![\"Ergun](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/668\/2013\/10\/Ergun-Caner.jpg\")
<\/a>Calvinists with some time to kill, and a basement, can wreak strange havoc on ordered society. Oft it is hard to know whether they do this by design or by tic; whether they need to be arrested for delinquency, or put on L-DOPA. I have my opinion, but you must be left to decide for yourself, dear reader.<\/p>\n
A couple of caveats will be in order from the outset. The reason they will be in order is because they will be ignored, or denied, even after I\u2019ve given them. \u00a0These next few paragraphs may even be skipped over altogether, as though they were written in a strange and antique language not yet deciphered by even the best cryptographers. Having them on the record, for those who hath eyes to read, will give me the opportunity, should the time come, to point out folly that has no excuse. (If it had not happened before\u2014I call to witness exhibits\u00a0A<\/a>, B<\/a>, and C<\/a>\u2014I would not be saying it now.)<\/p>\n First, it is not<\/em> my intention in this post to defend Ergun Caner against every accusation of lying that has been made against him. \u00a0I address myself only<\/em>\u00a0to one\u00a0particular accusation\u2014specifically,\u00a0here<\/a> and here<\/a>\u2014by TurretinFan. (TF, by virtue of his anonymity, and his bold persistence in odd arguments, is known on this blog as the Amazing and Undaunted Mr. X of Calvinism.)<\/p>\n An analogy may help. The one time I had jury duty, the accused stood trial for drug possession and resisting arrest. We found him guilty of resisting arrest and not guilty of drug possession. Afterward, the judge informed we of the jury that, during the trial, he had cautioned the prosecuting attorney that she was not to mention that the accused had prior convictions for drug possession. To do so would have biased us against him; and we were to consider only the merits or demerits of the charge before us. We were passing no judgment against other actions the accused may or may not have committed.<\/p>\n Second, I would hope that the reader will recognize the allusion<\/a> in my title, and that it is intended only for the joke of calling that earlier title to mind in context with the accusations against Ergun Caner, as well as the loose propensity some people have of throwing the word \u201clie\u201d around when all that is really involved is a different interpretation of the facts. I do not myself make an accusation of lying against anyone. \u00a0I accuse my opponents only of being fools\u2014the kind described in Prov. 26:11<\/a> and 2 Pet. 2:22<\/a>. Whatever else they are or aren\u2019t is their own business.<\/p>\n In this article, I want to look at some of the tactics that are frequently employed by Internet Calvinists. In some cases, as in the first, those tactics are subtle and seemingly erudite, but involve a great deal of sleight-of-hand. In other cases, as in the second, the mask is off and the tactics take the form of sudden Twitter rant and violently shoving words into someone else\u2019s mouth. Both deserve to be exposed\u2014with reason but with firmness, calling truth by truth\u2019s name.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \n<\/p> When one takes the time to examine Mr. X\u2019s accusation of dishonesty on the part of Dr. Caner\u2014specifically, that he lied about the number of debates he has engaged in\u2014one quickly finds that, at the heart of the accusation, rests a question of definitions. As quoted by Mr. X himself, in his article at Alpha & Omega Sophistries<\/em>, here is Dr. Norman Geisler\u2019s defense of Dr. Caner. Read and note.<\/p>\n The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims that he has had more than Sixty Debates with Muslims.<\/em>\u2014Critics challenge this statement and claim it is an intentional embellishment. \u00a0But they mistakenly assume that all debates are formal<\/strong>. Caner lists many formal debates in the last ten years or so. \u00a0But he has also engaged in multiple informal debates as well. \u00a0There is no evidence to deny his claim. Indeed, given his numerous encounters with Muslims, it is reasonable to assume there were at least sixty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Now, is this only Dr. Geisler\u2019s claim after the fact\u2014a cover story quickly devised once Dr. Caner\u2019s disingenuousness had been exposed before the very eye of astonished mankind? Hardly. \u00a0For as long ago as 2010, in the article on his own Web site, Mr. X quotes Dr. Caner himself, thus:<\/p>\n I will get e-mails \u2026 through the website and they will say, \u201cWhere are your debates?