Need your help with a debate.

JFrankA

Illuminator
JFrankA
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,054
Okay, I find myself kind of embarassed to post this because I hate not really being clear on things like this, and situtation I put myself in.

I got into a debate on Facebook. See, I am the only atheist out of a my friends there, all of them from high school and college, and most I haven't seen in 10 -20 years. They know me as the Catholic, so strongly, in fact, I firmly believed in remain celibate even after I lost my virginity.

Well, one of my closer old friends put up an article that he thought was thought provoking and important.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/02/god-the-sex-vote-and-human-dig.html

I made the mistake of saying "I disagree with it, but it's okay. Let's just agree to disagree."

Now they want to know why. To be honest, the article seems like meandering mess to me, trying so hard to prove his point, that he throws in a lot of philosophies that he has cherry picked. I am not sure of this because I am really not all that familiar with basic philosophy.

So here's my response to this article.

I want to keep this a succinct as possible. He starts off avoiding a logic fallacy, namely "correlation does not equal causation", so he basically avoids saying "uneducated people are the most religious people". Which he's absolutely right in so doing, and in fact, I agree with him there. But then, he goes on to use that same logical fallacy to prove his point, namely "poor people need structure and strong morals in their lives that only god, i.e. The Catholic Church, can give."

I didn't read the link he gave that has the term "Sex Vote" because he defined it himself. But it seems to be such a broad and general term that it can include people who'd vote for polygamy to be legal to people who'd vote for keeping it legal to use birth control between married partners. Too general and too broad.

To be fair, I probably am not getting the idea of the whole article, but it just seems to me a lot of circular logic and assumptions cherry picked from other philosophers and anecdotes to arrive at the conclusion that there can be no laws that can help the poor unless they were strict and from god.

Personally, anyone who needs an omnipotent babysitter to behave has already told me the type of person they really are. I don't mean to sound mean or superior, but it's just scary to me how some people have to feel this way. It is my opinion that anyone who says that there can be no morals without god is selling humans race and themselves short.

Again, I'm sorry if I sound superior, I really don't mean to be. But everyone chooses their own morals no matter where those morals come from.
Click to expand...

That's how I want to respond. Again, I feel kind of silly posting this but I can use the feedback.

Thanks :)
 
Tit For Tat, And All That..

Rule 1: Clearly silly conclusions do not merit a serious tone of response.

Rule 2: Statements from authority are matched with attacks against the person's character, not objectivity toward the statement itself.

Rule 3: Objective observations are not offered unless directly requested.

The three rules, applied smartly in the real world:

 
JFrankA said:
I got into a debate on Facebook. See, I am the only atheist out of a my friends there, all of them from high school and college, and most I haven't seen in 10 -20 years. They know me as the Catholic, so strongly, in fact, I firmly believed in remain celibate even after I lost my virginity.
Click to expand...

I've got a few friends, some of whom I didn't really remember from high school who are wearing their religious or political values on their facebook sleeve and I've chosen not to get into any heated discussions with them. I might post a snarky comment, but there's no reason to butt heads with people I haven't seen or interacted with in 25 years.
 
Showing examples of "circular logic and assumptions cherry picked from other philosophers and anecdotes" would probably be a good idea, since if the other side is honest and competent, that would be the next thing they'd ask you to do.
 
There are a number of claims in the article (some of them a bit vague). What points are your arguments based on?
 
James Poulos writes about the "Sex Vote" today. He defines "Sex Vote" as a "snappy term for people who are generally willing or even eager to trade away political and economic freedoms for broad (in terms of scope, variety, protection and enforcement) social and cultural freedom."
Click to expand...
Why on earth should one have to give up political and economic freedoms to get social and cultural freedoms?

Historically this has not happened. When, in 1967, the last laws against mixed-race marriages were removed, did this magically make a couple of clauses disappear from the Bill of Rights? In 1965, when the US Supreme Court struck down the Connecticut law against contraception, did the US become a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship? When, in 1990, Maryland's Court of Appeals ruled that straight couples could have oral sex, did that state's citizens lose any rights or liberties?

What?

---

If I were you, I'd cut the last two paragraphs down to: "It is my opinion that anyone who says that there can be no morals without god is selling humans race and themselves short. Everyone chooses their own morals no matter where those morals come from."

