.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for your explanations and clarifications.

Please allow me, in turn, to refer you to the British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic, Bertrand Russell, whose debating techniques are not generally considered to be of an irrational nature.

In his 1952 article "Is there a God", Russell coined an analogy in order to parody religious argument. This is " Russell's teapot". Here is the link to the article:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

Contemporary versions of "Russell's teapot" are the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Though parodies of this nature are generally not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result, they are an appeal to common sense which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way".

Cicero pointed out that the orator had to take into account the common sense of the crowd if he were to influence them. John Locke seems to have been of a similar state of mind in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".

William of Ockham and his "Ockham's razor" maxim is not exactly at odds with this principle in so far as it celebrates the virtue of simplicity as a criterion of choice among competing theories.

These are some of the reasons, George, why I feel justified in thinking that parody as an appeal to common sense has its place in rational debate.

Which, of course, does not exclude the fact that parody is just as falsifiable as anything else you may consider to be authentic rational debate.

.

Dear Banjo,

I also thank you for making me think and formulate what I want to say more carefully. I understand your post as confirming that we have different understandings of what is rational debate.

As for “Russell’s teapot” - an example of something whose existence cannot be verified (by methods available to science) - it is not so much a parody, as an analogy and, as you rightly point out, “an appeal to common sense” (which today is dubious even when trying to understand physical reality as conveyed through quantum physics, not to mention metaphysics). The message is clear: “belief in the existence of God is like belief in that teapot”. The same about the other two examples.

On the other hand, you have Pailey’s watch and watchmaker (extended by Stephen Barr into "Paley finds a watch and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point.”).

These are all analogies, reassuring to those who see it the same way, and making others think deeper about their reasons for not seeing it that way.

I fail to see something like this in your "Onward, Christian soldiers" post, although this is probably due to the difference not so much in our world views as in what we call rational in a debate.

>>Cicero pointed out that the orator had to take into account the common sense of the crowd if he were to influence them<<
Exactly, the orator - or religious preacher or Richard Dawkins - when talking to a “crowd” that he wants to influence, which is not exactly my idea of a rational debate.

.

Dear George,

.

I think you've summed it up quite well.

The thing that bothers me most with your definition of what constitutes a rational debate is that, in my view, it is a little too clinical. Dare I say, a little too "inhuman" for my liking.

It gives me the impression that the subject matter is "laboratory experiment" or "scientific research" rather than human debate.

Let us not forget that we human beings are warm blooded creatures with character, personality, energy and imagination. We are not robots, computers or machines operating on artificial intelligence.

Rationality, it seems, is not an exact science. Scientific progress is not necessarily due to any so-called rational process. I understand it is often due to some inexplicable, unexpected, fortuitous flash of inspiration, what we call "a stroke of genius".

I am sure you are familiar with the works of the German sociologist, philosopher and political economist, Max Weber. No doubt you are more familiar than I am with his writings on rationality and rationalization.

I understand he saw four types of rationality: practical, theoretical, substantive and formal. From what I can gather, he was seeking to identify and analyse universal characteristics of socio-cultural patterns, which, of course, is not necessarily pertinent to the question in hand of "what constitutes a rational debate".

It is nevertheless indicative of the polymorphous nature of the notion of "rationality" and I mention it for this reason.

I'll leave it at that as I feel I am getting into deep water.

I am sorry you did not like my "Onward, Christian soldiers" parody. Not only does it seem rational to me, but, I must confess I secretly consider that to be an understatement. I honestly think the scenario will prove to be fairly close to reality. Time will tell.

Am I right in guessing that even if it does turn out to be close to reality, you will, nevertheles, still consider my parody to be irrational ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for challenging me.

We keep on agreeing that we disagree on what we see as rational debate (I did not, and would not dare to, offer an explicit definition). Now you speak of “human debate”. I am not sure what you mean by that, but I certainly did not see your “parody”, apparently dictated by some negative life experiences and emotions, as “inhuman” or “irrational”, only that - since you formulated it as a response to Otokonoko - I did not see it as an argument addressing his analysis/views (on matters this thread is about) in a way that Otokonoko, or anybody else, could respond with a counter-argument.

