Introduction
Note: Some edits have been made to clarify a few things. Edits will be noted.
Before I begin my actual argument, I will fill in some background detail about what brought this article about. As well as this site and our podcast, we also run both a Facebook page and a Facebook group. Not too long ago the YouTuber Kristopher Mann appeared in the Facebook group, and began a discussion. This discussion was part of a larger ongoing discussion between himself and Davidian, another author here at Answers in Reason. The discussion was about a debate between Steve McRae and The Duke, which took place on Modern Day Debates last year, as well as a response video that Kristopher Mann made. However, when Kristopher Mann joined the Answers in Reason group, and made his post, he expanded the invitation to all the contributors of the AiR podcast and site to respond to him, his video, his arguments, as well as some of the points discussed in the original debate between Steve McRae and The Duke.
So, I accepted this invitation, and began a discussion with him. His request was to discuss the video he made, as well as the debate between Steve McRae and The Duke. However, I began by discussing a different topic, but focusing on arguments used in the debate by both Kristopher Mann and The Duke in his response video but reframing them from a different perspective and based on a different topic. This discussion allowed me to gauge various arguments from various angles, and to see how Kristopher Mann would argue the same points but on topics he was not quite as heavily invested in. As well as understand various other elements too of course. So, having had that discussion, and found what I needed to know, we then turned our focus onto his video, as well as The Duke’s discussion with Steve McRae, and the arguments that both of them made.
We have not actually got to that discussion properly yet, though it has begun. However, I felt I would make an argument here, because there is an argument that I have which would be better put in this format. It is related to points that Kristopher Mann wants to argue, and it is a counter argument to him and The Duke, as both are making related arguments. It is not a teardown of his video. Just the shared arguments from both him and The Duke. I will include references where I can, as Kristopher Mann was kind enough to let me have his script for his video, for which I am very grateful as it saved me a lot of note taking! So, thank you again, Kristopher. This sums up the background to this enough to understand why it is being made, and why I am responding to Kristopher Mann’s argument here, as well as why I am responding to the argument. So, let us move on to the argument itself.
The Duke’s Argument
Their argument will be approached in a slightly wider way, where the overall conclusions and implications being made, as well as specific points, will be addressed. It is first important to understand the argument that both The Duke and Kristopher Mann are making of course. So, we will begin with the main points of their argument, which can be found below:
- Steve McRae and The Duke had been arguing on Twitter previous to the debate over Steve McRae’s philosophical use of terms like agnostic and atheist, with Steve McRae arguing that he is not an atheist according to the philosophical usage [1] [2]. With The Duke arguing that Steve McRae was an atheist according to a popular definition, and that Steve McRae should accept that and Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definitions [3].
- During the discussion between The Duke and Steve McRae on Modern Day Debates, The Duke opened still arguing that Steve McRae should accept being called atheists by people that use the word as The Duke does, and Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definitions and arguing against people calling Steve McRae an atheist.
- The Duke also argued that ‘academic philosophy’ should update their definition because it is incorrect, not useful or valid, and out of date [4].
- Part of the defence for The Duke’s argument, as put forward by Kristopher Mann, is that ‘words get their definition from usage’ and ‘nobody gets to tell another person how they define their words or express their views’.
- Part of the defence for The Duke’s argument is also that the definition used in philosophy is just that, part of philosophy. It is not the colloquial definition, and should be updated to the colloquial definition, and that Steve McRae should be using the colloquial definition when speaking to people outside of Philosophy [5].
Breaking down The Duke’s argument
So, the first part of The Duke’s argument can be summed us so:
P1) The Duke uses a popular colloquial definition of the term ‘atheist’ to describe himself and Steve McRae
P2) Steve McRae understands this popular colloquial definition and has qualities that match this definition
C1) Therefore Steve McRae should accept that he is an atheist according to the definition that The Duke uses
Edit: Added some clarification to the above, showing The Duke arguing that Steve McRae ought to accept being called an atheist because he fits one of the definitions.
However, when the same argument is framed in this way, both The Duke and Kristopher Mann reject the argument:
P1) Steve McRae uses a philosophical definition of atheism and does not describe himself by this definition
P2) The Duke understands this philosophical definition
C1) Therefore The Duke should accept that Steve McRae is not an atheist according to the definition that Steve McRae uses
This form of the same argument is also rejected by both The Duke and Kristopher Mann:
P1) Steve McRae uses a philosophical definition of the term agnostic to define himself
P2) The Duke understands this definition and has qualities that match this definition
C1) Therefore The Duke should accept that The Duke is an agnostic, and not an atheist, according to the definition that Steve McRae uses
EDIT: Added some slight clarification to the above argument, as the Duke said he is happy to be called agnostic, but only if it includes the term atheist. He did not understand the above philosophical definition inferred that he would just be agnostic, and not atheist. So, have clarified that he would not be defined as atheist under Steve McRae’s terminology. Have also added a shot of a Tweet showing The Duke admitting he would not accept being defined only as an Agnostic in the way Steve McRae uses the word. The Duke will only accept being called an ‘agnostic atheist’, The Duke says he is an atheist and should always be referred to as such.
Hang on a minute
So, what we see here as an asymmetrical argument. One where The Duke argues Steve McRae should change his behaviour, in the case of both using the philosophical definitions of atheism and agnostic, as well as arguing against people calling him an atheist because he matches the colloquial term. In other words, there are atheists telling Steve McRae how he should be using definitions, and that Steve McRae should be accepting the definition put forward by atheists like The Duke and Kristopher Mann who use the popular colloquial definition. However, in the opposite direction, Steve McRae is not telling atheists like The Duke and Kristopher Mann that they should use the philosophical definitions of atheist and agnosticism to define themselves, only that Steve McRae defines himself by the philosophical terms and would prefer it if atheists like The Duke and Kristopher Mann defined Steve McRae using his preferred terms also. Steve McRae argues that there is more than one way to define what an atheist is, and that others that claim that only a singular definition exists make false claims.
Do as I say…
Yet, people like The Duke and Kristopher Mann still argue that Steve McRae is an atheist, and should simply accept that he is an atheist, because a portion of atheists use a particular popular and modern definition, with an almost pod-people like sense of assimilation. However, people like The Duke and Kristopher Mann argue that philosophy, and by extension academic philosophy, ought to change their definition. Their argument is that it is incorrect, not useful, and out of date, as it does not match the definition that a particular portion of atheists use, we can see this in point 3 above. So, their argument is something along the lines of this:
P1) A portion of atheists now define atheism as ‘a person that does not believe in God or Gods’
P2) The philosophical definition of atheism does not match this definition
C1) Therefore this means that the philosophical definition is out of date
P3) The philosophical definition is not only out of date, it is not valid and it is not useful
C2) Therefore the philosophical definition of atheism should be changed to the one that the portion of atheists from P1) uses.
… not as I do
So, once again we see The Duke, as well as Kristopher Mann through his support of The Duke’s argument, arguing that others should be adopting their terminology. Arguing that other’s use of the term should match theirs, because not matching theirs makes it out of date, not valid, and not useful. Their standard for the definition’s validity is whether or not it matches their definition, and usefulness is determined by whether or not it matches their definition. You see, when another says ‘I use the definition a person that believes there is no God’, they understand that definition, they simply argue that it is not what an atheist is, their definition is what an atheist is; and the other person does not get to tell them what an atheist is, atheists like The Duke and Kristopher Mann get to tell others what an atheist is.
Steve McRae’s definitions are not useful
This means that it cannot be that the word atheist defined as ‘a person that believes there is no God’ is not useful because it cannot be understood. Interlocutors like The Duke and Kristopher Mann obviously understand the definition, what the definition means, what the definition implies, and the type of belief that it categorises. If they understand all of these things from the definition, then it is a useful word. It communicates an idea, and a very specific idea. It also cannot be that the word only exists in philosophy, as a philosophical definition, because most theists define the word this way too; and the word was commonly defined this way by most people up until at the least the new millennium (2000). The word slowly changed as ‘New Atheism’ took off, and more and more arguments were made on Facebook, Twitter, and on shows like The Atheist Experience. It became a popular definition amongst that portion of atheists, who then preceded to declare it the only acceptable definition. Claiming all others must accept this new definition, because they were now the gatekeepers of atheism, and what defines atheism.
