[Peace-discuss] polemics & sophisms

[C G Estabrook]

Isn't a sophis tree one best to land in…?

Aren't po’ lemics sad rodents related to muskrats, in the Deep South?

For a serious response to Richard Dawkins et al. see Terry Eagleton:

[Wikipedia] Dawkins, Hitchens and the New Atheism

Eagleton has become a vocal critic of what has been called the New Atheism. In October 2006, he published a review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in the London Review of Books. Eagleton begins by questioning Dawkins's methodology and understanding: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology". Eagleton further writes, "Nor does [Dawkins] understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us."[17] He concludes by suggesting Dawkins has not been attacking organised faith so much as a sort of rhetorical straw man: "Apart from the occasional perfunctory gesture to 'sophisticated' religious believers, Dawkins tends to see religion and fundamentalist religion as one and the same. This is not only grotesquely false; it is also a device to outflank any more reflective kind of faith by implying that it belongs to the coterie and not to the mass. The huge numbers of believers who hold something like the theology I outlined above can thus be conveniently lumped with rednecks who murder abortionists and malign homosexuals."[18]

Terry and Gifford Lectures[edit]

In April 2008 Eagleton delivered Yale University's Terry Lectures, with the title Faith and Fundamentalism: Is belief in Richard Dawkins necessary for salvation?, constituting a continuation of the critique he had begun in The London Review of Books. Introducing his first lecture with an admission of ignorance of both theology and science, Eagleton goes on to affirm: "All I can claim in this respect, alas, is that I think I may know just about enough theology to be able to spot when someone like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens—a couplet I shall henceforth reduce for convenience to the solitary signifier Ditchkins—is talking out of the back of his neck."[19][20] An expanded version of these lectures was published in 2009 as Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.[21]


> On Nov 7, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Keywords  110718
> A review of some terms useful in political analysis & polemics
> 
> po·lem·ics  (pə-lĕm′ĭks)
> n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
> 1. The art or practice of argumentation or controversy.
> 2. The practice of theological controversy to refute errors of doctrine.
> 
> American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> polemics (pəˈlɛmɪks)
> n (functioning as singular) the art or practice of dispute or argument, as in attacking or defending a doctrine or belief
> Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
> 
> po•lem•ics (pəˈlɛm ɪks, poʊ-) 
> n. (used with a sing. v.)
> 1. the art or practice of disputation or controversy.
> 2. the branch of theology dealing with ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.  [1630–40]
> A polemic (/pəˈlɛmɪk/) is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who ofte writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is called a polemicist.[1] The word is derived from Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning 'warlike, hostile',[1][2] from πόλεμος (polemos), meaning 'war'.[3]
> Polemics often concern issues in religion or politics. A polemic style of writing was common in Ancient Greece, as in the writings of the historian Polybius. Polemic again became common in medieval and early modern times. Since then, famous polemicists have included the satirist Jonathan Swift, the socialist philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the novelist George Orwell and the linguist Noam Chomsky.
> 
> Overview
> Polemics are usually addressed to important issues in religion and politics. Polemic journalism was common in continental Europe at a time when libel laws were not as stringent as they are now.[4] To support the study of the controversies of the 17th–19th centuries, a British research project has placed online thousands of polemical pamphlets from that era.[5] Discussions around atheism, humanism and Christianity have remained capable of polemic into modern times; for example, in 2007 Brian McClinton argued in Humani that anti-religious books like Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion are part of the polemic tradition.[6] The humanist philosopher A. C. Grayling indeed published a book titled Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness in 2008.[7]
> 
> soph·is·try  (sŏf′ĭ-strē)
> n. pl. soph·is·tries
> 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
> 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
> American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> sophistry (ˈsɒfɪstrɪ)
> n, pl -ries
> 1. (Philosophy)
> a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
> b. the art of using such arguments
> 2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
> 3. an instance of this; sophism
> Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
> 
> — from the  online Free Dictionary by Farlex  (q.v.)  
> 
> Exercise:  Distinguish clearly between fallacies & sophisms.  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss