{"id":3508,"date":"2015-09-26T07:52:03","date_gmt":"2015-09-26T11:52:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=3508"},"modified":"2017-05-19T16:44:08","modified_gmt":"2017-05-19T20:44:08","slug":"replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html","title":{"rendered":"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games"},"content":{"rendered":"<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC \"-\/\/W3C\/\/DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional\/\/EN\" \"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/TR\/REC-html40\/loose.dtd\">\n<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"content-type\" content=\"text\/html; charset=utf-8\"><meta http-equiv=\"content-type\" content=\"text\/html; charset=utf-8\"><\/head><body><p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/ConcentricCircles.png\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-3510 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/ConcentricCircles.png\" alt=\"ConcentricCircles\" width=\"626\" height=\"640\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[<a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/p-145559\/?no_redirect\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">Pixabay<\/a> \/ public domain]<\/p>\n<p>Philosophy <em>can<\/em> be really fun and enlightening, or it can get bogged down in endless \u201cword games\u201d: always trying to define every other word in every sentence, rather than deal in concepts and larger ideas; going round and round like the image above. I\u2019ve always detested these sorts of word games, because I see them as either a cop-out or muddleheaded thinking: the very essence of being unable (or unwilling) to \u201csee the forest for the trees.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Much of this sort of thing is derived from<a href=\"http:\/\/www.iep.utm.edu\/analytic\/#SH6g\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\"> analytical (or analytic) philosophy<\/a>. \u00a0There are great philosophers who are actually of this school, but manage not to get bogged down in linguistic and semantic tedium. <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Alvin_Plantinga\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">Alvin Plantinga<\/a> is my favorite philosopher, and widely viewed as the greatest living Christian philosopher. In a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2011\/12\/14\/books\/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">wonderful article<\/a> about him in <em>The New York Times<\/em> (13 December 2011), Jennifer Schuessler writes:<\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" style=\"padding-left: 30px;\" data-para-count=\"311\" data-total-count=\"4071\">Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn\u2019t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two.<\/p>\n<p id=\"story-continues-5\" class=\"story-body-text story-content\" style=\"padding-left: 30px;\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\">\u201cYou really can\u2019t sensibly claim theistic belief is irrational without showing it isn\u2019t true,\u201d Mr. Plantinga said. And that, he argues, is simply beyond what science can do.<\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\">Plantinga writes in a very accessible style, but with many others in the analytical school, this is not the case. Recently in the combox of my post, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/critique-of-atheist-john-w-loftus-deconversion-story.html\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\">Critique of Atheist John W. Loftus\u2019 \u201cDeconversion\u201d Story<\/a>, a guy who goes by<a href=\"https:\/\/disqus.com\/by\/Zaoldyeck\/\" class=\" decorated-link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\"> Zaoldyeck<\/a> (blasted\u00a0Internet nicknames <em>and<\/em> anonymity!) showed up. I don\u2019t question his sincerity, and I\u2019m sure he doesn\u2019t<em> think<\/em> he is merely playing word games or relentlessly dissecting minutiae, but that\u2019s how I see it, from where \u00a0I sit.<\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\">And I don\u2019t see how that furthers any discussion. It may be a pleasant pastime in the ivory towers of academia, in philosophy departments dominated (as usual) by atheists, but I don\u2019t see that it does much good elsewhere. It may offer the appearance of strength, but when closely analyzed (pun intended) it\u2019s like an onion that one peels down, revealing nothing at the core.<\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\">I won\u2019t quote all of Zaoldyeck\u2019s words in the thread. Anyone can read them under the link above if they wish, but only the ones that question definitions and meanings. Then at the end I submit a very simple way to defeat this type of \u201cargument.\u201d His words will be in <span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">blue<\/span> (with key words in <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">red<\/span>). Line breaks in the text indicate different excerpts.<\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">How exactly did you become a \u201c<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptic<\/span> of your atheism\u201d? I don\u2019t believe in a god, nor<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> understand<\/span> how the word itself is defined, I can\u2019t believe in god by virtue of having no <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">context<\/span> to make <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">sense<\/span> of the<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> concept<\/span> represented by that word. So my atheism isn\u2019t something I can be \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptical<\/span>\u2018 about until I first have a <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">definition<\/span> and <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concept<\/span> of god that I accept as at least well defined. How can I be <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptical<\/span> of myself when I say \u201cI don\u2019t know what you <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">mean<\/span> by the words you are using \u201c?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">I really cannot <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">understand<\/span> how <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptical<\/span> people can be <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">convinced<\/span> by the truth claims of a religion. It seems so abjectly strange.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">What do you mean by \u2018atheistic viewpoint\u2019? . . .\u00a0being \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptical<\/span> of the atheistic <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">perspective<\/span>\u2018 <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">means<\/span> what? How do you insert a theistic answer to a set of equations?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">I\u2019m seeking to <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">understand<\/span> what other people<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> mean<\/span> by their words, including what you <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">mean<\/span> by \u2018the spiritual approach to life\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">I seek to make my point of view <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">explicit<\/span>. I don\u2019t hide my <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">beliefs<\/span>, or my <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">rational thought process<\/span>. I <em>think<\/em>\u00a0in terms of \u2018dryly defining the most basic words and <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concepts<\/span> to dust\u2019, words and <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concepts<\/span> get their <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">meaning<\/span> from <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">context<\/span>, from <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">definitions<\/span> and <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">communication<\/span>. So I inform you when your words don\u2019t make sense to me, such as \u2018spiritual adventure and experimentation\u2019, I really don\u2019t know what that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">means<\/span>. What the hell is \u2018spiritual adventure\u2019?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">I am fine admitting reality, and just tying words and <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">ideas<\/span> to reality, rather than questioning even <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">basic reality<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Or illustrate further what you mean by \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptical<\/span> of skepticism\u2019, because again, that to me sounds like being \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">skeptical<\/span> that reality exists\u2019. I don\u2019t go for Pyrrhonian skepticism, I\u2019m fine to <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">establish<\/span> a starting ground in an \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">objective reality<\/span>\u2018. So how much more <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">\u2018skeptical<\/span>\u2018 could I possibly be? What <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">postulate<\/span> do I accept which should be reexamined?