Atheism has always been…
Others were not allowed to tell them how to use the word, others were not allowed to disagree with their definition, others were not allowed to use a different definition without incurring the wrath of the gatekeepers. Others were not allowed to tell them how the word could be used, should be used, or even how some atheists used the word. Atheists like myself for example, that define the word as ‘belief there is no God’ and have defined it that way since they were growing up. Who while growing up used that word with other people, just regular non-philosophical people, and they knew immediately that I believed there was no God. Instead, I was told that I was using the word incorrectly, and that it is not how atheism or atheist was defined, nor was it ever defined that way. It is, and always was, ‘a lack of belief in god’, or is it ‘someone that does not believe in a god’. It was and always that definition, at least depending on who you were speaking to. We are and always have been at war with Eastasia, so to speak.
One of the arguments that many of those atheists like The Duke and Kristopher Mann use is that atheists get to define how the word is used, nobody else. Yet when other atheists use the definition ‘belief there is no God’, we are immediately told that the definition is incorrect, and we should be defining it as ‘not believing in a god’. We should be using terms like ‘agnostic atheist’ and ‘gnostic atheist’. So, it is not the case that they are arguing that atheists get to define the word atheist, it is the case that they are arguing that they get to define the word atheist. Other atheists should be adopting their definition, their terminology. Philosophy, personal choice, and previous definitions be damned, the ‘New Atheists’ are here, and they are to be obeyed. You do not tell them how to use words, you do not tell them how you define yourself, you do not get to tell them how you define atheism. They are the ones that get to tell you how to use words, and how to define yourself, and how you define atheism. To define yourself otherwise is ungood.
Philosophy and Atheism and Agnosticism
Now, there are several ways that we could go here. We could argue the validity of the usage of the term atheist by philosophy, whether it is logically valid, or linguistically valid. However, we will not take that route. Let us assume for the sake of argument that The Duke is correct, and that the terminology used in philosophy is incorrect, not useful, and out of date. We could also argue things like descriptivism and prescriptivism when it comes to word usage. However, we will not go down that route either. Let us for the sake of argument accept that their arguments about words getting their definition from usage, that people are free to use words how they like, that agents do not get to tell other agents how to use words, and that atheists get to define how they use the terms atheist and atheism. Let us even accept The Duke’s argument that Steve McRae is wrong for arguing the philosophical definitions, and that Steve McRae should just accept that Steve McRae is an atheist every time The Duke, or someone else calls him that, because that is how those people are using that word. I do not believe this, of course, but for the sake of argument let us accept it. Let us accept all of this as true and move on, let us give them all of these arguments. There is still a fundamental flaw with their argument, even if we grant everything they say, and the arguments they use to defend that position. What is that flaw?
We reveal today’s fallacy
That flaw is that they all commit the fallacy of special pleading. The special pleading fallacy is when we argue for a certain position, using certain arguments, but exempt ourselves from that same position and those same arguments. Which, as can be seen throughout this whole argument, is what people like The Duke and Kristopher Mann have been doing. They are continuously holding others to standards and arguments that they exempt themselves from. How so?
Steve McRae should just accept he is an atheist
Consider The Duke’s argument that Steve McRae should just accept that he is an atheist when he is called that by people like The Duke, Kristopher Mann, and other agents that use the term to mean ‘a person that does not believe in a god’. When this argument is turned back around on The Duke, The Duke does not accept the conclusion. He exempts himself from this argument. If Steve McRae’s usage of the term agnostic matches the qualities of belief that The Duke holds, then, according to The Duke’s argument, The Duke simply needs to accept that he is an agnostic according to the terms that Steve McRae uses. The Duke understands what Steve McRae means when he calls him an agnostic, it is just that The Duke refuses to accept this label because The Duke defines himself as atheist according to the definition of atheist that The Duke uses. One rule for Steve McRae, no rule for The Duke. That is special pleading.
And philosophy needs to be updated
Consider now The Duke’s argument that philosophy, and by extension ‘academic philosophy’, needs to update the definition. The Duke argues that it is not useful, and not valid, and outdated. Well, philosophically speaking, the definition that The Duke argues is not useful, and not valid. The philosphical definition of atheism is also not outdated. The definition of atheist as ‘someone who believes there is no God’ is still common, and ongoing, and the term is also used that way by many theists and many other non-theists. What too if a newer definition comes out that defines an atheist as ‘an irrational agent that believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden’, and billions of theists start using this definition, or philosophy begins using this as a common definition. Will this ‘outdated’ argument apply to The Duke also? No, of course it will not, The Duke will argue that an atheist is ‘a person that does not believe in a god’, and theists, or philosophers, do not get to define the word atheist for him. He is, once again, committing special pleading.
The same could be said of The Duke’s argument that philosophy should update its definition because it is not useful or valid. What if philosophers do not find The Duke’s usage to be useful or valid? What if Steve McRae does not find The Duke’s usage to be useful or valid? Do philosophers or Steve McRae then get to tell The Duke that he must update his definition to the one used by philosophers? Of course not, because the argument that The Duke is making is that Steve McRae must start accepting that Steve McRae is an atheist according to the definition The Duke uses, and The Duke is arguing philosophy must also. The Duke is not saying ‘well, I’ll accept that I am agnostic under your definition Steve, and you can call me agnostic when you speak to me’. The Duke is using his argument to say that Steve McRae must accept being called atheist, but the same argument does not apply to The Duke if Steve McRae wants to define The Duke as an agnostic. Once again, we see The Duke committing special pleading.
So, um, yeah…
As we can see, The Duke’s entire argument is based around the special pleading fallacy, as are those that argue things like ‘words get their definitions from usage’ and ‘nobody gets to tell me how to define words’ but then go on to tell people like Steve McRae, myself, philosophers, theists, and others, that ‘atheism just means X’ or ‘atheism just means Y’ and that others do not get to define atheism as they wish. All of these kinds of arguments, when the atheist applies it to others but exempts themselves from those same arguments and conclusions, commit the special pleading fallacy. We often see many contemporary atheists argue how rational they are, how logical they are, how well they know fallacies, and how fallacious arguments are bad. Some even going so far as to use them to be dismissive, simply saying ‘you have committed fallacy X, your argument is dismissed’. Well, you have committed the special pleading fallacy, your argument is dismissed.
I think you make a good point Dave, and one that I completely missed. I’ve been hyper focused around individual points of the argument (be they in the video, or on social media) and missed the special pleading.
I will explain some of this below for the benefit of our readers.
I’ve been far too busy trying to argue against the prescriptivism of the new atheist conflation of all non-theist to atheist, trying to explain how propositional logic works, and even trying comparative arguments which show the issue with grouping too many things together.
I also tried to explain how there are normative definitions, that certain things are right for the context. E.G. The use of theory in science is not the same as the colloquial definition. And evolution is not just a “change in kind” as many creationists like to say. There are normative definitions used in the field of science that we don’t get to change simply because that’s what a lot of people define them colloquially.
When discussing beliefs, knowledge, morality and all sorts – we are doing philosophy regardless of if we know are or not. So, I find it strange that we reject colloquial definitions of science but accept colloquial definitions of philosophy.
I also provided a comparative argument to show one of the issues with defining all forms of non-theist as atheist and said all Brits and all Americans are human, but not all non-Americans are Brits. Consider there are a tonne more countries in the world. The same can be said for non-theists. There are many different answers and beliefs regarding the proposition and bundling them all under atheist instead of different types of non-theist makes a category error.
Rather than addressing this it was called out as a “strawman” – which it was not. A strawman argument, in short, is arguing against something they haven’t said but saying they did because it is easier to defeat than the actual argument. What I did was draw a comparison to show the issues with widening a category.
Further to that, saying that the philosophical use is incorrect, and should be updated to the colloquial use that is less precise, harder to make inferences from, and doesn’t follow the rules of logic because one or many of: ‘I don’t regard “academic philosophy” as useful’, ‘people don’t understand the philosophical definitions’, ‘The philosophical definition is not modern enough’, ‘most of my fellow atheists don’t use the philosophical definitions’ – all of which are not rational arguments for the case. These arguments may not all be Kris’s or Duke’s, but they have made some of them, and I have heard others from other atheists.
When explaining things like rationality to Kris Mann, extensively, as well as providing a dictionary definition and our podcast on rationality, I was told that that was “my definition” – so again we have an issue with someone defining something as something else (which I am still awaiting for a definition from him on) and then saying they fit those parameters. Again, we have issues with someone not sticking to a normative definition, or even the definition in dictionaries (and we all know dictionaries provide descriptive definitions rather than normative but the dictionary definition is a short version of the normative one), for favour of their definition.
Well I regard anyone with two arms to be felines. That’s my definition, anything with two arms are felines. You’re a feline. I’m a feline. – whilst this is absurd, it gets to the point of why we do have normative definitions of things, does it not?
