Background
Here’s a history of the exchange with atheist Pat Mefford regarding, most notably, the Liar Paradox:
https://choosinghats.com/2012/12/pat-mefford-on-titus-1-12-13a/
http://bcaskins.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-liar-paradox-and-presuppositional-apologetics/
http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/more-thoughts-on-chris-bolt.html
http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/final-thoughts-on-chris-bolt.html
Valuable points were made in the comments by David Byron and B.C. Askins. I will limit my response to addressing Pat’s most recent post http://servileconformist.typepad.com/servile-conformist/2012/12/final-thoughts-on-chris-bolt.html.
In my most recent post I concluded that Pat Mefford must defend a claim like “Liars always lie” or “Hyperbole does not exist” or “The Apostle Paul self-consciously affirmed non-classical logics” or else concede the argument we have been having. Unfortunately, though not to my surprise, he has done neither. Instead, Pat has focused his response on me.
Drama
Apparently Pat is upset by my suggesting that he may have been showing off by including Greek and symbols in his post. Of course, all Pat needed to do was explain that he really does believe the Greek and symbols added to the substance and clarity of his presentation and all would be well. He might even confess that he made a mistake in thinking that way, or defend his including them in his post. Any of the aforementioned responses will do. Instead, he calls my comments “passive aggressive” and remarks, “I’m a little disappointed by Chris.” He continues, “I think I failed in my personal assessment in [sic] Chris, I may have ended up projecting something on to him that he simply wasn’t.” Yikes! What dastardly things did I say about Pat that would prompt such a response?
For one, I care about rhetoric and performance. Alternatively, Pat explains, “I’m really not interested in rhetoric and performance.” (And yes, I’ll let the reader decide whether or not Pat needed to make that sentiment explicit.) Next, I wrote, “Frankly, if [proposing non-classical views of logic in an attempt to overturn a presuppositional argument] is the best one can do, then I feel pretty good about my apologetic.” Apparently Pat did not like that. He finds it passive aggressive. It ruins my good name and character. Then I had the audacity to add, “I feel as though presuppositionalists are in good shape.” Again, Pat is horrified by my words. He is overwhelmingly disappointed in me. Finally, I take a “shot” at Pat in stating, “Only time will tell if our atheist friend is stubborn enough to defend claims like ‘Liars always lie’ or ‘Hyperbole does not exist’ or ‘The Apostle Paul self-consciously affirmed non-classical logics.’” Of course, stubbornness is not always a bad thing, and even if it is here, I give Pat the benefit of a doubt by waiting to see whether or not he is stubborn enough to defend the claims mentioned above. Note my sarcasm. (If not, Pat probably will.) Let it be known that none of the comments quoted above were very bad things to say about Pat. In fact, with only one exception, none of comments quoted above were even about Pat!
So let me make a comment about Pat. He is being overly-sensitive, and intentionally so. When a person knows that he or she has lost the argument, he or she often resorts to attacking the opponent. Pat knows this, but when one is caught up in the moment, it is an easy out. The more one can talk about his or her opponent as opposed to the actual disagreement, the better. Those unaccustomed to following argumentation are easily persuaded by attempts to make someone out to look like a big meanie. Pat is not the first atheist we’ve seen dumping cyanide in the cistern, and he likely will not be the last.
What comes next are the typical accusations that dumb old Chris (and remember, I’m mean too) was either unwilling, or else incapable, of reading and understanding the argument being made. So for example, Pat writes, “Now I’m not disappointed that Chris made an oversight or didn’t read me carefully.” He claims, “I wonder about two things; how closely Chris read anything I wrote and how closely he studied the issues at hand.” Pat does provide one reason for his dismissive statement. I will get to it in a moment. Aside from that, I have no need to reiterate my previous responses, which, in my view, sufficiently answer Pat’s concerns.
What comes next in Pat’s pilgrimage to the Temple of the Touchy-Feely? He has already feigned offense at the slightest sight of punchiness. He has already charged me with sloppy scholarship and an inability to comprehend his posts. What’s next?
Martyrdom of course! And Pat doesn’t disappoint. Lights, camera, [violin,] action!
I feel that I’ve fallen prey to something I’ve warned about to numerous other atheists in real life, don’t become the object an apologist uses to showboat. I may have just become that object.
I blame myself, I tricked myself into thinking I could have a good discussion with a fellow philosopher over complex topics in a spirit that didn’t frame the conversation like some kind of zero-sum duel where only one person comes out the victor. I didn’t get that, instead I got backhanded remarks and condescension, probably for a crowd.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m going to close the matter and wish Chris a happy new year and move on to other topics.
Poor Pat. Society will never understand his need for a sophisticated philosophical discussion. And Big Bad Chris – well – that guy only cares about performance and rhetoric. Pat was up for some rigorous intellectual exchange and all he got were “backhanded remarks and condescension.” Awful! And yet, out of the goodness of his heart, Pat still manages to wish Chris a Happy New Year. Unlike Chris, that Pat is a great guy!
Now that the drama is out of the way (until Pat reads what I wrote and has a meltdown), let’s get back to the argument.
Argument
Recall that Pat does not think I spent enough time on his post. The reason he apparently thinks this is my statement, “What Pat should do is forthrightly address the view that the Apostle Paul, following the poet he quotes, is using hyperbole to communicate the truth that Cretans are generally liars.” Pat quotes himself as follows:
Now I can respect that Paul was making a rhetorical point in citing Epimenides, he was as Greek as they come. To most Christians (and to most apologists) this isn’t much of an issue, but it is for the Presuppositional/Covenantal apologist. Here we have a proposition embedded in scripture that is both thought of by unregenerate and regenerate minds, both Jew and Gentile, that simultaneously affirms and denies its own truth value.
This proposition exists. It is a contradiction. How does it stand in relation to the Triune God? How is this proposition grounded in Almighty God? How does Chris account for it?
Apparently Pat is still under the impression that the statement in question “simultaneously affirms and denies its own truth value.” I’m really not quite sure how else I can put it to Pat that this is simply not the case. A hyperbolic expression of a generality does not provide Pat with the airtight affirmation of contradiction he needs in order to make his case that Scripture provides a paradox (in the sense Pat wishes to use the term). Yet Pat continues to insist, “What Paul cites is a liar paradox.” No Pat, it’s not, if what Paul quotes is a hyperbolic generalization. And it’s not; if we understand that liars do not always, without exception, lie. And it’s not if we realize that Paul was not self-consciously advocating non-classical logics. A lot of work needs to be done in order to even make the case that the statement in Scripture is an instance of the Liar Paradox.
Now, this is not to say that I deny the Liar Paradox exists. We just don’t have to go to Titus 1.12-13a to talk about it. I already provided an account for such a thing in my initial response to Pat. He jumped over to talking about Titus 1.12-13a. And that’s how we got here.
The rest I leave to B.C. Askins. Today’s post was brought to you by the letters X and Y.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
http://bcaskins.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/the-liar-paradox-and-presuppositional-apologetics-3-a-final-reply-to-patrick-mefford/
Reply
{ 1 trackback }