OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Run Away

Entry 503, on 2007-03-27 at 14:39:02 (Rating 3, Comments)

I try to be fair and give my debating opponents on my blog a fair deal, I really do! But it seems that there is a point where they just get scared and run away. I've listened to a lot of well known experts debate theology, especially religion vs science, and they always seem to get back to using the same tricks.

Their first trick is to change the subject. As soon as they are shown to be wrong, or it looks like that is about to happen, they like to move the debate on to something new. This is very common in the debates I have heard broadcast by the Infidel Guy, for example.

Secondly, they like to make arbitrary quotes, often out of context, and pretend that they have some general importance in the debate. Opinions are significant, but they aren't important compared with looking at the subject as a whole. They are also often irrelevant. For example, one I heard recently is whether string theory has a lot of relevance to scientific theories of the origins of the Universe. Well it doesn't really, but theists seem to think the (quite valid) criticism of string theory disproves modern cosmology.

Thirdly, they like to appeal to mystery. Statements like "science doesn't know everything" and "you can never prove anything is 100% true" are quite correct, but they don't really make alternative philosophies any more likely, because they are also affected by the same uncertainties.

And when things get really desperate (or when the person just doesn't have any better arguments to start with) they use the argument from personal incredulity. For example "evolution can't be true because it seems to be impossible for life to have evolved into the advanced forms we have today purely at random". Sometimes they throw in a totally invalid statistic like "the chances of life evolving this way are 1:10^63". Yeah, sure.

As I said above, the final tactic is to just run away. This is easy in on-line discussion forums and blogs. I don't think I have ever reached the point where the theist has said anything like "you've got a point, I need to look at that more carefully". There have been occasions when I have reached similar conclusions myself: but not when debating religion.

Comment 1 (584) by 999 on 2007-03-29 at 02:56:16:

I see what you mean, a lot of people do that! But, I have seen some people that are Christians on your blogs say that they agree with some things you are saying. So, you can't say that nobody does.

Comment 2 (587) by OJB on 2007-03-29 at 09:15:51:

Some Christians agreeing with me? I must have missed that one! My point is that there is a consistent refusal to answer the "big questions" and a consistent use of the same old arguments which have already been shown to be invalid.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.