What is interesting is since your article went live, we had a response form Duke on twitter.
Start of the thread: https://twitter.com/answersinreason/status/1254463886318866433
Although the standard annoying twitter thing has happened where it breaks off into many threads that are hard to follow so I will try an address a few points here.
What’s interesting is he states he has never said Steve is not an agnostic: https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1254540659765047296
Yet at 17 mins in on the original video he does that by saying Steve is an atheist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBMlktCfdAI
If someone is a Theist, they are not an agnostic or an atheist, if someone is an atheist, they are not an agnostic or a theist. Even if you qualify that with “What I mean is he is an agnostic atheist” that is still not the same as allowing him his title of “Agnostic” especially when you are saying that it is an incorrect use.
I also sounded like a bit of a contrary belief position… He stated the term was being used incorrectly, if that is the case then that would be saying that Steve is not an agnostic because that term is being used incorrectly. He doesn’t explicitly say he is not an agnostic; he says Steve is an atheist and is wrong to correct people when they call him an atheist. This is implicit that he believes Steve should not describe himself as an Agnostic, and should at the very least describe himself by his definition of “agnostic atheist”
I did then provide an example of someone defining something incorrectly (describing a potato and calling it a cat) and someone saying their definition was incorrect… therefore, implicitly stating that it was not a cat and was in fact a potato.
https://twitter.com/answersinreason/status/1254780090468069389
Although he got lost in that example so, perhaps, I should have kept it simpler…
Duke mentions he thinks Dave is saying he [Duke] is making an ad populum fallacy here: https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1254555395504222208
At the beginning of the message Dave does indeed say that Duke and Kris feel Steve should simply accept the definition as that is what a portion of atheists use the popular and modern definitions. Duke also said this in the original video around the 25mins mark.
The rest of the point was ignored. What Dave actually says is that Duke finds the philosophical Definition not modern and not useful, and the way it is defined is incorrect.
Although he does admit that using the philosophical definitions he would be an Agnostic: https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1254687847392481283
I have since asked if he is ok with us referring to him as an agnostic rather than an atheist and am awaiting a response. In fact, I asked a number of times, and Dave did once – each time ignoring the statement and focusing on something else. Eventually he was discussing the philosophical definitions he did then say that he doesn’t mind being referred to as an agnostic, as long as it is not instead of atheist as he is an atheist. https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1254788434276651009
This goes back to the special pleading. Steve should accept being called an agnostic atheist and not correct people saying he is not an atheist, but Duke doesn’t have to accept that he is an agnostic.
I later confirm this with him again, and instead of taking on board that him saying Steve should accept being called an atheist and is wrong to correct people, but he doesn’t have to accept being called an Agnostic is special pleading he in a very childlike manner says “If I am special pleading, you are two”: https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1255067021080817665
No, I am not saying you have to use my definition, I am saying I will use the epistemological definitions and you can use the colloquial ones if you like. You are being prescriptive with your definition and saying it is wrong to correct people, yet will correct people if someone uses a different descriptor for you.
It is an interesting side note that many who define themselves as “Agnostic Atheist” do in fact fit the philosophical definition of “Agnostic” – and in the same breath they will say there is “no middle position, because you either believe or you don’t” and then go on to describe their position to be that middle ground.
A really short version of the philosophical definitions of theist, atheist and agnostic are:
Theist: Believes God Exists, Lacks Belief in God not existing (BP ^ ¬B¬P)
Atheist: Believes God Does not exist, Lacks Belief in God Existing (B¬P ^ ¬BP)
Agnostic: Lacks belief in God Existing, Lacks Belief in God not Existing (¬BP ^ ¬B¬P)
The agnostic lacks belief both ways whereas the atheist lacks belief in god existing and holds a belief that gods do not exist. Saying atheism is simply a “lack of belief in god existing” is unclear and says nothing for what you DO believe. – so, whilst I accept many use atheism that way, I often take the time to explain how atheism and agnosticism are more logically defined, and how agnosticism was originally coined… it is not simply just about knowledge.
SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Agnosticism: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/agnosticism/what-is-agnosticism-how-does-it-relate-to-knowledge-and-beliefs/
Rules of Logic: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/philosophy/logic/why-should-we-use-the-rules-of-logic/
At the end of the argument, there were a few questions avoided repeatedly, an expectation of prescriptivism for the colloquial definition, a lack of understanding around basic logic and all in all it was mostly fruitless.
I felt Duke was largely not trying to understand the arguments, but looking to win them. He would often say I was wrong in what I was saying but not expand on why.
He spent most of the time straw manning my statements, I would say one thing and he would take it to mean something else, when I said I didn’t say x, I said y, he would continue with x. He eventually took the whole conversation down so many different paths that we got on to statements where he was contradicting himself tweet to tweet, and even with screen shots and explanations he refused to understand things like if he said someone “knows” something that is the same as they have knowledge.
He spent so much time projecting and fighting he still hasn’t taken the time to understand what was being said – he did that with elements in your article too Dave where you basically said if Steve should accept Duke telling him he is an atheist (or even agnostic atheist) under Dukes definition then Duke should accept someone like Steve, or even us, referring to Duke as an Agnostic, but he said he has every right to disagree with that because he is an atheist as well as not instead of an agnostic.
This is indeed the special pleading, but instead he decides to focus on “I never said that” instead of you showing a mirrored argument that he rejects.
He holds the same logical position as an agnostic but defines atheism purely through the ¬BP portion rather than the whole.
I accept many folks define atheism in different ways. If he wants to be called an agnostic atheist, that’s great, I really do not care. I feel the terminology is less logical than the way it works with propositional logic, and I will use my definitions for me, but if he would prefer “agnostic atheist” over “agnostic” it is not skin off my nose. I am happy to discuss the logic and how it works, and give reasons for why I use my definitions any time.
However him, or anyone, being prescriptive over their definition of atheism to anyone else is ridiculous, and I will argue the point about the more logical definitions and how if they are making statements about how they can use the language they want, then they are indeed using special pleading, like Dave says, if they say others should change their definitions to match theirs.
I often say that the colloquial use is less logical than the philosophical use of these terms. This is often taken as me saying these colloquial terms are illogical and using them is illogical.
Language is in part defined through common use and even though there might be normative definitions, it does change and evolve, sometimes terms become polysemous and have multiple definitions ascribed to them. It would be totally illogical to outright reject the way someone is using a term, that’s just silly. However, if there are two definitions, one follows the rules of logic to answer a proposition and the other widens a category to one filled with a number of different answers to the proposition… then it is clear that one is less logical than the other.
The ‘New Atheist’ is often prescriptive with their definition, sometimes claiming it has “always been a lack belief” even in the face of the evidence of the different usages over the years, and more often than not will claim that the philosophical definition is “wrong” or “needs to be updated”.
I think you can be prescriptive with your own definition, as in if Duke wants to be called an Agnostic Atheist instead of an Agnostic, that’s fine. If Steve wants to be called an Agnostic, and not an atheist or an agnostic atheist, that is also fine.
What one should not be doing is being prescriptive to others and outright telling them to change what they are, and that they can’t tell people they are not an atheist when they are. Especially when one is using a colloquial definition instead of a normative one.
A discussion on why you use a particular definition, and how one is more logical than another is fine.. just don’t be a dick about it.
“I’ve been hyper focused around individual points of the argument (be they in the video, or on social media) and missed the special pleading.”
It’s not that you missed the special pleading. It wasn’t there in the first place, as I explained in my response to Rowlands.
“There are normative definitions used in the field of science that we don’t get to change simply because that’s what a lot of people define them colloquially.”
That’s completely besides the point. If I have word preferences that differ from those used by the majority of professional scientists, I’m allowed to argue in favor of my usage and they are allowed to ignore me.
“When discussing beliefs, knowledge, morality and all sorts – we are doing philosophy regardless of if we know are or not.”
I get that this is your position (and McRae’s), but this is not Rowlands’ position. This is what he said on Facebook while quoting me: “Philosophy is not just ‘the ordinary thought processes that ordinary people use everyday’. It needs to be studied because it has a long history […]. It is done in certain ways, and with much more rigor than most people think. It is not simply ‘thinking about everyday things by everyday people in everyday ways’.” If you are going to piggyback on his arguments, why don’t you adopt all his word definitions?
“So, I find it strange that we reject colloquial definitions of science but accept colloquial definitions of philosophy.”
