Daniel Mocsny's Rebuttal of Paul Moser's Definitional Apologetics, Which Obfuscates the Fact That Christianity is Utter Nonsense!

Christian apologist and philosopher Paul K Moser is wrong, dead wrong, but at least he allows comments that disagree. I got to him though, when I said at the end of some extensive prodding, that what he believes is "utter nonsense." That comment was deleted. His main problem was that I refused to state what "objective evidence" is, putting it in quotation marks, as if he might not know. Then he chides me, saying "Note how you have ignored this key issue."

I have refrained from doing so, because doing so is an endless quagmire of me chasing him down the rabbits hole of this, then that, then this, then that, getting no closer to the truth. It's something believing philosophers of religion are experts in, and it's a trick called definitional apologetics, which obfuscates the truth. Here's a quote I wrote in my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End (p. 28):

Over the last decade I have found that one bastion for Christian apologists has been philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion. The scholars have honed their definitional apologetics in such a fine-tuned manner that when engaging them in this discipline, it’s like trying to catch a greased pig. Or, to switch metaphors, trying to chase them down the rabbit’s hole in an endless and ultimately fruitless quest for definitions. What’s an extraordinary claim? What constitutes evidence? What’s the definition of supernatural? What’s the scientific method? What’s a miracle? What’s a basic belief? What’s a veridical religious experience? What’s evil? They do this just like others have done over questions like, “What is the definition of pornography?” And then they gerrymander around the plain simple facts of experience. I would rather deal in concrete examples like a virgin who supposedly had a baby and a man who supposedly was raised from the dead.

The reason why I prefer to deal in concrete examples is because of how Christian philosophers use definitions to obfuscate their own theology. It isn't because I'm anti-intellectual. Nor do I think definitions are unimportant. I just want truth to prevail.

Anyway, Daniel Mocsny has written a nice rebutal of Moser's attempt which I highly recommend.

Read more »

How To Avoid Definitional Apologetics

I see Ben Watkins joined Jeffery Lowder and Johno Pearce [The Tippling Philosopher] in calling himself a "Philosopher." I have resisted calling myself a philosopher because I have held to a higher standard. No more. I am a philosopher. You can call me that. If they are then I am. If my degreed educational credentials and years of college teaching and published books on philosophical issues doesn't call for it then something's wrong. I don't say this to demean them. I say this to join them, especially when it comes to any and all disagreements on the PoR that we may have between us [See Lowder Ignorance Tag below]. In fairness, a lot of philosophers disagree with me on the value of PoR and the use of Bayes Theorem, so I'm not asking for agreement, only a discussion between philosophers in addressing what I say. I think internet atheists who are addressing PoR questions should stop what they're doing until they read my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Full Stop. 

My case in point today concerns how to avoid Definitional Apologetics.

Over the last decade I have found that one bastion for Christian apologists has been philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion. The scholars have honed their definitional apologetics in such a fine-tuned manner that when engaging them in this discipline, it’s like trying to catch a greased pig. Or, to switch metaphors, trying to chase them down the rabbit’s hole in an endless and ultimately fruitless quest for definitions. What’s an extraordinary claim? What constitutes evidence? What’s the definition of supernatural? What’s the scientific method? What’s a miracle? What’s a basic belief? What’s a veridical religious experience? What’s evil? They do this just like others have done over questions like, “What is the definition of pornography?” And then they gerrymander around the plain simple facts of experience. I would rather deal in concrete examples like a virgin who supposedly had a baby and a man who supposedly was raised from the dead. [From Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, p. 28]

Read more »

Quote of the Day On The Value of Philosophy and Definitional Apologetics

Over the last decade I have found that one bastion for Christian apologists has been philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion. The scholars have honed their definitional apologetics in such a fine-tuned manner that when engaging them in this discipline, it’s like trying to catch a greased pig. Or, to switch metaphors, trying to chase them down the rabbit’s hole in an endless and ultimately fruitless quest for definitions. What’s an extraordinary claim? What constitutes evidence? What’s the definition of supernatural? What’s the scientific method? What’s a miracle? What’s a basic belief? What’s a veridical religious experience? What’s evil? They do this just like others have done over questions like, “What is the definition of pornography?” And then they gerrymander around the plain simple facts of experience. I would rather deal in concrete examples like a virgin who supposedly had a baby and a man who supposedly was raised from the dead. [From Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, p.28]

Notice the red letter edition? The reason why I prefer to deal in concrete examples is because of how Christian philosophers use definitions to obfuscate their own theology. It isn't because I'm anti-intellectual. Nor do I think definitions are unimportant. I just want truth to prevail.  

Definitional Apologetics, Excessive Skepticism, and the OTF

[Written by John W. Loftus] Philosophers love to define words. It's a good thing too, since Aristotle said something to the effect that "Many a dispute could be solved in a few sentences if the disputants merely defined their terms." Sometimes though, in the hands of Christian philosophers the goal is obfuscation. They try to define away a problem for their faith. I call this Definitional Apologetics, and they are quite good at it. They will feign ignorance about what an extraordinary event is in the face of a concrete example, like a virgin birth or a resurrection from the dead. They will also feign ignorance about what the scientific method is to the point of claiming there is no such thing, even though science continues to progress, purportedly without one. And using Orwellian doublespeak they claim to have a "full-blown skepticism" where they are skeptical of skepticism, thinking this allows for their faith but blind to the fact it also allows for anyone's faith. This is all pure sophistry.

Along these same lines let me respond to one major objection to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), as stated in the comments of a recent post:

I think you’ll find that if you try to apply [the OTF] rigorously to every aspect of your life (not just the religious bits), you’ll soon discover what “analysis paralysis” is. You’ll be unable to entertain, even for a moment, any political, aesthetic or moral opinion or value, unless you can back it up by a complete chain of logical deduction from perfectly flawless axioms. Once you get addicted to the “test of skepticism”, *how will you know* where to draw the line and refrain from excessive skepticism? So my question about where to draw the line between healthy and excessive skepticism is a genuine one, not some sort of ploy by the christian-apologist-boogeyman ;) Skepticism is indeed a slippery slope – the question is where do you draw the line? Link.

Read more »