\u201d And my debates are all here, they\u2019re all free. And here are some of the rules that go with it. Even though I\u2019ve done \u2019em for 20 years, I don\u2019t believe debate is only formal<\/strong>. As a matter of fact, I believe you are severely limiting yourself if the only exposure you have to other world religions is through formal debate. I believe the most effective means of sharing the truth of Jesus Christ the exclusive nature of salvation through Christ can only be found through conversation<\/strong>. \u2026 I became dissatisfied with formal debate and quite frankly disgusted with some of the practitioners in that passive-aggressive methods of shaking their head and making noises, embarrassing themselves by acting petulant. And so, like I said, about five, six years ago, I became convinced that there had to be another way. What we\u2019ve done is we\u2019ve established 3D, which stands for debate, dialog, and discussion<\/em>, where [Now, pay attention here to what Dr. Caner describes as an example of \u201cdebate\u201d under this definition.]<\/span><\/strong> we sit around the table and I interview, for instance in this first season a Unitarian Universalist, a Druid, etc. and it\u2019s free form. I even tell them ahead of time, \u201cI will never provoke you. I cannot ask you trick questions and this isn\u2019t the Jerry Springer show. In other words there\u2019s not going to be a moment where you have to lurch out of your chair to defend yourself.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Now, what I have next to me\u2014on my very desk, dear reader\u2014is a copy of the American Heritage Dictionary (paperback edition of 2004). \u00a0I took care to consult this valuable resource, to see whether Dr. Caner and Dr. Geisler had been playing fast-and-loose with the word \u201cdebate.\u201d And what I discovered was that the definition supplied by those two worthy scholars was\u2014wait for it\u2014the very same<\/em>! as definition #2. In AHD\u2019s own words, to debate is (take notes, Mr. X) \u201cto discuss opposing points.\u201d In fact, he who consults the AHD will have to continue all the way to the very\u00a0last<\/em> definition to find Mr. X\u2019s exclusive, singular understanding of the word: \u201cA formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.\u201d \u00a0So there you are, dear reader. Far from Dr. Caner and Dr. Geisler playing fast-and-loose with the word, Mr. X is playing slow-and-tight. For Mr. X, it is as though the word \u201cdebate\u201d is a strait gate and a narrow way.<\/p>\n Observe how Mr. X insists on treating his one among several possible usages as though it were normative:<\/p>\n This discussion helps to highlight that Dr. Caner is aware of the fact that these interviews are not formal debates. \u00a0While he might like to call them \u201c3D,\u201d he seems to be aware that there is no \u201cdebating\u201d going on in the conventional sense of the term<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Now, I checked, and rechecked, and rechecked again, and checked a fourth time for good measure; and I invite you to check any dictionary of your choosing. I find nothing which would lead me to conclude that Mr. X\u2019s definition is \u201cconventional\u201d while the others are \u201cunconventional.\u201d There is nothing in the dictionary to indicate that those who use the word in this<\/em> sense are using it in the normal sense, whereas those who use it in that<\/em> sense are devious obscurantists who have to be watched with a close eye by the blogging community and apologetics police. It would seem, from a glance at the dictionary, that Mr. X\u2019s definition is but one among equals.\u00a0<\/p>\n Howbeit, Mr. X goeth on to \u2019plain that the debates Dr. Caner listed on iTunes(R) were not \u201cformal.\u201d He remains undaunted by the fact that he has just<\/em> quoted Dr. Caner as saying that he never meant formal debates in the first place. If in King Lear<\/em> Lear hath cause to \u2019plain, in the blogosophere Mr. X hath wont to \u2019plain. Saith Mr. X:<\/p>\n From what I could tell, in every case the format was roughly the same: \u00a0the visitor was interviewed with a series of questions designed to learn more about the religion. \u00a0Sometimes the questions are pointed questions. \u00a0Sometimes there are questions back to Dr. Caner. However, the interviews appear to be mostly designed to inform the students about the religious group whose representative was interviewed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Isn\u2019t that the very way Dr. Caner described them in the first place? \u00a0He said: \u201c[W]e sit around the table and I interview, for instance in this first season a Unitarian Universalist, a Druid, etc. and it\u2019s free form.\u201d Where\u2019s the inconsistency?