Define “we.” Maybe you have someone else in mind besides The Duke and me because, as far as I know, he and I are not contradicting ourselves. Even if there were a person who rejects some colloquial definitions of science and accepts some colloquial definitions of philosophy, that wouldn’t mean they are contradicting themselves.
“There are many different answers and beliefs regarding the proposition and bundling them all under atheist instead of different types of non-theist makes a category error.”
It’s not a category error if you allow for different types of subcategories within “atheism.” This was my argument all along. The analogy you made with British people and Americans is a bad one exactly because it doesn’t capture the argument of the other side. Nowhere did you allow for nonstandard definitions of Americans or Brits. You just say “but not all non-Americans are Brits”as if that’s all you need to do to prove your point. Can you now see why someone might claim that’s a strawhuman? But for the record, I never said that about your claim because I don’t need to.
“When explaining things like rationality to Kris Mann, extensively,…”
Absurd. While you may have tried in your own way to extensively explain things to me, you seemed to have failed because of the many problems I found in what you wrote. For example, you wrote things in quotes and argued against those positions as if you had quoted them from my video. You implied I used an argument from authority simply because my video includes a clip of another guy’s show where he expresses a view similar to mine, and then you admitted “it did seem like an argument from authority.” I responded to all your major points, but you have ignored direct questions of mine. I’m surprised you would want to bring up our past interactions because I thought the details of them would be embarrassing for you.
“…as well as providing a dictionary definition and our podcast on rationality, I was told that that was “my definition”…”
I’ve explained this definition stuff to you before, but you didn’t respond. I’ll copy and paste what I wrote to you on Facebook:
[//…”my definition” both matched the dictionary definition you could have googled, and…//
Why am I still sensing hostility from you on this point? Once I clarified what I meant by “own”, it should have been clear this isn’t a point of contention between us.
// Right, so you reject my definition that rationality is…// // yet you reject how propositional logic works…// // So you reject formal logic…//
Earlier you said, “Yet you question my definitions of it.. hmmm” and I asked you “What do you mean by “question”?” You ignored my question and now you claim I “reject” your definitions. So, let me repeat my question. What do you mean by “question/reject”? I have preferences that differ from yours and my videos are full of me using my preferred words instead of yours. Does that mean I question/reject your definitions, or just that I prefer mine?
When I said I use logical and rational interchangeably, you somehow took that to mean I use logic and rationality interchangeably. Do you even recognize the mistake here? (Hint: Why didn’t you accuse me of using logic and ration interchangeably?)]
[//I mean you statement above […] logical = rational does not actually give a definition of what those words mean, it shows no real understanding of what it means to be logical or rational.//
I’ve given you plenty of examples of how I would use logical. If you want intensions, consult your favorite dictionary (and this time don’t ignore the other listed meanings). In my interactions with you so far, there have been many times where I picked at the holes in your arguments and you conceded or changed arguments. This should be enough to convince you that underlying my words is a careful, step-by-step, “formally logical” process. Do you really require that I now go back through them and turn all my statements and arguments into premises and syllogisms before you believe it?]
That concludes my quote of myself. Consider each of those questions as questions I still actually want you to answer. They are not rhetorical questions.
“Well I regard anyone with two arms to be felines. That’s my definition, anything with two arms are felines. You’re a feline. I’m a feline. – whilst this is absurd,…”
It’s not automatically absurd just because it’s a nonstandard definition. If you were to consistently use feline that way, people wouldn’t be able to easily accuse you of contradicting yourself.
“If someone is a Theist, they are not an agnostic or an atheist, if someone is an atheist, they are not an agnostic or a theist.”
That’s all according to your preferred definitions. This whole disagreement is about the different definitions that different people prefer. It goes without saying that it’s important to keep straight whose definitions you are talking about at any particular moment. When people speak off the cuff about their positions, they tend to use the definitions they prefer. If you keep this in mind, you’ll better understand what people are trying to communicate. When The Duke says, “What I mean is he is an agnostic atheist,” imagine that he ended it with, “according to my preferred definitions.” When McRae says, “I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic,” imagine that he ended it with, “according to my preferred definitions.”
“He stated the term was being used incorrectly,…”
All The Duke means by incorrect is that it doesn’t match his preferred definition. This was basically explained in my video as TD11. I even explained how this led McRae to misunderstand him. The Duke said it himself: “if I think a word should be used a certain way, that wouldn’t mean people who use it differently would be incorrect [according to my preferred definitions].”
“…he in a very childlike manner says “If I am special pleading, you are two””
I addressed these kinds of special pleading accusations in my response to Rowlands on this page. The situation is symmetrical because each side prefers different definitions. By the way, this is an example of you using quotation marks carelessly. He may have said something like that, but you can’t say he said that without inviting pushback. And stop rewording our positions in terms of “should accept.”
“It is an interesting side note that many who define themselves as “Agnostic Atheist” do in fact fit the philosophical definition of “Agnostic”…”
Yes, of course that’s true. That was never the point of contention. That’s why The Duke readily agrees that he fits the philosophical definition of an agnostic. It’s such an obvious point, The Duke and McRae didn’t bring it up in their debate. The disagreement is about which definitions are better.
“However him, or anyone, being prescriptive over their definition of atheism to anyone else is ridiculous, and I will argue the point about the more logical definitions…”
How can you claim the philosophical definitions are “more logical” than the new atheist ones without implying that new atheists should use the philosophical definitions (I.e. prescriptivism)? Remember: new atheists claim their definitions are “more logical” than the philosophical ones. I brought this up with you before when I quoted back to you your definition of normative. Hopefully you’ll respond this time. With that, I think I’ve once again responded to all your major points.
You explaining it isn’t there, doesn’t mean it is not. If you do not hold atheists and theists to the same standards then you are guilty of special pleading.
It is one of many issues with the lacking belief definition, laid out here: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/philosophy/language-philosophy/definitional-problems-with-lacking-belief/
Sure you are free to argue any definition you like. You can argue evolution is only a “change in kind” and theory is only an “idea” and that biology is “the study of cheese sandwiches” – but there is a reason why we have normative and contextually correct definitions.
When we discuss evolution, it is part of biology, which is part of science. We are not suddenly scientists, nor do we have the expertise of the scientists, but we are having a scientific discussion. At the very least a discussion about something scientific. That says nothing for the quality that we are doing this, but evolution is a topic that sits in science.
When discussing morality, beliefs, knowledge, truth, etc we are having a philosophical discussion, or at the very least a discussion of philosophical concepts. That doesn’t make us philosophers, or mean we are doing it well, but this is a philosophical discourse.
I am not sure why you think Dave does not agree with this statement, as he does, and I just checked with him too.
His comment you quoted was to do with “every day thoughts” rather than a discussion of philosophical concepts.
By we, I mean the average ‘new atheist’ and their disdain for philosophy whilst spending a lot of time in philosophical conversation, yet when discussing science with a creationist, we hold them to scientific definitions.
You basically use whatever suits your position. Rather than use the normative definitions on both, you hold the creationist to a higher standard than you hold yourself. Again, special pleading.
Perhaps have a read of this: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/philosophy/ontology-and-the-things-we-lack-lacktheism-or-rocktheism/
Yes, it’s my fault that we can’t get you to understand things like logic and rationality
If you say so Kris, I think if you looked at this conversation here, and the one on facebook etc objectively with even a base understanding of logic, rationality, and a tiny grasp on philosophy, you wouldn’t think it was me that ought to be embarrassed
In fact most of the rest of what you say continues to be a confused mess. I really don’t have the time to go over the same things again and again.
Perhaps you should have a live chat conversation with Dave and myself at some point because this is getting nowhere.
Being prescriptive would be saying everyone had to use them. I am not doing that, people can use whatever they want, there are more logical definitions than others.
Remember: new atheists claim their definitions are “more logical” than the philosophical ones. I brought this up with you before when I quoted back to you your definition of normative. Hopefully you’ll respond this time. With that, I think I’ve once again responded to all your major points.
Yes, they do think that. However they don’t use propositional logic to provide epistemological answers to the proposition ‘god exists’ and conflate all forms of non-theist with atheist.
https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/atheism/new-atheism/pitfalls-of-new-atheism/
Some even claim rocks are atheists: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/philosophy/language-philosophy/rockin-atheism-pt-1-the-wrongness-of-aron-ra/
Any? I don’t really get any of this? I have responded in detail to each of the arguments against me on this page. I surely got much of it if you won’t providing examples upon request of me not getting something.
