> >Perhaps you mean: for any historical event the only evidence
for
> > which are non-independent historical accounts.
[..]
>
> Yes, that's what I mean. [..]
>
> >The
mind-changing I'm interested in is that done by exposing each side's
>
>arguments to the best available counter-arguments. I'll put my record
of
> >civility up against Rennie's (or Turkel's!) any day, but I'll
leave it
> >others to change minds through conciliation or deference.
:-)
>
> Hmmm. This smacks of a "they do it, so why shouldn't
I?"
> attitude. Which I'm not sure is taking the moral high
road.
On the contrary, my point is that Turkel and others do not engage
in a civil juxtaposition of each side's best arguments, but that I nevertheless
do. I don't see how politely expressing disagreement fails to count as
taking the moral high road.
> But it's not my place to
admonish
> your style. I just haven't found that method to be very
>
productive in terms of opening a dialogue.
I have little interest in
open-ended dialogue with people who behave like Turkel, except to verify that
their best arguments against my beliefs are unconvincing. I have zero
interest in making any special effort to convert such people or win
their favor.
> >If he changed all his references to me to use my
name, I'd be willing to
> >use his pseudonym in all my references to
him. But in light of his
> >practices, I see no need to cater to his
naming whims.
>
> Turn the other cheek, my friend. :-)
I
already laugh at all his childish insults without ever returning them in kind --
not because of some effete maxim of purported morality, but because doing so
would be just as self-defeating and uncivil as when my opponent does
it.
> >I'm not sure I understand your scenario/evidence distinction
[..]
>
> What I mean is that one of those four scenarios had to have
occured.
No, it could also be the case e.g. that the universe was created
by five minutes ago by an agency that concocted the account in question, and
that the purported source of the account was not
lying/truthful/delusional/mistaken but in fact never even existed.
>
If the Grand Canyon was the only canyon in existence, we should be
> far
less sure of what exactly caused it. Isn't this distinction relevant?
Of
course. However, I'm sure you'd agree that one-time -- or even one-of-a-kind --
events are not necessarily outside the reach of empirical analysis.
>
I was a bit put off by JP in our initial encounter, but since
> then have
established friendly relations with him. I realize he has been
> more or
less demonized on the Secular Web, but my findings have have been
>
pleasantly to the contrary. To be sure, he doesn't help his case
> with
some of the things he says and does, but that's his decision.
I don't see
how his behavior being "his decision" makes a difference. I'm not sure what you
mean by "demonized", but he has a clear record (quantified here
in "State of the Debate") of being boorish, insulting, and intellectually
dishonest inasmuch as he regularly fails to answer, correctly represent, or link
to his opponent's arugments. I notice, however, that
> I do my best to judge a person based on our individual dealings.
Hitler's dog liked Hitler too -- right up until Hitler tested the poison on his dog on the day he committed suicide. :-)