Philosophy Now Forum

Noting the importance of the word 'folk' here (and I'm open to a different term), my experience with many atheists, in both the courses I've taught and personal conversation, has been of a tendency to respond to those who defend theism (and are theist) with something along the lines of "of course you'd think that. You're a theist." This has always struck me as Bulverism. Since I gather there are more than a few atheists here, I'd be interested in your take on this (as well as the theists').

(And just to head off some of the red herrings or strawmen that might follow, I fully acknowledge that there are good arguments to be brought to bear in defense of atheism or attack of theism. Nevertheless, my sneaking suspicion is that many atheists do not know them well—or do not know them well enough—and so instead fall back on this sort of circumstantial ad hominem rather than do the hard work of engaging an argument that they themselves do not find compelling. (I know quite a lot of theists who do this, so it's certainly not limited to just one side.))

ReliStuPhD wrote:Noting the importance of the word 'folk' here (and I'm open to a different term), my experience with many atheists, in both the courses I've taught and personal conversation, has been of a tendency to respond to those who defend theism (and are theist) with something along the lines of "of course you'd think that. You're a theist." This has always struck me as Bulverism. Since I gather there are more than a few atheists here, I'd be interested in your take on this (as well as the theists').

(And just to head off some of the red herrings or strawmen that might follow, I fully acknowledge that there are good arguments to be brought to bear in defense of atheism or attack of theism. Nevertheless, my sneaking suspicion is that many atheists do not know them well—or do not know them well enough—and so instead fall back on this sort of circumstantial ad hominem rather than do the hard work of engaging an argument that they themselves do not find compelling. (I know quite a lot of theists who do this, so it's certainly not limited to just one side.))

As a life-long non-believer in silly things, I must say I have never said that once in my life.

For those unfamiliar with the term, "Bulverism" is C.S. Lewis's whimsical synonym for "gratuitously ad hominem," a generally-recognized logical fallacy.

Do you have an example of the sort of thing you mean?

Immanuel Can wrote:For those unfamiliar with the term, "Bulverism" is C.S. Lewis's whimsical synonym for "gratuitously ad hominem," a generally-recognized logical fallacy.

Do you have an example of the sort of thing you mean?

In no way is this meant to be rude, but I linked to the Wiki on "Bulverism" in the post. It may not stand out, so I just wanted to mention that to save anyone the need to flesh out the concept here. Your summary is perfectly correct, however.

As for a specific example, what would immediately come to mind is an argument that goes something like 'You are a Christian because you have a personal interest in the eternal salvation of soul. Had you not been raised in such a manner that you believed your soul was in need of salvation, you would be able to "see through" your particular brand of theism. Your upbringing is blinding you to the truth of atheism.' We need not take that word-for-word, but I believe I've gotten the gist of the argument correct. I will try to find an direct quote we can chew on if the approximation I've used here doesn't sound familiar to anyone.

A cruder form: "You're only saying atheism is wrong because you're a Christian."

(Also, as mentioned in my first post, this may not be a proper use of the term 'folk' in the context of philosophy, so that particular term can be reworked as needed.)

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:As a life-long non-believer in silly things, I must say I have never said that once in my life.

This is always good to hear.

In no way is this meant to be rude, but I linked to the Wiki on "Bulverism" in the post.

Yeah, I know...no insult taken. I just know that people often read half of a thing and then react in a knee-jerk way, especially with a "hot" topic like this. Others just click on the article, glance at it, don't think enough, and then respond. Either tendency derails a perfectly good discussion.

I didn't want to see you catch needless flack. You had a good question, and a fair one.

Thanks for the examples. And yes, I think they're very clearly "Bulverisms."

ReliStuPhD wrote:Noting the importance of the word 'folk' here (and I'm open to a different term), my experience with many atheists, in both the courses I've taught and personal conversation, has been of a tendency to respond to those who defend theism (and are theist) with something along the lines of "of course you'd think that. You're a theist." This has always struck me as Bulverism. Since I gather there are more than a few atheists here, I'd be interested in your take on this (as well as the theists').