Even Rowlands hasn’t responded in detail to my other response. It might be because he is too busy, or because he realized he is boxed in and can’t make a move without compromising on his own principles, and yet he doesn’t want to concede the argument, so he’s ignoring it. And maybe you, having seen his paralysis, realized that if he can’t give detailed counter arguments to me, you surely have little chance of succeeding, so you act like your counter arguments to me are obvious and not worth even making. But these are just my guesses.
Interested? I’m USING logic. How else do you think I rebutted each of your arguments? I told you before that my thought process is systematic and step-by-step. That’s how I keep finding cracks in your thought process. Must I turn all my statements into syllogism form before you believe me?
If you think I used special pleading, the burden is on you to show it. You would need to show that I don’t hold atheists and theists to the same standards before you use that if-then statement to prove I used special pleading. So far, you’ve only said I could hypothetically be using special pleading.
Let me remind you of the order of events on this page. Rowlands wrote the original blog post accusing me and The Duke of a specific form of special pleading, and you wrote a comment saying you had missed that specific form of special pleading. I refuted Rowlands’ claims until he was exhausted, then I responded to you by saying that specific form of special pleading wasn’t there. Then you said that hypothetically there could be some other form of special pleading that I used, and you point to another blog post that gives a special pleading argument that resembles Steve McRae’s.
This redirection does not address the argument I made about the specific form of special pleading Rowlands accused me of. I said this specific form isn’t there, so if you think it is, you need to read my responses to Rowlands and demonstrate what he couldn’t. I may address your and McRae’s hypothetical arguments further at a later date.
Let the record show that you’ve once again conceded my point. There should be no reason to bring up the definition of “evolution” or “theory” again.
If he really said that, I think he made a strategic mistake in an effort to back you up. He would have been better off writing a response to my other comment and continuing his line of attack instead of trying to help you with yours. Let me recap the discussion between me and Rowlands on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/answersinreason/permalink/3006825439360612/
I argued that I don’t think “academic philosophy” [according to my definition] is very useful and that “”Philosophy” [according to my definition] is just the ordinary thought processes ordinary people use everyday. It doesn’t need to be studied because people do it already.” Rowlands responded by denying my descriptions and saying, “Academic philosophers time wouldn’t be better spent doing science, because philosophy is important. The discussion of ethics, political philosophy, epistemology, the nature of self, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, and so much more, are all important things when it comes to understanding humanity.”
On the surface, this seems to match your claims that “When discussing beliefs, knowledge, morality and all sorts – we are doing philosophy regardless of if we know are or not” and “When discussing morality, beliefs, knowledge, truth, etc we are having a philosophical discussion, or at the very least a discussion of philosophical concepts.”
Philosophy (according to Johnstone and Rowlands) includes discussions of beliefs, ethics, knowledge, etc., by ordinary people and by philosophers. To this, let’s add the other quote:
If Rowlands really said this statement doesn’t conflict with yours, it must be because of his usage of “simply” and “just.” With this in mind, your shared description of philosophy might be something like:
Philosophy (according to Johnstone and Rowlands) includes, but is not limited to, ordinary thoughts/discussions of beliefs, ethics, knowledge, etc., by ordinary people and by philosophers. It also includes rigorous thoughts/discussions of beliefs, ethics, knowledge, etc., by ordinary people and by philosophers.
The problem is, this seems to be contradicted by his response to me further down that page:
Let’s ignore his implication I think having thoughts on philosophy is the same as studying philosophy. The overall message of this paragraph, in context, seems to be philosophy does not include ordinary, non-rigorous thoughts/discussions of beliefs, ethics, knowledge, etc., by ordinary people. This would directly contradict the description of philosophy you two supposedly share. I can see a few ways he may try to deny this, but they will lead to checkmate.
In other words, you admit you can’t pin the “average new atheist” behavior on The Duke and I specifically, right?
Again, this isn’t true. What definition of special pleading are you using? The definition in the image Rowlands provided in the blog post above has prerequisites you clearly haven’t established as true in this case. You haven’t even established that I think the “normative” definitions are the “higher standard.” Do you really think that showing someone prefers colloquial definitions of some concepts and prefers standard definitions of other concepts is all you need to prove special pleading?
I may respond to your other blog posts at a later date, but this one is my priority because my name is involved. Suffice it to say, the link you gave did nothing to refute the claims I made in the paragraph above it. In fact, it just repeats the Brits vs Americans analogy.
Just admit you can’t follow the arguments. It won’t be the end of the world. There are types of arguments I have trouble following, too. You can get better at it with time.
Would it be prescriptive to say everyone has to use the normative definitions used in philosophy in order to be logical? Here’s an image of where I quoted back to you your definition of normative on your blog and showed that it has ‘ought’ built in, so I don’t know how you could answer ‘no’ without contradicting yourself. https://gyazo.com/d77df072b6a99a7c4219dbc92c875fea
Would it be prescriptive to say everyone has to use propositional logic to provide epistemological answers to the proposition ‘god exists’ in order to be logical?
One-by-one you are giving up on refuting my claims on this page. That’s a type of progress. I’m willing to have a conversation with you two on YouTube, but I also want to get the last word on this page because my name is in the title. If Rowlands feels like responding to me here again, the conversation will have to wait until I respond back.
But there is no point. You’re too lost in the “battle” and keep not taking things on board.
I think he, like me, has got bored of the conversation. I accept that you don’t understand most of what we are saying, and keep missing the point, but there are only so many times we can go over the same thing.
You haven’t
Yes, you say a lot.
Perhaps turn this amazing process you think you have inwards… and actually get it to work.
I think I would prefer Haiku
Ok, we’ve gone over this a lot of times so I don’t see the point, but one last try eh?
If Athiests are defined by “lack of belief in gods existing”
Then Theists can also be defined by “lack of belief in gods not existing”
Otherwise that is special pleading.
So – do you agree that theists can be defined that way?
again, your claim it is not there, doesn’t make it not there. IT IS THERE. Your wilful ignorance of this fact does not make it go away.
See, this just shows you are more interested in “Winning” than actually taking any information on bored.
I have always said language is descriptive, but there are normative uses of words, there are contextually correct definitions, there are definitions more logical than others. Yet all you take from this is “I can define words any way I want” – well aren’t you the jibbily cheese sandwich that yanks the profilers testing mangos with burger strawberries.
Again, you’re just not understanding what people are meaning, you are too busy looking for “gaps” where you can throw in a “win” than actually taking to understand what is being said.
You just don’t seem to get it. You’re so busy trying to reword things that you don’t actually get the meaning of what people are saying. Honestly Kris, this is getting beyond frustrating.
That doesn’t contradict it. You can be having a conversation about something philosophical, but not doing it in a philosophical manner, and not having an understanding of the actual philosophy. Just like a creationist can be discussing evolution and saying it is a “change in kind” – they are discussing something scientific, but they are not being scientific about it.
Seriously, what is so hard about this?
Again, looking for the “win” instead of trying to understand.
You and Duke definitely do resemble the typical new atheist behaviours.
Oh dear – Honestly Kris, give up. I really can’t be bothered to explain all this.
Yeah, tbh, there isn’t much point in you responding any more, I will likely not authorise the comment because I cannot be bothered to engage. If another one of the authors decides to respond though, they are free to do so.
I think you should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, you are pretty much a poster boy for it.
It depends on what they are discussing. If they are ignoring propositional logic for a less specific definition that is open to category error and doesn’t allow us to easily infer ontological position then they are being less logical, but I wouldn’t necessarily say they are being illogical. There is utility to colloquial terminology too.
As above.
Yes, there is only so much chess one can play with the proverbial pigeon.
As I said, I am not going to authorise any more comments of yours, if others decide to, that is on them.
As I said before, “I have responded in detail to each of the arguments against me on this page.” In return, you have ignored many of my counter arguments and direct questions. Then you simply claim, without evidence, that I haven’t rebutted your arguments and that I’m misunderstanding things. And when asked for evidence, you simply claim to be bored. Well, I’m not trying to entertain you. My reputation is on the line. Give me the evidence that backs up your previous claims.
Just because I disagree with your preferred usage of atheist, you are not interested to see if I can actually use formal logic? You prefer to simply claim I can’t and then close your eyes to evidence to the contrary?
Yes, obviously, because of free speech. This argument is the one you made on the page you linked earlier and is similar to the one McRae made before you. This is not an argument you or Rowlands made earlier on this page and I told you I might address it at a later date. So now you have a preview of what I’ll argue at length in response to McRae.
You seem to have a strange definition of “winning.” When you concede my point, you concede my point. I’ve never called that “winning.” I’m explicitly trying to change your mind about things. If I get you to change your mind, I get you to change your mind. I don’t call that “winning,” either.
