Annoying, lying professors annoy me.
Dr. Elmar Kremer is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion from University of Toronto. He is also either a liar or a fool. Let me explain...
His event blurb:
"Atheism has recently been widely promoted by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. They try to convince people that atheism is the position of intelligent, rational, "smart" people. This situation presents an opportunity for believers to communicate their own belief in God.
In order to take advantage of the situation, however, believers need to be aware that contemporary atheism involves a grossly anthropomorphic concept of God. I will contrast that concept with the classical Christian concept of the true God. Informing people about the God of classical theism will not by itself lead people to believe in God, but it will at least help clear away the confusion produced by recent popular discussion of the topic."
I've emboldened the problematic statements.
To lay out the facts of the situation:
Group A is comprised of "serious christians" who "think deeply" about scripture. Note, this also includes Jews and Muslims who do the same. Group A has a definition of 'god'.
Group B is comprised of all the others who call themselves Christians, Jews and Muslims. Group B also have many definitions of 'god', and they use the same word as Group A. Dr. Kremer didn't talk much about this group. Why? Ask Dr. Kremer, but don't expect to get an answer.
Group C are "the athiests" (ie Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, who he specifically names).
Group C have written books attacking the various ideas of god that Group B have put forth. As Group B are the most vocal of the two religious groups, Group C is concerned with them more than Group A. I would also assert that Group B is bigger than Group A, but I've nothing to back that up with.
Dr. Kremer is asserting that because Group C's attacks against Group B's definition of 'god' don't apply to Group A, then Group C is committing a Strawman Fallacy.
Actually, let's go one further: Dr. Kremer's series of lectures, that he's getting paid to make, depend upon his assertion that those people are committing a Strawman. He's pulling in people from Group A and Group B by claiming to be 'defending religion', and pulling in people from Group C by claiming to be attacking the so-called 'New Athiests'.
Group C would be committing a Strawman if they were misrepresenting the definition of 'god'. They are not.
Dr. Kremer clearly (by the tone of his lecture, and the repeated use of phrases such as "serious christian" and "thoughtful people") believes that the people in Group B are just wrong in their beliefs that, for example, "God is morally good", "God listens to prayers", "God answers prayers", "God will heal x if I pray hard enough".
But he doesn't have the sincerity to come out and say that. He was presented with several opportunities to say that, even some poor schlub in the audience who clearly fell into Group B, and Dr. Kremer walked right up to saying "You're just wrong in what you believe", but couldn't follow through.
So, here's the facts:
Dr. Kremer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of University of Toronto, is accusing people of strawmanning an argument, when they are clearly not.
Either he's doing it out of ignorance (thus a fool), or he's doing it intentionally to garner attention (thus a liar). I leave it to him to dodge this (and all the others that were asked) question.
Oh, and the fact that he interrupted and talked over everyone who had a question makes his a jackass.
His event blurb:
"Atheism has recently been widely promoted by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. They try to convince people that atheism is the position of intelligent, rational, "smart" people. This situation presents an opportunity for believers to communicate their own belief in God.
In order to take advantage of the situation, however, believers need to be aware that contemporary atheism involves a grossly anthropomorphic concept of God. I will contrast that concept with the classical Christian concept of the true God. Informing people about the God of classical theism will not by itself lead people to believe in God, but it will at least help clear away the confusion produced by recent popular discussion of the topic."
I've emboldened the problematic statements.
To lay out the facts of the situation:
Group A is comprised of "serious christians" who "think deeply" about scripture. Note, this also includes Jews and Muslims who do the same. Group A has a definition of 'god'.
Group B is comprised of all the others who call themselves Christians, Jews and Muslims. Group B also have many definitions of 'god', and they use the same word as Group A. Dr. Kremer didn't talk much about this group. Why? Ask Dr. Kremer, but don't expect to get an answer.
Group C are "the athiests" (ie Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, who he specifically names).
Group C have written books attacking the various ideas of god that Group B have put forth. As Group B are the most vocal of the two religious groups, Group C is concerned with them more than Group A. I would also assert that Group B is bigger than Group A, but I've nothing to back that up with.
Dr. Kremer is asserting that because Group C's attacks against Group B's definition of 'god' don't apply to Group A, then Group C is committing a Strawman Fallacy.
Actually, let's go one further: Dr. Kremer's series of lectures, that he's getting paid to make, depend upon his assertion that those people are committing a Strawman. He's pulling in people from Group A and Group B by claiming to be 'defending religion', and pulling in people from Group C by claiming to be attacking the so-called 'New Athiests'.
Group C would be committing a Strawman if they were misrepresenting the definition of 'god'. They are not.
Dr. Kremer clearly (by the tone of his lecture, and the repeated use of phrases such as "serious christian" and "thoughtful people") believes that the people in Group B are just wrong in their beliefs that, for example, "God is morally good", "God listens to prayers", "God answers prayers", "God will heal x if I pray hard enough".
But he doesn't have the sincerity to come out and say that. He was presented with several opportunities to say that, even some poor schlub in the audience who clearly fell into Group B, and Dr. Kremer walked right up to saying "You're just wrong in what you believe", but couldn't follow through.
So, here's the facts:
Dr. Kremer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of University of Toronto, is accusing people of strawmanning an argument, when they are clearly not.
Either he's doing it out of ignorance (thus a fool), or he's doing it intentionally to garner attention (thus a liar). I leave it to him to dodge this (and all the others that were asked) question.
Oh, and the fact that he interrupted and talked over everyone who had a question makes his a jackass.