![\"PiltdownMan\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/PiltdownMan.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Piltdown Man hoax (a jaw of an orangutan attached to a human skull). It took 41 years for the scientific community to debunk it.<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0<\/span>Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>Attribution 4.0 International<\/a>\u00a0license<\/span>]<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n I get sick and tired of people not reading in context<\/strong><\/em>. It\u2019s not rocket science to grammatically connect sentences together, and to logically connect thoughts and concepts. I don\u2019t think it is by any means solely an atheist shortcoming. I would contend that\u00a0it occurs in direct proportion to how hostile a person is to an opposing position.<\/p>\n Hence, if a Christian thinks all atheists are wicked and immoral and necessarily hellbound before he talks to them at all (a thing I have vociferously condemned three times [one<\/a> \/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a>]), he is much more likely<\/em> to misconstrue, misinterpret, misunderstand, or mischaracterize a particular atheist argument. He would do so far less<\/em> so if he didn\u2019t hold the hostile view. Likewise, the atheist, in direct proportion to his hostility and anger towards the theist position (or some particular Christian variant thereof) \u2014 and I\u2019ve written about that<\/em><\/a>, too \u2013, will tend to make the same mistakes with theist arguments.<\/p>\n The same tendency holds, to a somewhat lesser extent, in inverse proportion to how much an atheist understands\u00a0<\/em>theist arguments and the overall position (of some form of theism) being dealt with. Hostile premises<\/em> also make proper comprehension\u00a0more difficult. The first rule in logical dialogue, as well as in war, is to \u201cknow thy opponent.\u201d Such a person has to work harder to accurately comprehend the opposing position and its arguments, and to not wrongly put people into a box that they ain\u2019t in. These factors really do<\/em> adversely affect logic and the successful execution of a counter-argument. I\u2019ve been on the receiving end of this annoying tendency\u00a0three times<\/em> in the last 24 hours.<\/p>\n Atheist Neil Carter wrote an article,\u00a0<\/span>\u201c<\/a>Why\u00a0Do\u00a0Intelligent,\u00a0Well-Educated\u00a0People\u00a0Still\u00a0Believe\u00a0Nonsense?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0I replied with\u00a0Simultaneously\u00a0Dumb\u00a0&\u00a0Smart\u00a0Christians,\u00a0Atheists,\u00a0&\u00a0Scientists<\/a>, using one of my favorite forms of argument: turning the tables. His target was Christians, whom (he argued) can be quite \u201cintelligent\u201d and \u201ceducated\u201d yet still believe in what he thinks is \u201cnonsense.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n All I did in my paper was show that Christians are not the only<\/em> ones who possess this trait: scientists (disproportionately atheist or skeptical) also do; moreover, I noted how when the history of science is presented in schools, the past follies of scientists are never presented. They are always these noble, forward-looking, near infallible icons, while the \u201cbad guys\u201d and evil villains are invariably the wicked Catholics in the Middle Ages who hated science, persecuted Galileo, etc., and the troglodyte young earth creationists of today (who allegedly represent all or most Christians, which is absurd). There is a ton of mythology and double standards in such a presentation, and that is what my paper above dealt with. I will oppose and expose historical revisionism and double standards every time.<\/span><\/p>\n Anyway, on Carter\u2019s thread, where I announced my reply-paper (which I consider a courtesy), complete with compliments of his post (\u201cwell-written and provocative and contained much to agree with\u201d),\u00a0the inevitable blasts against me took place, as usual. This is simply how it almost always goes in atheist forums when a lowly theist dares to peek in.<\/span><\/p>\n The first person who committed this sort of mistake in interpretation was<\/span> \u201clapona<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n I tried to real your whole article , but I stopped shortly after this idiocy: \u201cI, too, have often found myself explaining\u00a0to someone not familiar with the devoted atheist environment, that\u00a0<\/span> What exactly atheists believe?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If you define that theists believe there\u2019s no God, then you\u2019re using a definition used by theists, a stupid definition by the way. Theists were, and are used for a long, long time to call atheists those who don\u2019t believe that their specific God doesn\u2019t exits. For example, Muslims are atheists for Christians and vice-versa.<\/span><\/p>\n If you want to use \u201cbelief\u201d in the context of atheism, then an atheists is someone who believe in one less god than monotheists. An atheist cannot say that he\/she believes that God doesn\u2019t exist because it doesn\u2019t make sense to believe that something that doesn\u2019t exist, doesn\u2019t exist.<\/span><\/p>\n However, atheists are not known for believing a God doesn\u2019t exists, BUT disbelieving theistic claims, thus the \u201cA-theist\u201d term. When disbelieving theistic claims, atheist support, substantiate and base their disbelief using science, that brought as knowledge that theistic claims made in \u201choly\u201d scriptures about the existence of a God are, long story short, bull$&#@.