You see, those two clauses don’t contradict each other. You can’t use the existence of what you call “normative” uses to refute my preferred uses without missing my point. When I say “I prefer usage A,” you miss my point by saying something like, “But ‘normative’ usage B exists!” That’s basically what you’ve been doing when you bring up the “normative” definitions of theory and evolution. That’s what I want you to stop doing.
What happens when I disagree with you on the context in question? What happens when I think the definitions I prefer are “more logical” than the others? When two philosophers disagree, does that mean one of them is not doing philosophy? I don’t understand that last part. Define how you’re using those words.
What do you mean by “that” and what do you mean by “it”? I showed in detail how Rowlands’ quote contradicts the description of philosophy you two supposedly share.
That’s literally not what I claimed the contradiction to be.
Have you seen how The Duke and I argue with creationists? If not, how can you claim what you claimed?
Would it be prescriptive to say everyone has to use the normative definitions used in philosophy in order to be as logical as possible?
I appreciate Dave Rowlands taking the time to interact with me. I’ll go through his arguments and show in detail how they are flawed.
I can’t necessarily defend what The Duke has said in his tweets because there is limited space to express oneself on Twitter. I think The Duke’s position is better understood by watching his debate with McRae because he had more space to express what he meant. With that out of the way, I would like to clarify what I think The Duke’s position is.
“While The Duke argued that Steve McRae was an atheist according to a popular definition, and The Duke arguing that Steve McRae should accept that and Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definitions.”
In my video accurately summarizing the debate, I described one of The Duke’s positions as follows:
TD11: It is not [rational] / useful / moral for a person to use the definition of atheist used by SM and the literature of academic philosophy.
(Note: to reduce confusion, I’ve replaced “logical” with “rational” here. The full list of summarized views can be found in the pinned comment under my video.) TD11 is, I think, the most concise way of expressing the three possible views The Duke could have been trying to express at this point in the video. He seemed to think the philosophical definition is not rational, not useful, or not moral to use (and he has since confirmed that “not useful” is closest to what he meant there). TD11 cannot be further summarized as “Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definitions” without causing potential confusion because “should” can imply morality where no moral implication was intended.
Similarly, I have an issue with the idea that The Duke implied McRae “should accept” that he is an atheist according to a colloquial definition because “accept” can mean a couple things. I summarized one of The Duke’s positions as follows:
TD14: SM prefers the usage in academic philosophy, while TD prefers a colloquial usage.
So The Duke already knows The Duke prefers to use the colloquial definition and Steve McRae prefers to use the philosophical definition. From the context of the debate, it seems clear that The Duke knows that The Duke is an agnostic according to the philosophical definition, and McRae knows McRae is an atheist according to the colloquial definition. In that sense, they each “accept” each other’s definitions. The disagreement is over which definitions are less useful or cause more confusion (see SM23 and TD29), so in another sense, they don’t “accept” that their preferred definitions cause more confusion than the other’s. The situation is quite symmetric in that regard, so special pleading does not apply.
“…The Duke opened still arguing that Steve McRae should accept being called atheists by people that use the word as The Duke does, and Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definitions and arguing against people calling Steve McRae an atheist.”
This seems to be based on a few of The Duke’s views that I summarized as follows:
TD16: SM adamantly states he is not an atheist on Twitter when speaking to people who are not academic philosophers.
TD17: SM seems to believe it is morally bad for person A to call person B an atheist according to person A’s definition if person B doesn’t self-identify as an atheist.
TD18: It is [irrational] for a person who fits a colloquial definition of atheist to adamantly state they are not an atheist when speaking to people who are not using the definition used in academic philosophy.
For context, it is important to know McRae is aggressive in his interactions with people who use the colloquial definitions online. McRae spends much of his time belittling the colloquial definitions and luring in people who prefer them, then bombarding them with philosophical terminology they probably don’t understand and ridiculing them if they don’t understand. This continues until they change their minds and prefer the philosophical definitions, they give up and leave, or McRae gives up and blocks them. If one of them gives up on the other, McRae often takes screenshots of the interactions and makes posts further belittling their positions or does livestreams about them. This is a large part of how he grows his audience and makes a living.
It is this kind of aggressive behavior that The Duke seems to be describing in TD16, TD17, and TD18. When non-philosophers speak to him and say “you are an atheist” without adding “according to the colloquial definition,” McRae adamantly states “I am not an atheist” without adding “according to the philosophical definition,” and drama ensues. In my view, The Duke was saying this behavior is irrational, so it would be less precise to summarize his position as “Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definitions and arguing against people calling Steve McRae an atheist.”
“The Duke also argued that ‘academic philosophy’ should update their definition because it is incorrect, not useful or valid, and out of date.”
The Duke’s exact quote at that point was “the way that they define atheism is incorrect or it’s not modern or its failed to be updated.” This is what I summarized as TD11 above. As you can see, he used “or” to connect them and didn’t say “should”, so I believe my representation of his view is more accurate.
“Part of the defence for The Duke’s argument, as put forward by Kristopher Mann, is that ‘words get their definition from usage’ and ‘nobody gets to tell another person how they define their words or express their views’.”
This bears a resemblance to my position, but I’d word it differently. Because of the principle of free speech, everyone gets to define and use words as they wish. They are pretty much only constrained by their imagination and their desire to share words and usages with those around them. I believe each person gets to be the final judge of which statements accurate represent their own views. The corollary (nobody else gets to be the final judge of which statements accurately represent another person’s views) is also true, but the nuance is different from “nobody else gets to tell…” because everyone has free speech.
“Here is The Duke saying Steve McRae ought to accept being called an atheist because he fits one of the definitions, and that Steve McRae is wrong to tell others that he (Steve McRae) is not an atheist.”
Actually, the image shows The Duke saying “negative” in response to the claim “You assert that Steve should accept your usage….” He probably objected because of the problems with “should accept” that I pointed out above. (Sure enough, he said “what is up with this ‘should accept’?” in a tweet soon after the one pictured.) He also gives a restatement and confirmation of TD18 (compare “I assert he is wrong to tell others he’s not an atheist when he fits an accepted definition” with the longer and more precise “It is [irrational] for a person who fits a colloquial definition of atheist to adamantly state they are not an atheist when speaking to people who are not using the definition used in academic philosophy”). The conclusions drawn based on “should accept” are thus undermined.
“Here is The Duke saying he would not accept being called agnostic as Steve McRae uses the term…”
As I said above, The Duke knows The Duke fits McRae’s definition of agnostic, so he “accepts” being called agnostic in that sense. The Duke doesn’t prefer McRae’s definition of agnostic, so he doesn’t “accept” being called agnostic in that sense. The statements in the pictured tweet (“I do not have a problem being referred to as an agnostic. HOWEVER I do have a problem being referred to as an agnostic INSTEAD of an atheist.”) is nothing but a restatement of this point. The problem he has with being referred to as an agnostic instead of an atheist (according to the philosophical definitions) is he does not prefer the philosophical definitions (because they are not useful and cause more confusion).
“However, in the opposite direction, Steve McRae is not telling atheists like The Duke and Kristopher Mann that they should use the philosophical definitions of atheist and agnosticism to define themselves,…”
I believe I have already shown that the situation is actually quite symmetrical, but there is something I want to make clear here. Consider the following summaries of McRae’s views:
SM6: SM wants it to be widely known that, in academic philosophy, SM’s definitions are more widely used.
SM23: The definitions used by SM and the literature of academic philosophy cause less confusion than the colloquial definitions.
SM24: It is not morally bad for a person to use definitions that differ from those used in academic philosophy.
SM33: It is a contradiction and a category error to have a label that includes people who disagree with each other, and this can’t be resolved using additional sub-labels and subcategories.
So, although McRae implied it’s not morally bad to use the colloquial definitions (SM24), he simultaneously holds that the colloquial definitions lead to irreconcilable category errors and contradictions (SM33) that cause more confusion (SM23) than the philosophical definitions, which McRae wants to be more widely known (SM6). This meets my definition of “to encourage one’s own definitions of words” and “to discourage others’ definitions of words.” Because both McRae and The Duke are doing this, we find the situation is again symmetrical, so special pleading does not apply (and I haven’t even mentioned SM26 and SM28…).
“P3) The philosophical definition is not only out of date, it is not valid and it is not useful”
Remember that “not valid” is Rowlands’ addition to The Duke’s quote.
