They say
that pride goeth before a fall. And if
you’re Jerry Coyne, every fall goeth before an even bigger fall. The poor guy just never learns. Show him that he’s shot himself in one foot,
and in response he’ll shout “Lock and load!” and commence blasting away at the
other one. It seems the author of Why Evolution is True has got it into
his head that a Darwin
Award is something it would be good
to win. And this week he’s made another
try for the prize.
But first some background. Recently we witnessed Coyne badly embarrass himself when attempting to defend Lawrence Krauss against some criticisms I had leveled against him. As I demonstrated in the post linked to, Coyne commits a battery of logical fallacies -- poisoning the well, red herring, non sequitur, special pleading, and straw man -- makes category mistakes, uses language sloppily where precision is called for, badly misrepresents the views of his opponents, and is breathtakingly ignorant of what the writers he confidently dismisses actually say. He even confuses me with William Lane Craig. In a follow-up post I demonstrated that Coyne has been peddling the same shameless misrepresentations of his opponents for four years now -- despite multiple corrections of the record, and despite the fact that some of his own atheist readers have begged him to cut it out. (As we saw, one of those readers got banned from Coyne’s blog.)
You don’t
have to sympathize with my views to see the awfulness of Coyne’s performance. Commenting on Coyne’s “diatribe” and my
response to it, Coyne’s fellow atheist Jeff Lowder concluded,
at the Secular Outpost:
If I were
to sum up Feser’s reply in one word, it would be, “Ouch!” I think Feser’s reply
is simply devastating to Coyne and I found myself in agreement with
most of his points.
My onetime
sparring partner Eric MacDonald -- who was once an ally of Coyne’s and whose
advice Coyne acknowledges in his recent book Faith vs. Fact, but who
has now distanced himself from the New Atheism -- wrote
in response to Lowder:
I have said very much the same kinds
of things about Coyne, and was asked to go elsewhere if I had any criticisms to
make (which is not a sign of intellectual honesty in itself), though he did not
outright "ban" me…
I must say that, having left the
narrow confines of Coyne's outlook, I have been greatly helped by Professor
Feser's careful reading and argument, something that Coyne could not be accused
of.
And now, it
seems, even Coyne himself has realized the magnitude of his humiliation. Not that he has responded to, or even
commented on, the criticisms I raised in those two recent posts. On the
contrary, he has for more than a couple of weeks now been strangely silent
about that. Instead, this week he has, out of the blue, posted
a weird rant about a six month old article of mine criticizing David
Bentley Hart’s view that dogs and other fauna go to heaven. Apparently the biologist, materialist, and
staunch atheist Coyne thinks I’m a complete idiot for taking the view that
there is no afterlife for
animals. Wrap your head around that one.
But
actually, it’s not so hard to understand Coyne’s sudden interest. The guy is as transparent as an air guitar,
and only ever manages to make himself look as silly as someone playing
one. Here’s my hypothesis: Coyne is
irked that I made him look like a fool.
(Or rather, that I pointed out how he’d make himself look like a fool.)
Payback is called for. But Coyne can’t
actually answer the criticisms I raised in my posts, because they’re
unanswerable, and because drawing his readers’ attention to them will only exacerbate
his embarrassment rather than remedy it.
So, Coyne decided to try something else.
Trawling the web for something he might use as a diversion, he came upon
my exchange with Hart. Bingo! Tossing this red meat into the monkey cage
that is Coyne’s combox would be the perfect way to distract attention from the fiasco
of several weeks ago:
Nothing to see over there,
folks. Really, I mean it, nothing. C’mon, stop looking already. Oh, but hey, look over here! Check out these two guys
arguing about animals in heaven! Can you
believe it?! I said animals in heaven! No
really, look over here! Isn’t this just hilarious?!
Really just fall-on-the-floor funny, right? Right?!
Am I warm,
Jer?
Per the Iron
Law of New Atheist literature, it only gets worse. Coyne complains that I do not establish in my
article about Hart that there is any
such thing as an afterlife in the first place, whether for animals or for
anyone else. Of course, that was not the
point of the article; it would require separate argumentation, which I have provided
elsewhere. Yet when I do direct readers
to other places where I have developed such arguments, Coyne accuses me of
engaging in self-promotion.
This is all
very childish, of course, but it is standard New Atheist shtick: If an opponent
doesn’t answer absolutely every possible objection in one short article, accuse him of not having established anything. If he does respond to many objections or
addresses any one of them at length, accuse him of being long-winded. If instead he refers to other writings where
the issues are treated in greater depth, accuse him of evading the issue, or of
trying to sell books. If he complains
about this farcical “heads I win tails you lose” procedure, accuse him of being
thin-skinned and unwilling to take criticism.
A pretty crude rhetorical trick, but an effective one with the dumber
sort of secularists who form Coyne’s base, who are only interested in the
latest Two Minutes Hate anyway, rather than in having a serious discussion.
Naturally,
Coyne also repeatedly accuses me -- as he ritualistically does absolutely every theist, no matter how many and detailed his arguments are -- of having “no
evidence” and of “just making stuff up.”
Then absurdly -- and, in good Jerry Coyne fashion, without seeing that
he has just contradicted himself -- he admits that in fact I do give arguments for my views, but that
they are in an article of mine that he says he will not bother actually to
read. (The article is “Kripke, Ross, and
the Immaterial Aspects of Thought,” which appeared in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly a few years ago and is
reprinted in my anthology Neo-Scholastic
Essays.)