<\/p>\n There doesn\u2019t seem to be any argument, which would seem to be a necessary component of debate.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In other words, Mr. X has spilled a lot of virtual ink in order to prove that the debates Dr. Caner lists were debates in the sense that Dr. Caner says he uses the word. How deceitful! What Dr. Caner should have done is to say, \u201cI don\u2019t believe debate is only formal,\u201d and then gone on to list only formal debates and include only formal debates among his total numbers.<\/p>\n But in fact, what Mr. X has done in his post is to (1) quote Dr. Caner to the effect that he uses the word \u201cdebate\u201d under sense\u00a0a<\/em>; (2) note that the debates Dr. Caner has done are consistent with sense\u00a0a<\/em>; \u00a0(3) claim, without any warrant from the dictionary, that sense\u00a0b<\/em> is the \u201cconventional\u201d sense of the word \u201cdebate\u201d; (4) accuse Dr. Caner of duplicity for not having done the kind of debates that he never claimed to have done in the first place.\u00a0<\/p>\n That, dear reader, is called sleight-of-hand.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Of course, the astute reader might be asking at this point, What does it matter how many debates Dr. Caner has done, or what kind? For essentially this is a dispute over usages of words. Why doesn\u2019t Mr. X accuse the dictionary people of lying? \u00a0Why all this pitch and moment to accuse Dr. Caner of every evil that men do under the sun because he remains consistent with the dictionary?<\/p>\n That is an apt question. \u00a0I asked it myself; and I asked it in that very venue for all right reason, Twitter. \u00a0(Those who have been reading my latest blog posts will know my opinion of the state of rational discourse on Twitter.)<\/p>\n https:\/\/twitter.com\/ScottEricAlt\/statuses\/380780359857610752<\/a><\/p>\n That was on September 19. A full six days later, on September 25, someone by the name of J.D. Hall, who runs this<\/a> Web site and describes himself in his Twitter profile as a \u201cplanter,\u201d interjected himself. \u00a0Now I don\u2019t know anything about Mr. J.D. \u00a0Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d beyond the exchange that he and I had on Twitter. \u00a0Apart from our exchange, he might be the gentlest soul this side of Purgatory. Perhaps he is straight-faced and rational except when the subject turns to Ergun Caner or Catholicism, at which point he is beset by seizures like Kramer suffered whenever he heard Mary Hart\u2019s voice. Perhaps these subjects are his full moon. \u00a0I don\u2019t know; all I know, and all I can judge by, is our exchange on Twitter. It began thus:<\/p>\n @scottericalt<\/a> You call habitually lying \u201ctrivial.\u201d Shame on you. #DOWNGRADE<\/a> Preaching repentance requires\u2026repentance.<\/p>\n \u2014 JD Hall (@PulpitAndPen) September 25, 2013>\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Notwithstanding this little imprecatory psalm, can anyone please tell me where in my original tweet I mentioned lying? \u00a0Point the word out to me if you can. I don\u2019t find it. And since I don\u2019t find it\u2014and you won\u2019t either, look as hard as you will, but don\u2019t waste too much of your day\u2014I can only conclude that Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d is planting words in my mouth. \u00a0I notified him of such.<\/p>\n @PulpitAndPen<\/a> No I did not. I said how many debates erguncaner<\/a> has done is a trivial subject. Sorry to disappoint you.<\/p>\n \u2014 Scott Eric Alt (@ScottEricAlt) September 25, 2013>\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Thus having been set aright as to my meaning, the uncorrectable Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d proceeded to accuse me\u2014oh, the irony\u2014of having poor reading comprehension skills.<\/p>\n @scottericalt<\/a> Is that the point of Dr.White\u2019s article you linked, number of debates? Or the number of LIES? #readingcomprehension<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 JD Hall (@PulpitAndPen) September 25, 2013>\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I actually do know a little bit about \u201creading comprehension,\u201d and would set my scores, on the most advanced test known to man, against his on any day at all. \u00a0Thus let me school Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d on a key point that seems to have sailed over his head into an ether unreachable by him: \u00a0The fact that \u201cErgun Caner\u2019s lies\u201d is TurretinFan\u2019s<\/em> point (not Dr.