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"story-body-text story-content\" data-para-count=\"182\" data-total-count=\"4253\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">When Andrew writes things like \u201cJesus was the divine son of god\u201d, because I still have no <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concept<\/span> of what \u2018god\u2019 is, nor what the \u2018divine\u2019 is, or how a \u2018son\u2019 works with relation to the \u2018divine\u2019, I have no <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concept<\/span>, no <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">understanding<\/span>, no <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">basis<\/span> at all for that sentence. It is incoherent, it <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>means<\/em><\/span>\u00a0nothing to me, so I don\u2019t know what this \u2018<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">belief<\/span>\u2018 is in, with or without \u2018reasons\u2019, or \u2018justified<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> belief<\/span>\u2018.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">I don\u2019t care about \u2018warranted\u2019, or \u2018a priori\u2019 versus \u2018posteriori\u2019 or anything else if the <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concepts<\/span> and words being used aren\u2019t first laid out in a way that I can <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">understand<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">Forgetting if the<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> concept<\/span> is \u2018well formed\u2019, that is, \u2018possible\u2019, or if the <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">idea<\/span> or whatever else is true, if the words don\u2019t<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> mean<\/span> anything, if the words are effectively in another language, how can you \u2018believe\u2019 anything about it?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">It\u2019s one thing to have<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> difficulty articulating<\/span> or <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">defending<\/span> a <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">concept<\/span>. It\u2019s another thing entirely to have no <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">ability<\/span> to <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">articulate<\/span> it at all, where all <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">definitions<\/span> seem to map to <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">fundamental<\/span> contradictions, all the while asserting that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">belief<\/span> is both in \u2018something\u2019 (whatever the hell \u2018something\u2019 <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">means<\/span> in this <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">context<\/span>) and \u2018true\u2019 and \u2018rational\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\">My <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">epistemology<\/span> is grounded on very few basic axioms. I accept \u2018some <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">objective reality<\/span> exists\u2019, \u2018my senses allow me some access, though occasionally inaccurate measurements, of that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">objective reality<\/span>\u2018, and \u2018induction works in <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">objective reality<\/span>\u2018.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cunderstanding[ing]\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cbelief\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201crational thought process\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is a \u201cconcept\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is \u201cmeaning\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is \u201ccontext\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is a \u201cdefinition\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is \u201ccommunication\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cobjective reality\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cbasic reality\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cperspective\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cpostulate\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is \u201cepistemology\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell is \u201cskeptical\u201d?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cconvinced\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201carticulate\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cmean[s]\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell does \u201csense\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell does \u201cexplicit\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell does \u201cability\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell does \u201cfundamental\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cestablish\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cbasis\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cdifficulty\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What does \u201cdefending\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">What the hell does \u201cidea[s]\u201d mean?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #3f4549;\">I asked Zaoldyeck these questions (well, <em>most<\/em> of \u2019em; I have added several presently, and added them to my comment in the thread) 21 hours ago. As of yet, I have received no reply, though he was quite vociferous in the thread before I asked my question. Perhaps he has been detained (maybe with his daily dose of three hours with a dictionary).<\/p>\n<p>Readers may be assured that I\u2019ll update this paper with his answers (which I await with great eagerness and anticipation!) and my further counter-replies, if he <em>does<\/em> answer. I trust that my <em>point<\/em> has not been lost on most readers . . .<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Pixabay \/ public domain] Philosophy can be really fun and enlightening, or it can get bogged down in endless \u201cword games\u201d: always trying to define every other word in every sentence, rather than deal in concepts and larger ideas; going round and round like the image above. I\u2019ve always detested these sorts of word games, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":3510,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112],"tags":[765,766,639,770,328,771,119,768,763,253,769,767],"class_list":["post-3508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","tag-analytic-philosophy","tag-analytical-philosophy","tag-atheism-agnosticism-2","tag-definitions","tag-epistemology","tag-minutiae","tag-philosophy-of-religion","tag-semantics","tag-skepticism","tag-theistic-arguments","tag-word-games","tag-words"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Analytical philosophy too often gets bogged down in endless &quot;word games&quot;: defining every other word, rather than dealing in concepts and larger ideas.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Analytical philosophy too often gets bogged down in endless &quot;word games&quot;: defining every other word, rather than dealing in concepts and larger ideas.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-09-26T11:52:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-19T20:44:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/ConcentricCircles.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"626\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html\",\"name\":\"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-09-26T11:52:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-19T20:44:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Analytical philosophy too often gets bogged down in endless \\\"word games\\\": defining every other word, rather than dealing in concepts and larger ideas.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games","description":"Analytical philosophy too often gets bogged down in endless \"word games\": defining every other word, rather than dealing in concepts and larger ideas.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games","og_description":"Analytical philosophy too often gets bogged down in endless \"word games\": defining every other word, rather than dealing in concepts and larger ideas.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2015-09-26T11:52:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-19T20:44:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":626,"height":640,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/ConcentricCircles.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html","name":"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-09-26T11:52:03+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-19T20:44:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Analytical philosophy too often gets bogged down in endless \"word games\": defining every other word, rather than dealing in concepts and larger ideas.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/replying-to-atheist-analytical-philosophy-word-games.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Replying to Atheist Analytical Philosophy Word Games"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3508\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}