As goes
without saying for Coyne readers, this doesn’t stop Coyne from leveling various
objections to the arguments he says
he won’t bother reading -- objections I’ve answered many times in various
places, including the very article Coyne refuses to read. But then, this is (as
longtime readers will recall) a man who once wrote over 5000 words
attacking a book (by Hart) which he
admitted he had not actually read -- and in the course of doing so, and
with no trace of irony, accused the book’s author
of having
had his “intelligence… blatantly coopted and corrupted to prove what [he] has
decided is true beforehand”!
Yes, dear
reader, behold the mind of Jerry Coyne -- of a man who explicitly refuses to
read what his opponents have actually said, but will nevertheless attack at
length the arguments he guesses they
must be giving, and who in the same breath will insist that it is those opponents who refuse to look at actual “evidence”
and who “make things up.”
Well, that
is itself evidence for you, though
only further evidence of what has already been massively confirmed, viz. that
Coyne is a Walter
Mitty atheist if ever there was one!
Laubadetriste: "Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way,—*and the fools know it.*"--Holmes, *The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table*
ReplyDeleteAh! One of my favourite Holmes’ adventures...
>… I eyed Holmes across the breakfast table. I was intrigued by this sudden revelation coming from a man who didn’t know that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Did this interest in hydraulics portend a new discovery in the field of criminal investigation? Perhaps my friend had invented a method to determine how much water a culprit would displace in his bath-tub. As Holmes lit his pipe and sat staring at nothing in particular, I cast a glance at the morning’s paper, which he had apparently tossed carelessly to one side, and observed that it lay open to an article entitled, “Astonishing Puzzles of the Scientific Age!”
“It is indeed the Modern Age,” said I. “Before long, the Analytical Engine will replace detectives in use of the deductive process."
Holmes waved a hand dismissively. “Machines perform by mindless rote. The creative aspect must perforce be missing, saving in so far as the calculator embeds it in the information fed to the apparatus.”
“I take it then you agree with Leibniz about what one could discern — or fail to discern — in a tour of the mechanism."
“I am sure he has more experience with these contrivances than you or I, Watson; but it will be apparent to any mind that cares to reflect on the matter that they two are distinct.”
“You maintain that the mental exceeds the material, of course.”
“Re le mental, my dear Watson,” Holmes spoke with determinacy, “when the machine has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however probable, must be interpreted.”
At that moment we heard the sound of footsteps advancing up the stairs.
“Ah, Watson — it is the butcher’s boy with a rasher of bacon!”
“Now, Holmes, how you could possibly know that?” cried I.
“I summoned him for that purpose whilst you were shaving,” he replied quickly. “I deduced that Mrs. Hudson had burnt the scones again.” His keen nose wrinkled as he opened the door and wordlessly pressed some coins into the lad’s hand.
“Beggin’ yer question, guv’nor,” said the boy, “but a man downstairs gave me this to bring to you.” He handed Holmes a slip of paper, which he read and held out to me.
“Why, it is an invitation to Poul Hall from Lady Tiffany of Oakeshott,” I declaimed with surprise.
Holmes was already shrugging into his overcoat. "How do you fancy," said he, "breakfast at Oakeshott's?"
His keen nose [twitched] as he opened the door...
ReplyDelete...and, sure enough, there was Mr. Green, Tracer of Lost Understandings.
Mr. Green,
ReplyDeleteI applaud your creativity. More of it would liven up the place.
Don Jindra: Those who believe something is true may have a tough time seeing when the question is begged.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but psychology doesn't usually work that way. Most people who believe most true things are quite rational in their assessments thereof. And even if somebody could be wrong in that way, it is implausible that everyone defending the argument would make that same mistake. And it is surely impossible that those who in fact do not think the argument works would make that very mistake out of believing it! Didn't you consider the far more credible possibility, that you might simply be wrong in this case?
I applaud your creativity. More of it would liven up the place.
Thanks. Despite our disagreement, I appreciate that.
Mr. Green.
ReplyDelete"And even if somebody could be wrong in that way, it is implausible that everyone defending the argument would make that same mistake."
When I read your post this morning the news was on. They interviewed a woman who had a close encounter with a tornado. She said, "I'm just thankful God was taking care of us." Victims of natural disasters frequently make this sort of statement. I doubt many realize the dubious nature of their reasoning. So I'm not convinced psychology works as you say. Large numbers of people do make the same mistakes in reasoning. They quite often overlook the same errors.
"And it is surely impossible that those who in fact do not think the argument works would make that very mistake out of believing it!"
As I said above, in a quick search I found two cases of people who saw the same problems I do. But I'll mention a different example that's a similar issue. It's normal when a non-believer like me argues with a Bible believing Christian, for the Christian to quote Bible verses. It's also normal for the non-believer to use that same Bible to show where the believer is wrong. Why would someone who puts no authority in the Bible use it as evidence? I think it's because the first response in any argument is to use evidence your opponent believes, and use that evidence against him -- to show that his use of the evidence is flawed. Resolution is possible only when two people agree to start with the same basic evidence.
Don Jindra: She said, "I'm just thankful God was taking care of us." Victims of natural disasters frequently make this sort of statement. I doubt many realize the dubious nature of their reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't an argument, it's just a statement. And you are welcome to try to prove that she was wrong, but that's not even relevant to your point, let alone mine.
I think it's because the first response in any argument is to use evidence your opponent believes, and use that evidence against him
Of course. Which again has nothing to do with what I said.