(And just to head off some of the red herrings or strawmen that might follow, I fully acknowledge that there are good arguments to be brought to bear in defense of atheism or attack of theism. Nevertheless, my sneaking suspicion is that many atheists do not know them well—or do not know them well enough—and so instead fall back on this sort of circumstantial ad hominem rather than do the hard work of engaging an argument that they themselves do not find compelling. (I know quite a lot of theists who do this, so it's certainly not limited to just one side.))

Thanks a lot for giving some of the nits on this forum another polysyllabic name to apply to one another, i.e. a philosophically correct slur.

Have you considered the possibility that theism and atheism are equally stupid belief systems?

Greylorn

Have you considered the possibility that theism and atheism are equally stupid belief systems?

On the face of it, this would not seem possible. Basic laws of logic rule it out.

If we take bare-bones Atheism to be the declaration "there is no God," and bare-bones Theism to be the contrary, "There is [a] God," then there are only two possibilities, and they're rationally covered.

So the answer should be "No, I have not considered the 'possibility'...because it is actually rationally impossible."

Or did you have some other idea in mind?

Greylorn Ell wrote:Have you considered the possibility that theism and atheism are equally stupid belief systems?

This would have no bearing on the charge of Bulverism, which speaks not to the belief itself but to the ad-hominem dismissal thereof.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Have you considered the possibility that theism and atheism are equally stupid belief systems?

On the face of it, this would not seem possible. Basic laws of logic rule it out.

If we take bare-bones Atheism to be the declaration "there is no God," and bare-bones Theism to be the contrary, "There is [a] God," then there are only two possibilities, and they're rationally covered.

So the answer should be "No, I have not considered the 'possibility'...because it is actually rationally impossible."

Or did you have some other idea in mind?

I.C.

Ah ha! The old amateur philosopher's ploy, a straw man argument. Good try.

I used the terms theism and atheism deliberately, because they encompass a wider bandwidth of possible ideas. You want to switch to a silly subset of theism/atheism by dragging "God," into it.

This at first seems legitimate on the grounds that replacing theism with God, presumably the omniscient, almighty God of modern monotheistic religions, would not be a straw man argument because theistic religions invented God. Alas, those fools created their own straw man, a logically impossible concept.

I think that gods were originally invented by people trying to explain the mysteries of the universe and the characteristics of our planet, e.g. Apollo to escort the sun across the sky, Thor to manage the weather. Mathematical physics had yet to be discovered, so science had little hope of overcoming its earth-bound perspectives. Gods were the only way to explain things. Unfortunately, Hermes Trismegistus came up with the dimwitted idea of consolidating the specialist gods, and religious philosophy has been screwed up ever since.

Big Bang theory has replaced the omnipotent God by way of an explanation for the beginnings of our universe and selves, but a careful thinker will note that BB theory is functionally identical to the God theory.

I'm looking for a valid description of the origins of the universe and my own consciousness, and cannot find it in either modern science or any popular religion. If I could, I'd not care about atheism vs. theism as you and others compare and contrast them. But as ideas currently stand, as you elucidate by equating theism with belief that an Almighty spirit being created the universe, both modern theism and atheism are, IMO, equally incompetent belief systems.

As you guessed, I do have a Plan B. My broadband version of theism is the notion that conscious intelligence was an integral and essential element of our universe's beginnings. As my book details, the carriers of such intelligence are not spirits, are of limited intelligence, and came into existence via a natural and simple process.

Too many words. Sorry about that.

Greylorn

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:Have you considered the possibility that theism and atheism are equally stupid belief systems?

This would have no bearing on the charge of Bulverism, which speaks not to the belief itself but to the ad-hominem dismissal thereof.

RSP,

Perhaps I should apologize for being unqualified to reply to your OP. I wikied Bulverism before replying, and did not make much sense of it. I'm pretty much an engineer by trade, and took but one philosophy course, postgrad, after writing my own philosophy book.

I've never understood philosophers' preoccupations with the nature or style of arguments. I'm trained to find solutions, not to categorize or formalize them; moreover the categorization of non-solutions or crummy arguments is an exercise in futility. So effing what if a bad argument is a Bulverism? I can only conclude that modern philosophy is a make-work field for people not smart enough to drive tractors, herd cattle, fix cars, etc.

