series of laughable responses by citing Darwinism, of a distinctly Spencerian bent, and Niezschean supermen. Had the writer even the slightest desire to be charitable, I'm sure they'd have been able to answer their own question: Grayling's facts would presumable be the common semi-Kantian ideals that underpin most modern theories of liberal politics.
I don't object to these arguments purely because I disagree with them — although I do! — but rather because they cheapen the debate. If you disagree with someone's arguments, fine. But if you want to persuade others, you have to come up with rational reasons for your position. You cannot put forward apparent objections which actually agree with and strengthen the original argument. You cannot assert that reason is useless and then try to employ it on your own terms — remember, if you employ a universal acid, it is just as likely to burn holes in you as it is your opponent. You cannot simply set up straw men or answer your own questions in your own way, without regard to your opponent's likely responses, for doing so does not advance the argument in any useful way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-24 10:03 am (UTC)His arguments are confused and unclear.
He ( voluntarily ) confuses secularism and atheism, which are two different
concepts.
Would an heideggerian mystic be necessary a better leader than a liberal unitarian ?
no subject
Date: 2008-08-24 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-24 08:44 pm (UTC)Unrelated, but did you comment on OS/Mandate?
Date: 2008-08-24 12:08 pm (UTC)Icerocket thinks you did: http://www.icerocket.com/search?tab=blog&fr=h&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Ftechnology%2F2008%2Faug%2F21%2Fpoliticsandtechnology&x=30&y=16
but it's not here.
charles.arthur@gmail.com
Re: Unrelated, but did you comment on OS/Mandate?
Date: 2008-08-24 01:36 pm (UTC)I've now fixed things and the original now be available from http://sawyl.livejournal.com/401847.html
Re: Unrelated, but did you comment on OS/Mandate?
Date: 2008-08-24 02:42 pm (UTC)Re: Unrelated, but did you comment on OS/Mandate?
Date: 2008-08-24 08:44 pm (UTC)