“It also cannot be that the word only exists in philosophy, as a philosophical definition, because most theists define the word this way too;…”
This is a major point of contention, actually. In my experience (as an American surrounded by theists daily), most of the people here who don’t study philosophy, theology, or apologetics wouldn’t know what “an agnostic” is because it’s not a common word here. If they don’t know what “an agnostic” is and you say you don’t believe in god, they will probably call you an atheist. I haven’t seen polling on this, though.
“Atheists like myself for example, that defines the word as ‘belief there is no God’ and has defined it that way since they were growing up. Who while growing up, used that word with other people, just regular non-philosophical people, knew immediately that I believed there was no God.”
You grew up in the UK, right? It’s no wonder we had different experiences with these words.
[I can’t necessarily defend what The Duke has said in his tweets….]
My argument against The Duke’s position comes from the debate between Steve McRae and The Duke, your video, as well as a Twitter discussion with The Duke.
[In my video accurately summarizing the debate, I described one of The Duke’s positions as follows…]
Changing logical to rational does nothing to actually change the argument. Something being rational entails it being logical.
[TD11 is, I think, the most concise way of expressing the three possible views The Duke could have been trying to express at this point…]
Ok, there’s a few faults here. The first is that I was not going solely by TD11, I was going by what The Duke was saying in The Duke’s debate with Steve McRae, what The Duke was saying on Twitter, and what you were saying in your video. I was looking at the argument as a whole, not specific words. The problem when you focus on a specific tree is that you miss the forest. Also, if The Duke is arguing that the usage of the term ‘atheist’ in philosophy is not rational, and not useful, and that philosophy should change the term (you continue to miss this part in your arguments) then The Duke is arguing that Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical term, because The Duke is arguing that the usage should not even exist. Next, The Duke also argues in the debate that Steve McRae should simply accept being called an atheist by those using the colloquial term and not argue against them. When you sum up all of these things together, rather than focus on the tree and miss the forest, then The Duke is arguing that Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical definition; Steve McRae should simply accept that Steve McRae is an atheist according to the colloquial usage, and accept being called an atheist.
Also, should does not entail a moral implication. There is no moral dilemma posed here, the argument The Duke makes is about how Steve McRae should behave when called an atheist, and how the term atheist should be used. If someone reads a moral implication in there then they need to reread the argument, and learn a little more about morality.
[Similarly, I have an issue with the idea that The Duke implied McRae “should accept” that he is an atheist according to a colloquial definition…]
You can have an issue all you like, in the debate between The Duke and Steve McRae it is said outright by The Duke that Steve McRae should not be arguing that Steve McRae is not an atheist. The Duke says Steve McRae is an atheist, and it is up to Steve McRae to choose what kind of atheist Steve McRae is. That is literally saying that Steve McRae should accept that he is an atheist, and stop arguing that he is an agnostic.
[TD14: SM prefers the usage in academic philosophy, while TD prefers a colloquial usage…]
You have just reframed my argument back at me, without actually understanding my argument. The Duke does not accept that Steve McRae is not an atheist according to Steve McRae’s usage, because The Duke literally argues that Steve McRae is an atheist, and should choose the kind of atheist that he is. It is right there in his opening statement. It is also right there in his Tweet in the first part of the argument. That The Duke says ‘negative’ at the beginning means nothing when he follows that ‘negative’ with an argument saying ‘I assert he is wrong to tell people he is not an atheist when he fits an accepted definition’. That is saying ‘Steve McRae must accept that he is an atheist and stop telling people that he is not’, especially when The Duke’s argument also includes the idea that philosophy should change the definition. Philosophy changing its definition entails Steve McRae changing the definition that Steve McRae uses. Again, focusing on a specific tree means you miss the forest. The argument is not symmetric, The Duke’s argument is asymmetric.
[This seems to be based on a few of The Duke’s views that I summarized as follows…]
I cannot really speak for Steve McRae, because I do not get into discussions with Steve McRae about this topic. However, I do not think that Steve McRae is making a moral argument. What Steve McRae is arguing is that he does not identify as an atheist, in the same way that someone like The Duke does not identify as an agnostic. Steve McRae identifies himself as an agnostic, just like The Duke identifies himself as an atheist. Insisting that Steve McRae is irrational for not allowing himself to be identified as an atheist is the same as saying that is irrational for The Duke to not allow himself to be identified as an agnostic instead of an atheist when speaking to people who are using the definition used in philosophy. The Duke has already argued that he will not accept being called anything except an agnostic atheist. The Duke will not allow himself to be identified just as an agnostic in the philosophical. Like I keep saying, you are so busy staring at a tree that you are missing the forest.
[For context, it is important to know McRae is aggressive in his interactions with people who use the colloquial definitions online…]
That’s irrelevant to me. How Steve McRae behaves is up to Steve McRae, and people blocking him is up to those people. What matters to me is the arguments that Steve McRae makes about the topic, and as far as the topic goes, Steve McRae is correct.
[It is this kind of aggressive behavior that The Duke seems to be describing in TD16, TD17, and TD18…]
The Duke’s argument is that the philosophical definition needs to be changed and brought in line with the colloquial definition. So the qualifier is irrelevant, because The Duke is arguing that philosophy, and by extension Steve McRae, needs to update their definition. If the definition is updated then Steve McRae would be defined as an atheist. So, regardless of your assumption that The Duke is arguing that Steve McRae’s behaviour is irrational, The Duke’s actual argument says something different. Once again, tree, forest.
[The Duke’s exact quote at that point was “the way that they define atheism is incorrect or it’s not modern or its failed to be updated…]
By saying that it is incorrect, it is saying that the usage is not correct. That is what ‘incorrect’ means, that something is not correct and needs to be updated. Saying that it is not modern is to say that it is out of date, and therefore needs to updated. Saying that it has failed to be updated, especially when in context the previous two, means that it needs to be updated. So, The Duke is arguing, in all three of those ‘ors’, that the philosophical definition needs to be updated.
[This bears a resemblance to my position, but I’d word it differently…]
That’s pretty much exactly what I said, but in a wordier way. However, you do understand that according to this argument that you make right here you are supporting the idea that Steve McRae gets to tell people that Steve McRae is not an atheist right? If they are the final judge of which statements accurately represent their views, and nobody else gets to be the final judge of which statements accurately represent another person’s view, you are arguing against the idea that it is irrational for Steve McRae to argue that he is not an atheist when in discussion with people using it colloquially, right? Like I keep saying, tree, forest.
[Actually, the image shows The Duke saying “negative” in response to the claim “You assert that Steve should accept your usage….”…]
No, the conclusions drawn based on ‘should accept’ are not undermined. Focusing on The Duke saying incorrect ignores the rest of the argument that The Duke is making. If Steve McRae uses the definition as laid out in philosophy, and The Duke is arguing that a) Steve McRae should not be arguing that he is not an atheist with people using the colloquial definition and b) that the philosophical definition should be updated in line with the colloquial definition, then that entails that Steve McRae should accept that he is an atheist in line with the definition that The Duke is using. Again, tree, forest.
[As I said above, The Duke knows The Duke fits McRae’s definition of agnostic, so he “accepts” being called agnostic in that sense…]
You have just reframed the argument I made, while calling it incorrect. You have just proven that my argument is correct. The Duke will not accept being called an agnostic by Steve McRae. The Duke literally says that he has a problem being referred to as an agnostic instead of an atheist, which is the argument I made. The Duke is committing special pleading because The Duke is arguing that Steve McRae should accept being referred to as an atheist based on the colloquial definitions being used by the speakers using colloquial definitions. Yet, The Duke is insisting that The Duke must be referred to as an atheist by those using philosophical definitions. The Duke will only accept being referred to as an atheist. That is literally the argument I made, and the argument that shows that it is special pleading.
[I believe I have already shown that the situation is actually quite symmetrical, but there is something I want to make clear here. Consider the following summaries of McRae’s views:]
No, you really have not.
[SM6: SM wants it to be widely known that, in academic philosophy, SM’s definitions are more widely used…]
No, it is not symmetrical. Steve McRae is not arguing that The Duke must call himself an agnostic because the terms are used this way philosophically. Steve McRae is arguing why he uses the philosophical definitions, and why he prefers to use those definitions. Steve McRae is not arguing that colloquial definition needs to match the philosophical definition. However, The Duke is arguing that the philosophical definition needs to match the colloquial definition, and The Duke is also arguing that Steve McRae must accept being defined as an atheist according to those using the term colloquially. These are not equivalent arguments, it is also not what I mean when I say that The Duke’s argument is not symmetrical.
[Remember that “not valid” is Rowlands’ addition to The Duke’s quote.]