As a consequence of my poor attitude I mistook your OP for an invitation to address theism vs. atheism in a non-Bulveristic manner. Declaring both to be bullshit seemed a good start.

However, if you prefer that your thread be dedicated to a formal discussion of arguments that do not work, categorized by a physics-ignorant religious apologist (but nonetheless excellent writer and storyteller-- C.S. Lewis), whose eloquent presentations of his beliefs are themselves illogical, and who named his irrelevant category after a fictional person, I'm happy to take any legitimate philosophical arguments elsewhere. Consider it done.

Greylorn

Too many words. Sorry about that.

Yeah, I'm really struggling to find something worth addressing in there. It all just looks off-topic for this thread, just as you note.

This is maybe a debate we'd be best to hold elsewhere. For now, let's deal with Bulverism, or if you prefer, the ad hominem fallacy.

You actually modelled it rather nicely in your second last message by disparaging both Lewis and me in a presumptuous sort of way, as if that somehow helped your case. Bulver would be proud.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:Have you considered the possibility that theism and atheism are equally stupid belief systems?

This would have no bearing on the charge of Bulverism, which speaks not to the belief itself but to the ad-hominem dismissal thereof.

RSP,

Perhaps I should apologize for being unqualified to reply to your OP. I wikied Bulverism before replying, and did not make much sense of it. I'm pretty much an engineer by trade, and took but one philosophy course, postgrad, after writing my own philosophy book.

I've never understood philosophers' preoccupations with the nature or style of arguments. I'm trained to find solutions, not to categorize or formalize them; moreover the categorization of non-solutions or crummy arguments is an exercise in futility. So effing what if a bad argument is a Bulverism? I can only conclude that modern philosophy is a make-work field for people not smart enough to drive tractors, herd cattle, fix cars, etc.

As a consequence of my poor attitude I mistook your OP for an invitation to address theism vs. atheism in a non-Bulveristic manner. Declaring both to be bullshit seemed a good start.

However, if you prefer that your thread be dedicated to a formal discussion of arguments that do not work, categorized by a physics-ignorant religious apologist (but nonetheless excellent writer and storyteller-- C.S. Lewis), whose eloquent presentations of his beliefs are themselves illogical, and who named his irrelevant category after a fictional person, I'm happy to take any legitimate philosophical arguments elsewhere. Consider it done.

Greylorn

Immanuel Can wrote: ...Bulver would be proud.

If he existed. And that summarizes my complaint with those who label themselves philosophers. They invent irrelevant notions to discuss. How, then, can they be relevant to whatever forms reality takes?

Greylorn

...that summarizes my complaint with those who label themselves philosophers. They invent irrelevant notions to discuss. How, then, can they be relevant to whatever forms reality takes?

Seriously?

Okay, I'll give a serious answer, even if I find the question...well, I suppose the phrase I want is "unbelievably naïve." Sorry...that's how I see it.

I don't want to be mean, but what you say is like saying "Theoretical physics is useless, because it doesn't build bridges." Or like saying, "Economic theory is useless because it doesn't make my business successful." It just looks like a lack of understanding of the whole enterprise.

Okay, enough metaphors. What philosophers argue in theory has huge, huge potential payoffs in the real world. I don't mean endless caviling and gratuitous contradiction do that, but that the careful working through of ideas in the hypothetical, the conceptual solving of problems, eliminating of irrationalities and grounding of intentions gives us huge gains in terms of the clarity of our thoughts and plans, and costs us not a cent, no tears, and not a drop of human blood. Working controversies out in real life costs plenty of all three sometimes.

If that line of thought doesn't impress you, okay. And if you don't like philosophers, then I suppose you can go and do whatever else you find useful to do. You're not obliged to participate in an activity you think is useless, of course. But I find it a staggeringly naïve perspective, honestly.

This reminds me of Philosophy 101 in the class on subjectivity and objectivity. Objectively, what can we learn that will benefit me right now? Subjectively, what can we learn that might benefit us all in the future?