<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, he didn\u2019t try very hard to read my article, since the portion he detested so much came in my first paragraph. If he stopped there, then it is obvious why his analysis was a complete irrelevancy (a non sequitur<\/em>). Thus he\u2019s tilting at windmills and wrestling with straw men the entire time, in his comment. I wasn\u2019t arguing at all<\/em> that atheism was nonsensical because it was a non-belief in God. My actual argument was made perfectly clear in context.I did a take-off of one of Carter\u2019s statements, then I made my own turn-the-tables counter-argument (key contextual-connecting phrases bolded and in red<\/span>):<\/span><\/p>\n [Carter] Last night for the third time in as many months I found myself explaining to someone raised outside of a devoutly religious environment that\u00a0religious people are not stupid simply because they believe nonsensical things<\/i>. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Good article. I can heavily relate to it. I, too, have often found myself explaining to someone not familiar with the devoted atheist environment, that atheists are not stupid or wicked simply because they believe nonsensical and absurd things.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s tough for us non-believers in the atheist \u201cvision\u201d and worldview to comprehend how<\/span><\/strong> intelligent, sharp people with lots of degrees and books read and high IQs and a profound love of science, manage to believe<\/strong><\/span> that\u00a0trillions of atoms (having popped into existence for no known or discernible reason in a Big Bang: an event now accepted and first developed by a Catholic priest,\u00a0Georges Lema\u00eetre<\/a>) \u2014 but we \u201cknow\u201d that\u00a0GOD<\/strong>\u00a0COULDN\u2019T HAVE DONE IT!!! \u2014 and their distant relatives, cells, can make absolutely\u00a0<\/span>everything\u00a0<\/i><\/span>in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. We\u2019re baffled at how they can<\/span><\/strong> attribute to atoms and cells the omnipotence and omniscience and extraordinary creative power that we attribute to an eternal spirit, God. But they manage to do so<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n My reply here has nothing<\/em> to do with mere disbelief in God. It has everything<\/em>\u00a0to do with the logical reduction of what materialistic science requires: atoms and cells creating absolutely everything in the universe under their own mysteriously originated powers without any input from God. We find that<\/em> very difficult to comprehend, just as Carter \u00a0was puzzled at our belief in demons, angels, and God. It\u2019s sort of a \u201creverse teleological [design] argument.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Next time, maybe ol\u2019 \u201clapona\u201d will actually read<\/em> what it is he is purported to condescendingly refute, before lashing out at it in public and making a fool of himself (or herself). Wouldn\u2019t that be a wise policy: to first read<\/em> what one is \u201crefuting\u201d? Makes perfect sense to me. In my work, I generally read what I set out to critique. But his hostility is shown in his actions: he made it through one paragraph<\/em>\u00a0(which he obviously didn\u2019t even understand<\/em>), then gave up and wrote a \u201crefutation.\u201d His hostility was his downfall. It made him think incorrectly and act ludicrously.<\/span><\/p>\n The second and third time I was vastly misunderstood had to do with reactions to my bringing up past errors of famous scientists in my paper, such as Piltdown Man, which was a outright hoax. Two people did the very familiar routine of lecturing the ignorant Christian as to what science is really about. Note that both assumed from the outset that I didn\u2019t know about the basic tenets and procedures of scientific method. They assumed (most uncharitably and foolishly) a profound ignorance that isn\u2019t present in my case. <\/span><\/p>\n This is very common. It happens all the time when the atheist debates a Christian on some disputed scientific matter. They assume rank stupidity. Surely, some Christians are ignorant of science, but they are mostly the fringe group of fundamentalists. The majority of us respect and understand science every bit \u00a0as much as the atheists do.<\/span><\/p>\n First, here is \u201csmrnda<\/a>\u201c, \u00a0in the same Neil Carter combox, with his pompous pontifications:<\/p>\n You seem to misunderstand science.<\/span><\/p>\n Science is a method of using evidence based reasoning. Science is a process. The fact that a hoax fooled some number of scientists or that a bad idea was accepted for some time is part of the process of science. Bad ideas get weeded out over time.<\/span><\/p>\n Think of this \u2013 there are, right now, experimental results being published in journals about cognitive psychology. Other scientists will attempt to replicate these results. Certain results will be replicated again and again, and certain other results will not. As time goes by, the evidence for certain things will grow, whereas other ideas will be rejected.<\/span><\/p>\n I think a problem is that you\u2019re looking at science from the lens of religious authority. A Catholic asks \u2018should I accept the authority of the church?\u2019 So perhaps you\u2019re looking at \u2018scientists\u2019 as priests, bishops and cardinals and a Pope of some \u2018church\u2019 and deciding they don\u2019t seem that reliable. But that\u2019s the wrong way to look at science. It\u2019s not accepted on authority. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n On converting to Catholicism, I do find that it\u2019s a popular choice for people who want religion plus a veneer of intellectual respectability. The Catholic church might say it values \u2018reason\u2019 but what I find it values is sophistry \u2013 Aquinas is mostly \u2018argument by verbose assertion employing big words which lack precise meaning.\u2019 You can\u2019t argue against it since the Thomist controls the vocabulary. But at least the emperor<\/em>\u00a0has some clothes, particularly a gold hat.<\/span><\/p>\n Over in the combox for my reply-paper, JedRothwell <\/a>made a very similar argument (the same old routine), though in far less condescending fashion than the version above:<\/p>\n
\natheists are not stupid or wicked simply because they believe\u00a0nonsensical and absurd things.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n