*<\/a> White\u2019s; Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d couldn\u2019t even get the author right, and he\u2019s lecturing me about reading comprehension) does not mean that it needs to be\u00a0mine<\/em>. \u00a0I can look at a piece of writing and derive my own points and conclusions, which need not necessarily be the author\u2019s. That is what is known as interacting with the text<\/em>, and constitutes a very sophisticated form of active reading.<\/p>\n Undaunted as Mr. X, Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d was not done.<\/p>\n @scottericalt<\/a> the substance was not about erguncaner<\/a>\u2018s # of debates, but his lies about the # of debates. You are minimalizing his sin.\/p><\/p>\n \u2014 JD Hall (@PulpitAndPen) September 25, 2013>\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Actually, the word this Man of Letters is looking for is \u201cminimizing.\u201d \u00a0And the \u201csubstance\u201d of Mr. X\u2019s article may have been Dr. Caner\u2019s \u201clies,\u201d but that was not the substance of my tweet. \u00a0Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d seems intent on confusing the two.<\/p>\n There is a more important point to be made here, though: \u00a0I can hardly \u201cminimize\u201d a sin I dispute occurred in the first place. Nowhere did I once state that I accepted the premise that Dr. Caner \u201csinned\u201d when talking about the debates he has done. \u00a0Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d simply assumes it. \u00a0One hashtag: #readingcomprehension.<\/p>\n But Mr. J.D. Hall, \u201cplanter,\u201d was not done, and felt obliged to end with the following Christian volley:<\/p>\n @scottericalt<\/a> But then again, you think your sin is paid for by a treasury of merit, so defending a heretic kinda makes sense now.><\/p>\n \u2014 JD Hall (@PulpitAndPen) September 25, 2013>\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I am lost\u2014perhaps you are too, dear reader\u2014what the fact that I am Catholic has to do with the preceding discussion. \u00a0My defense of Dr. Caner, such as it was at the moment, had nothing to do with my Catholicism, or with any doctrine of the Church. \u00a0Dr. Geisler has defended Dr. Caner, but last I checked he\u2019s not Catholic. Neither is Dr. Caner Catholic, to my knowledge.\u00a0What does it mean to say, in effect, \u201cYou only defend Dr. Caner because you\u2019re Catholic and heretics stick together\u201d?<\/p>\n Twitter is not the venue for the reasoned exchange of ideas; if anything, the opposite is the case. \u00a0That is why I\u2019ve stopped engaging in back-and-forth barbs on Twitter. Emotive folly runs wild, and Internet Calvinism on that pustule of a site is likewise in need of a strong dose of sulfa. \u00a0But let not your heart be troubled, dear reader. \u00a0That\u2019s the reason I am here, and why I respond on my blog, where I can reason out a thought and ponder evidence; and not on Twitter, where I am limited to a 150-character one-liner. \u00a0I think in paragraphs; I consider and I weigh. Here<\/em> is where I do it.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Update<\/strong>. J.D. Hall, to his credit, has had a change of heart<\/a> about his approach to Dr. Caner. The article in Christian Post<\/em> goes on to say that the same can not be said for Dr.*<\/a> James White. See also this<\/a> post by Peter Lumpkins.<\/p>\n If you like the content on this blog, your generous gift to the author<\/a> helps to keep it active. I remember all my supporters in my Mass intentions each week<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WORDS ARE MADE TO BEND<\/h6>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
TWISTED TRUTH AND HALF THE NEWS<\/h6>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
***<\/h6>\n
![\"image\"](\"http:\/\/wp.production.patheos.com\/blogs\/scottericalt\/files\/2013\/10\/image-3.jpg\")
<\/a>I have next to me\u2009 a copy of the Amer\u00adi\u00adcan Her\u00aditage Dic\u00adtio\u00adnary. I looked at this valu\u00adable resource, to see whether Dr. Caner has been play\u00ading fast-and-loose with the word \u201cdebate.\u201d And what I dis\u00adcov\u00adered was that the def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion sup\u00adplied by he & Dr. Geisler is lo! the very same<\/em> as def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion #2. To debate is \u201cto dis\u00adcuss oppos\u00ading points.\u201d In fact, he who con\u00adsults the AHD will have to con\u00adtinue all the way to the very last def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion to find Mr. X\u2019s sin\u00adgu\u00adlar under\u00adstand\u00ading of the word.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2705,"featured_media":3907,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-answers-for-calvinists","category-debates"],"yoast_head":"\n