The Duke is arguing that the philosophical definition is incorrect, and needs to be changed. The Duke is saying that the definition used in philosophy is not valid.
[You grew up in the UK, right? It’s no wonder we had different experiences with these words.]
No, I grew up in Canada. I also know that the words were used similarly in the USA when I was younger, just as they were used similarly in the UK when I was growing up. The definition has changed over the last 20 years, regardless of all those people arguing that the word atheist always meant lack of belief or not believing in God.
It’s strange you think I’m too focused on the trees and missing the forest. I don’t think I missed anything of import specifically because I paid attention to the details. In fact, I’ll argue it is you who is missing things because you insist on using “should accept” even after I pointed out how it is vague.
[Changing logical to rational does nothing to actually change the argument. Something being rational entails it being logical.]
According to the definition you use. I see. Other philosophers more strongly object to my interchangeable usage of “logical”, though, so I’ll continue to use “rational” here for now.
[…, I was going by what The Duke was saying in The Duke’s debate with Steve McRae, what The Duke was saying on Twitter, and what you were saying in your video. I was looking at the argument as a whole, not specific words.]
I have not seen everything The Duke has said to you on Twitter. All I saw was the short interaction you had with him after you wrote this blog post. If you are basing your view of his views on additional tweets not included in your post, I’ll need links and direct quotes.
[Also, if The Duke is arguing that the usage of the term ‘atheist’ in philosophy is not rational, and not useful, and that philosophy should change the term (you continue to miss this part in your arguments) then The Duke is arguing that Steve McRae should not be arguing for the philosophical term, because The Duke is arguing that the usage should not even exist.]
I didn’t miss the part where he said philosophy should change the term because he literally didn’t say it. If you believe he implied that view, you need to explicitly say so. Name and number the views you think he implied like I do in order to avoid putting words in his mouth. When you get a chance, you can ask him if your guess is an accurate representation of his views because, like I said before, he gets to be the final judge of that. Just because he said “it’s failed to be updated” doesn’t necessarily mean he believes “it should be updated”, and just because he confirmed he meant “it is not useful for a person to use the definition of atheist used by SM and the literature of academic philosophy” doesn’t necessarily mean he believes that definition “should not even exist”. Let’s call this the “is-should distinction”.
Even if you believe The Duke implied a should statement like “a person should not use the definition of atheist used by SM and the literature of academic philosophy”, that would still be too vague, in my view. Should (and its equivalents) can be used to express at least three things: an inference (if A=B and if B=C, then A should equal C), a strategic view (given the goal of winning a game of chess and given a particular arrangement of pieces on the board, you should move your knight here), or a moral view (you should treat people with respect because it is the right thing to do). With this in mind, a more precise version of the view you might think he implied would be TD11.1 (according to Dave Rowlands) “given the goal of causing less confusion and given the goal of not using definitions that are not useful, it is strategically bad for a person to use the definition of atheist used by the literature of academic philosophy”. Do you confirm or deny?
[Next, The Duke also argues in the debate that Steve McRae should simply accept being called an atheist by those using the colloquial term and not argue against them.]
I already addressed how “accept” is ambiguous in my previous response. If you specify which meaning of “accept” you intend and reword this accordingly, you will see that McRae and The Duke are behaving similarly. If you still disagree, write it in syllogism form and use “prefer” instead of “accept”.
[The Duke does not accept that Steve McRae is not an atheist according to Steve McRae’s usage, because The Duke literally argues that Steve McRae is an atheist, and should choose the kind of atheist that he is. It is right there in his opening statement.]
The thing is, The Duke argues that Steve McRae is an atheist according to The Duke’s usage. His opening statement is about The Duke’s usage of the word. Like I said in my previous response, “From the context of the debate, it seems clear that The Duke knows that The Duke is an agnostic according to the philosophical definition, and McRae knows McRae is an atheist according to the colloquial definition.” If you need more evidence, here are some tweets https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1254687847392481283?s=20 https://twitter.com/Thedukeistheman/status/1254540312824827905?s=20
[That The Duke says ‘negative’ at the beginning means nothing when he follows that ‘negative’ with an argument saying ‘I assert he is wrong to tell people he is not an atheist when he fits an accepted definition’.]
I already explained that tweet. Your interpretation of it requires that “negative” means nothing or that the tweet is self-contradictory. My interpretation makes the tweet not self-contradictory and simply a restatement of things he has said elsewhere. Given two possible interpretations of your opponent’s views, one self-contradictory and one not, which is more charitable to suppose he holds?
[However, I do not think that Steve McRae is making a moral argument.]
Really? Does that mean you also disagree that McRae implied SM24 (“It is not morally bad for a person to use definitions that differ from those used in academic philosophy”), SM26 (“It is morally bad for a person to discourage someone from using the definitions used in academic philosophy”) and SM28 (“It is morally bad for a person to have an agenda to encourage one’s own definitions of words without regard for the literature of academic philosophy (=to have a political / ideological agenda)”)?
[Insisting that Steve McRae is irrational for not allowing himself to be identified as an atheist is the same as saying that is irrational for The Duke to not allow himself to be identified as an agnostic instead of an atheist when speaking to people who are using the definition used in philosophy.]
Those are not the same. It seems you wish to add your view to the discussion. By analogy with TD18 (“It is irrational for a person who fits a colloquial definition of atheist to adamantly state they are not an atheist when speaking to people who are not using the definition used in academic philosophy”), your implied view (Dave Rowlands 1) would be “It is irrational for a person who fits the philosophical definition of agnostic to adamantly state they are not an agnostic when speaking to people who are not using the colloquial definition”. This would be YOUR implied view, according to me, because McRae didn’t imply this view in the debate. Do you confirm or deny DR1?
[That’s irrelevant to me.]
The context is relevant when trying to understand The Duke’s position. If you ignore the context, you will not understand what motivated TD16, TD17 and TD18. If you wanted to express the mirror images of these views in context, wouldn’t you need to also claim The Duke is going to philosophy journals and writing papers adamantly stating he is not an agnostic to philosophers who are not using the colloquial definitions?
[That is what ‘incorrect’ means, that something is not correct and needs to be updated.]
I think Hume would disagree because you are simply using “needs to” in place of “should”. I already said that The Duke confirmed that “not useful” is closest to what he was trying to say with TD11 (he posted this under the pinned comment on my video), but if you want, you can propose your version of it. Your implied view of his implied view, according to me, would be TD11.2 (according to DR): “It is morally good for a person who uses the definition of atheist used by SM and the literature of academic philosophy to update their definition to the colloquial one”. Do you confirm or deny this is your view of his implied view?
[If they are the final judge of which statements accurately represent their views, and nobody else gets to be the final judge of which statements accurately represent another person’s view, you are arguing against the idea that it is irrational for Steve McRae to argue that he is not an atheist when in discussion with people using it colloquially, right?]
Not quite. I’m arguing that The Duke argued that McRae’s behavior is irrational. Also, if you go step-by-step, you will see that person A calling person B an atheist according to person A’s definition is not the same thing as person A claiming person B calls person B an atheist according to person B’s definition. The first thing is what’s apparently happening to McRae on Twitter, not the second, so there is no contradiction.
[No, I grew up in Canada. I also know that the words were used similarly in the USA when I was younger, just as they were used similarly in the UK when I was growing up.]
Well, I’m not going to tell you your experiences didn’t happen. I just had different experiences growing up.
Kris, I think you’ve shown that not only do you not understand what Dave and I have said, but you seem to not even really understand what Duke has said, even when it has been screenshotted or referenced in the video.
Your statements like:
Indicate a level of confidence that is perhaps getting in the way of you actually understanding. You seem so confident that you are smart, rational, logical, and that you understand that you forget to take the time to actually demonstrate those behaviours.
I am personally at a point where I see little point in continuing the discourse.
This is ridiculous. I can’t believe you read all of my detailed rebuttals and then accused me of not understanding! You’ve simply asserted that without giving arguments. You have some nerve to quote me saying “I don’t think I missed anything of import…,” and act like that alone proves I did miss something of import. Give me detailed counter arguments or admit that it’s too hard for you to find good, detailed counter arguments to what I’ve said. Hell, even Rowlands seems to be having trouble.
Unfortunately Kris, you have shown too often that you don’t really get any of this. You project your troubles in understanding on to us having troubles explaining things to you.
I don’t really see the point in continuing this discourse because I don’t see how anything will come of it.
If you’re not interested in philosophy or how logic and rationality actually work, then that’s fine. You don’t have to be.
I would suggest you stop getting involved in conversations about them though.