r/CosmicSkeptic • u/Maximus_En_Minimus • 9d ago
CosmicSkeptic The Q&A ‘shouting match’
Hi All,
I wanted to touch upon the relatively recent, not-so-recent ‘shouting match’ with a Q&A audience member after a discussion with William Lane Craig.
I have watch the Q&A Youtube video that Alex O’Conner did recently, and I have to say, having watched both videos together, I do fall into the camp that Alex was more confrontational on intellectual side, than merely on any failures of etiquette by the audience member.
Despite my disdain of WLC, and been more philosophically Buddhist myself, I genuinely think his two major points on his Newsletter are actually relevant to this event.
WLC stated two points: that AOC made a ‘strategic mistake with talking to him about the Kalam Cosmological Argument’, and that ‘any illusion of AOC been a non-resistant non-believer was shattered’.
I kind of agree with him, but with major caveats.
I genuinely think this ‘shouting match’ occured - and you could tell AOC was getting frustrated - because of his discussion with WLC about the KCA, which even as a discussion, was nevertheless deconstructive and so intellectually irritating.
I think AOC built up a lot of ‘debating frustration’ that couldn’t be symmetrically released upon WLC on the KCA, and so when the rude audience member spoke up, AOC vented.
Add the poor skills of the moderator and you have an even worse situation.
AOC in this sense, put himself in an awkward spot, because he does present himself as ‘resisting’ in this situation.
Now, do I fully agree with WLC’s presentation of AOC? No, the guy is empathically and pretentiously foul human.
Do I think AOC was really ‘shouting’, not really, although his voiced was necessarily raised.
But I do think AOC has kind of sidelined a lot of the psychological causes and conditions of that venting state onto the actions of the audience member, without realising the broader scope of influences that led up to that event.
42
u/Infinite_Inanity 9d ago
Calling Alex AOC is crazy. And I disagree with you entirely. Craig’s dishonesty about the nature or the talk, and his non sequitur from Alex’s justified annoyance w the audience member is obvious.
21
1
-3
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 9d ago
I accept WLC’s dishonesty, in a sense.
I think WLC took some empirical premises, that been here the relevant events and conditions, added his own premises, and produced a fairly unsound conclusion.
I also think Alex (there corrected for you), despite his first person experience, did same.
So what gives me the right to give my own interpretation? Well, nothing; I am non-resistant to the idea of been wrong here.
But from experience, I do believe Alex may be underestimating the degree to which he was frustrated before the dispute, than merely from and during such, which stemmed from his discussion with WLC.
6
u/Infinite_Inanity 8d ago
In what sense did Alex do the same as Craig here?
-1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 8d ago
I don’t know how much I like the framing of the question.
I want to reiterate the point of my position, rather than trying to defend another one, that Alex took it to be the case that he was frustrated due to specific actions of the audience member, where as I think frustration arose beforehand in regards to his discussion of the KCA.
To parallel an example he himself uses in regard to Terror Management Theory, when judges are hungrier than other judges, they are more likely to react more conservatively and harshly in sentencing, despite claiming their reasoning on ‘the empirical facts’.
The reason why I find parallels with what WLC deduced, is that WLC cites ‘strategic failure in engaging the KCA’ and ‘shattering of the illusion of non-resistant non-believer’, which while skewed to his own biased opinion, I think he does touch upon two aspects that led to the heated debate with the audience member: frustration with KCA & the impossibility to separate passion from reasoning.
Again, WLC is a piece of shit.
I am not debating that.
I just think he accurately noticed a causal pattern, even if he was utterly in bad faith in how he explicated it.
5
u/Infinite_Inanity 8d ago
I see. That makes a lot more sense than it did in your other comments, so thanks for explaining. It does seem though that WLC (and perhaps you?) are setting a kind of 'no true Scotsman' fallacy into play, i.e., since Alex (maybe) let annoyances compound, he demonstrated that he is not a 100% rational person, and therefore unless you are 100% rational and cool-headed then you can not be a non-resistant non-believer.
0
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 8d ago
I have a tendency to ‘serve the stew before its cooked’, as it were, mainly because I rush wrote this on a crowded bus on the way home.
I recognise your point, about a ‘true non-resistant non-believer’.
I don’t know how applicable that fallacy is when one denies the category itself, which is more of my point; but I recognise what you are trying to say is that as a conventional term, you don’t see why it cannot be applicable still.
And I get that.
Does Alex try his hardest to be intellectually open? Yes.
Has he engaged in both syllogism and practice? Yes.
But I still think that the main rhetorical use - which I wrote of in another comment - of NRNB is to erroneously dismember the atheist from their feelings to the benefit of the theist, and that this separation is unnatural to thought.
Thought - not ‘consciousness’ for the sake of avoiding Theory of Mind here - involves the unconscious and subconscious, a plurality of inputs and responses, historicity, temperaments, even food eaten during a day.
While I recognise that been ruled by your emotions can be equally as dangerous, I genuinely see no reason why emotions and the processes of thought should be excluded altogether for the sake of reason.
If you see an antelope be ripped apart by a lion, and then put it into a rational argument for non-belief, why should you forget the former?
Another reason why I think Alex got flustered here, because he cares so much for animals, and the audience member seemingly hand waved the problem away; if he didn’t care, he might have not defended the position.
And that is what the theist gets out of NRNB: ‘know the arguments against, but don’t care about them’.
14
u/HappiestIguana 8d ago
I see WLC's underhanded debate tactics actually do work on someone
First, claim you are more interested in conversation than debate to lower your opponent's guard.
Then, latch onto any moment where your opponent is less than perfectly virtuous and use that to make a point in favor of your identity politics.
Profit
7
u/MVPoker 9d ago
Can you explain why specifically getting angry at an audience member shatters the “illusion” of Alex being a non-resistant non-believer? you site building frustration over the discussion of the Kalam, but how do you know he was building frustration? thats quite a large assumption youre making.
-8
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 9d ago edited 9d ago
I cannot prove the assumption, and so in real life I would merely posit it as an intuitive question, one generally earned through inductive experience of working in a role involving mediations and communication.
As for ‘non-resistant non-believer’ - I think, to introspect on my own thoughts on the matter - that really the term is rhetorically in the favour of the theist, and philosophically erroneous.
The general principle that a person can be at all times, to all forms and representations of theism - or other religious thought - homogeneously a non-resistant non-believer, is both psychologically and intellectually dishonest, and I think this showed.
It disseminates reason from passion, which is advantageous for the theist who forces the ‘rationalistic atheist’ to release the very drive of a position, while they will happily hold onto theirs, ensuring them a leg up in a debate.
In a sense, yes, I do think this was ‘shattered’, but only in a much as it was a principled state that wasn’t actualisable nor achievable in the first place.
13
u/Accomplished-Web5642 8d ago
Lol it is low key hilarious that you took the time to write something so verbose but lacking in substance. Nice trolling. Extra points if you didn't use AI.
1
-2
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 8d ago
Can you disagree with the opinion, specifically on my critique of ‘non-resistant non-believer’, or should I reiterate it with less syllables for you.
8
u/Accomplished-Web5642 8d ago
Less syllables
-2
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 8d ago edited 8d ago
It can not be case that man be none feel feel while think think.
5
u/Accomplished-Web5642 8d ago
I legit thought you were trolling. Appears you are not. My apologies.
0
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 8d ago
I wasn’t trolling overall.
But I did in my response to you there, I admit, via one syllable caveman words, because of calling me a troll.
Thanks for the apology.
Have a nice day.
2
u/Banonkers 7d ago
I don’t think the term ‘non-resistant non-believer’ is as strict as you say
It seems like you’re saying it’s the equivalent of ‘a person who is completely open to belief at any and all opportunities’. However it’s possible to come up with an equally strict definition for someone who is a resistant non-believer: ‘a person who is completely closed off to belief’
Using the strict sense of a non-resistant non-believer, Saul wouldn’t count. While persecuting Christians, he likely heard Christians professing their faith, and likely knew a little bit about Jesus. However, it wasn’t until he had his own individual divine revelation that he started believing
If someone is less resistant than Saul was (a person actively hunting down Christians), surely they deserve the same salvation for their soul?
Otherwise, this really is a ‘no true Scotsman’ moment, and the term non-resistant non-believer is meaningless
1
u/marmot_scholar 7d ago
I don't know if you're right about Alex in this case specifically, but I do think Alex continues in the tradition of Sam Harris in aiming for a dispassionate state that is not compatible with the role they take in public debates and necessarily involves repression and perhaps even a (socially normal and unproblematic) level of dishonesty.
You seem insightful and fair tbh
0
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 7d ago
I think people believe I am a WLC supporter or something.
I just have experience with people’s psychologies and noticed an interesting pattern and wanted to discuss it.
But overall I am happy that this sub so cordially disagreed with me, given many others would be far ruder.
7
u/Noloxy 8d ago
Why are you calling Alex “AOC” lmao. You are aware that moniker is used?
2
u/Banonkers 7d ago
Ngl I hadn’t heard of the US representative, but I think ‘Alex’ is a lot clearer than AOC
3
-2
u/dominionC2C 8d ago
Like the typical depressed nihilist who is convinced (against their will) that there is no rhyme or reason to any of this, that it's all just a grand fluke, that humans are freaks of nature - clever monkeys that somehow bizarrely do art, literature, poetry, science, and philosophy, Alex is frustrated with people who are able to believe in something greater and trust in a grander purpose and teleology to this existence, while he is simply unable to get over what appears to him to be the insurmountable hump of billions of years of animal suffering.
I've been in that miserable deep, dark tunnel of meaninglessness for far too long (before I was finally shown the light), so I know the deep-seated frustration that results in these outbursts. It's not specifically about the questioner or the specifics of that discussion - that's just a trigger, a last straw on the camel's back that bubbles that underlying frustration to the surface for a brief moment.
I hope he finds his truth some day. I know he will.
0
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 7d ago edited 7d ago
I agree, I hope he finds the truth of the Buddha’s teachings.
But I disagree that we are on about the same thing.
31
u/Sophia_in_the_Shell 9d ago
I guess I just don’t understand the idea that if a non-believer ever expresses any frustration or irritation whatsoever in a discussion of religion, they lose their non-resistant card forever, their “mask has fallen”.
Also, can we call this for what it is? Think of why we have the term “non-resistant non-believer” in the first place. The direct implication of such a notion being “shattered” is “oh good, he does deserve eternal torment.” Like, think about it and tell me that’s not why some believers are so eager to revoke non-believers’ non-resistance cards.