If you don't want to sound superior, don't.
 
But then, he goes on to use that same logical fallacy to prove his point, namely "poor people need structure and strong morals in their lives that only god, i.e. The Catholic Church, can give."
Click to expand...

One of us is reading it wrong. I'm pretty sure he's saying that the Catholic Church is not equipped to give these poor people the direct connection to Jesus that they so desperately need, which is why they turn to Pentecostalism or other Charismatic churches.

I guess that's a minor quibble, sorry.
 
JFrankA said:
Okay, I find myself kind of embarassed to post this because I hate not really being clear on things like this, and situtation I put myself in.

I got into a debate on Facebook. See, I am the only atheist out of a my friends there, all of them from high school and college, and most I haven't seen in 10 -20 years. They know me as the Catholic, so strongly, in fact, I firmly believed in remain celibate even after I lost my virginity.

Well, one of my closer old friends put up an article that he thought was thought provoking and important.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/02/god-the-sex-vote-and-human-dig.html

I made the mistake of saying "I disagree with it, but it's okay. Let's just agree to disagree."

Now they want to know why. To be honest, the article seems like meandering mess to me, trying so hard to prove his point, that he throws in a lot of philosophies that he has cherry picked. I am not sure of this because I am really not all that familiar with basic philosophy.

So here's my response to this article.



That's how I want to respond. Again, I feel kind of silly posting this but I can use the feedback.

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

For info on helping the poor become middle-class though still poor by strict rules and religion, read: The Way things Weren't by Stephanie Coontz.
 
I think your analysis is right, except for the Catholic - charismatic church thing. Dreher is saying that the poor, uneducated folks are more attracted to those, what I would call more primitive forms of Christianity.

But it reduces down to this: uneducated people are poor because they're uneducated. And they're drawn to fundamentalist religion for the same reason, that they're uneducated. Dreher's thesis is that they're drawn to these religions because the religions do something positive for them, but he doesn't support that.

There is a strong correlation with education and socioeconomic status, and there's a strong inverse correlation with education and religiosity. The link between socioeconomic status and religiosity is therefore a correlation, but I don't see any causation, much less any benefit.

Uneducated people also smoke more - that doesn't mean that smoking offers a positive benefit to their lives.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your help.

For the record, I really don't want to get into a Facebook debate. The article itself confuses me as to how he was presenting his case because it seemed (and still is) meandering to me. I wanted to see what I was missing. So Linusrichard, you probably read it right and I read it wrong.

Sir Phillip, I am dieing (pardon the pun) to see that movie.

CurtC, thanks. Not only did you give me confirmation of what I thought he was saying, you've hit what I wanted to point out on the head. I couldn't seem to get it into words.

I'm going to post something today on my friend's wall. It will say

I want to keep this a succinct as possible. He starts off avoiding a logic fallacy, namely "correlation does not equal causation", so he basically avoids saying "uneducated people are the most religious people". Which he's absolutely right in so doing, and in fact, I agree with him there. But then, he goes on to use that same logical fallacy to prove his point, namely "poor people need structure and strong morals in their lives that a religion can provide, and that's a benefit to their lives" But just because there's a correlation, it's still not causation and it doesn't mean that it's an automatic benefit.

I didn't read the link he gave that has the term "Sex Vote" because he defined it himself. But it seems to be such a broad and general term that it can include people who'd vote for polygamy to be legal to people who'd vote for keeping it legal to use birth control between married partners. Too general and too broad.

On top of that, why does someone have to give up political and economic freedoms to get social and cultural freedoms? Isn't America based on the idea that we don't have to? I thought America designed laws that are supposed to keeping people's rights to keep watch over the morals of people.

To be fair, I probably am not getting the idea of the whole article, but it just seems to me a lot of circular logic and assumptions cherry picked from other philosophers and anecdotes to arrive at the conclusion that there can be no laws that can help the poor unless they were strict and from god.

It is my opinion that anyone who says that there can be no morals without god is selling humans race and themselves short. Everyone chooses their own morals no matter where those morals come from.

One last thing. I don't mean to sound superior or mean and I certainly don't want to start an argument. This is simply my opinion so if we disagree, that's okay.
Click to expand...

Basically, I'm following Dr Adequate's advice. The rest of your suggestions I will keep in mind. All of you have been more than helpful. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom