A key aspect of Apologetics is to present opinion as if it is fact. Some examples here.
But to give professional Apologists their due, they do at least spend time researching and referring to primary or academic sources. But Amateur Apologists (AAs) as found on discussion boards, Twitter etc. often don't have the time or inclination to say, read a book, or develop a deep understanding of a subject. Their tendency is to present 2nd or 3rd hand opinions, blogs, Wikipedia entries etc. which they have discovered by googling. Rarely will the AA examine the provenance of the opinions they are copying and pasting. All they need is an opinion on a website that agrees with their opinion.
1 The Seductive Lure of Google
Imagine you are presented with a point of view which you fundamentally disagree with but you can't back up your opinion with facts. Never mind! A quick Google search will find thousands of pages where other people have provided a ready made counter argument. Just copy and paste that, job done!
Here's an example of an Apologist encouraging his pals to adopt his Google strategy:
"I just want to express my appreciation to the many people in our club who post and share their thoughts and perspectives both here and on the xxxxxxxxx Religion Board! We are to expect God's word to always be under assault and our faith misrepresented but the New Atheists may be the most aggressive group in doing so in our day and age.
I understand that not all feel called to participate in the discussions here but I do hope that all will be prepared to meet the challenges of this group since our children, grandchildren and others have been, are being and will be exposed to their tactics. If not following or participating in discussions on such matters here, I hope that all will google specific information on line for responding to such within your particular faith perspective!
Wishing God's rich blessings on all of you!"
Wow. Serious stuff, especially if the children and grandchildren being at risk! However, my recommendation to the Apologist's audience would be to refer to work by respected authors and academics and understand what their arguments are, and then to draw one's own conclusions which one can confidently defend.
Google and Wikipedia can be a good starting point on that journey, but copying and pasting an opinion found online is not what I would recommend.
Now of course, on a discussion board or Twitter, a rapid response might be needed. Hence the temptation to Google-copy-paste. But far better, in my opinion, to take some time, days if necessary, to research and learn. This is rewarding in itself and will enable a proper understanding and therefore a more informed argument. And increased credibility!
2 Examples
Googling for opinions without understanding the sources can backfire. Some examples.
There's a classic example here of an AA quoting an opinion backed up with a reference to a respected text book. Examination of the text book (which the AA appears not to have read) reveals nothing to support the AA's argument. The book has been referenced to add some kind of credibility to the AA's opinion which, it transpires, was copied from an uncredited Creationist blog. The AA assumed the blogger had done some diligent research using the book, which meant it was safe to copy the Creationist blogger's opinion. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
2.2 The Self Refuting Reference
When AAs don't understand or read what they are referring to, they can end up providing information that contradicts or refutes the point they are trying to make. Here are some examples:
2.2.1 The Limits of Atheism
An AA Googles for a source that is critical of atheism, so that he can challenge non-believers to refute it. His Google results finds an essay from a reliable source, entitled "The Limits of Atheism". It looks serious and well respected. And with a title like that, it must be critical of atheism by exposing its limits. Right? Er... no. It's actually an excellent illustration of how the English Christian establishment discriminated against atheists until relatively recently. Even better, it's a first hand account by a high profile atheist who was the last person to be jailed for blasphemy. If only the Apologist had read it before referring to it.
More detail here
2.2.2 The Hard Problem of Consciousness
An AA believes there is a divine element to consciousness (he's a fan of Rupert Sheldrake) and Googles for information that will demolish the idea that science can explain consciousness and in particular, he wants to demolish the argument that physical processes in the brain can be responsible for the "inner life" we experience through consciousness and intelligence, or the mind in general. It is obviously key to Apologetics that there must be more to life than just physical processes.
The AA finds a famous paper produced by David Chalmers in 1995 - Chalmers actually coined the phrase "hard problem of consciousness". The AA copies and pastes a few paragraphs from the paper which outline many of the questions that neuroscience is currently working to answer. However, the AA failed to take into account that the paper is 20 years old, and that's a long time in neuroscience. But more importantly, the AA appears not to have read Chalmers' conclusion...
“Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.”
This is not the conclusion that the AA wanted to hear, and if he'd read the text before he pasted it, or perhaps done some research on Chalmers, or perhaps researched some more recent papers, perhaps he wouldn't have drawn attention to this paper.
2.3 Biased About Bias
When AAs are Googling for counter-arguments they will be drawn to web sites that agree with their opinion, and they automatically assume what they are reading must be true (confirmation bias). The reliability or provenance of those websites, or the motivation of the authors, does not seem to matter.
In this example, an AA is determined to demonstrate that one of the reasons for the decline in Christianity in the developed world is due to media bias. His target is the BBC, and to prove his point, he refers to sources that are biased against the BBC. In one example the content is third hand. In all cases, when the source material is referred to, it becomes obvious the sources used by the AA have cherry picked and quote mined to make their point.
No comments:
Post a Comment