You are right about the “deep water” concerning rationality as such, since it is such a basic philosophical concept that you can describe it only using other undefined concepts.

Usually one speaks of the tripple
(a) AESTHETIC (“primordial”, “unanalysed”, “semiconscious”) experience (Erlebnis in German),
(b) RATIONAL (thought processes, analyses) thinking,
(c) MORAL (following some norms) actions,
corresponding to the three norms, or ideals or primary categories: BEAUTY, TRUTH and GOODNESS of Plato. I am used to looking at the world (outside and inside me) though these three “lenses”. Well, some deep water indeed that I do not want to elaborate on.

I do not understand what you mean by your post being “close to reality”. Of course, there is an English hymn called "Onward, Christian soldiers”, so that is not only close to, but it is, a reality. If you want me to say whether I agree with this or that statement, you have to make it explicit. On the other hand, I can sense the emotions conveyed by the “parody”, and I think you will not be surprised that I do not share them.

.

Dear George,

.

It's always a pleasure exchanging with you. We seem to be so different that whatever you have to say, I learn something that I would otherwise never have imagined.

Why "human debate"? Because I was opposing it to possible debate with a robot or a computer, e.g., similar to the two match chess competition between Gary Kasparof and Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer (as you will recall, the human won the first match and the computer won the second).

I thought my parody replied almost line by line to Otokonoko's concerns though it is quite obvious that it was not the sort of reply he was expecting. Like all satires, the parody has a somewhat destabilizing effect. Its form produces a psychological impact that jolts the mind out of its traditional way of thinking and, unless there are major intellectual or psychological barriers or prejudices, opens up new (common sense) perspectives.

At the end of the day, I think Otokonoko, like most defenders of the Catholic Church, will be happy to take comfort in what will probably be the "happy end" (for the Church) of the Royal Commission's investigation, as predicted in the parody - though, perhaps, a little disappointed that the roots of the problem will largely remain undisturbed and unattended, deeply imbedded within its structure.

Thank you for sharing your three "lenses" with me. I am sure they are useful tools and will help me understand your way of seeing things.

What I meant by the eventuality of the parody proving to be "close to reality" is the eventuality that the scenario described in the parody (or something very similar to it) actually takes place in real life. Though it may seem farfetched today, imagine that things actually happen (more or less) as described in the parody.

My question then is: am I right in thinking you will still consider that my parody has no place in "rational debate", despite the fact that, as things finally turn out, it proves to correspond , (more or less), to what will have actually occurred ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for your reaction, which made me reread for the x-th time both Otokonoko’s post and your response ridiculing the Catholic Church in general (not just its involvement with the peadophile scandals) without addressing Otokonoko’s claims/opinions. Or those of the article claiming this was ultimately not so much a 'Catholic' problem as an institutional problem, because institutions in general protect their own, obstruct inquiries.

Otokonoko: “It does bother me that the Catholic Church seems to be trying to deflect attention. … That church leaders seem desperate to adopt the role of "victim" sullies his reputation as well. … Cardinal Pell needs to suck it up, cooperate with the investigation and put on a public display - backed by actual action - of ensuring that these atrocities and their cover-ups are stamped out for good.” This to me does not sound as if Otokonoko was a “defender of the Catholic Church” in these matters.

If I understand your “predictions”, you do not trust the Royal Commission’s ablility to arrive at a fair and just verdict. What investigative body would you then trust, a kangaroo court?

I thought I already answered your last question. As far as its formulation is concerned, how would you like a question like “am I right in thinking you are still an atheist despite the fact that, as things finally turn out, it proves to correspond (more or less), to …” insert here e.g. a similarly sweeping association of atheism with Communism.

I think we have now repeatedly confirmed that we not only have very different world-view perspectives - at least as far as the meaning, merits and faults of Christianity and Catholicism are concerned - but also have different views of what is rational debate, and different tastes, as far as posting ridiculing “parodies” about other people’s world views are concerned.

Beside that, I think we have begun to go around in circles. Nevertheless, thanks for this opportunity to clarify things to myself.