I've got to agree with Stephen on this, but point out again that it's based on very incomplete information. We've got a reporter's biased selection of facts to go on, not the philosopher's complete argument. There very well may be something more than just "argument from ignorance" in the man's thinking. Perhaps he does have some interesting new argument - not necessarily a correct or complete one, but at least something better than the couple of bad arguments reported in the article. What we're reading is a reporter's idea of what the important facts are, not the philosopher's idea.
At the same time, Jim, it should be clear that if you do take the article at face value, then it's neither desperate nor prejudicial to suggest something like dementia as the cause of the change. If you assume that something caused him to change his mind, you've got just a few serious contenders: (1) Some kind of mental decline, so that arguments he already correctly rejected (i.e., those in the article) now convince him. (2) He had never thought about the argument from ignorance before, and when it occurred to him, he was convinced by it. Of course if that's the case, then this isn't much of a "victory", because the man never knew much about the issue. (3) He came up with some other kind of argument, a new one, which he found convincing. That's the best hope for the "true believer", but there's not a word about it in the article. As written, anyway, the article suggests a mental decline, as it presents him as knowledgeable, eliminating my #2, and doesn't mention any new arguments, steering us away from my #3. That's hardly Stephen's fault. In light of the fact that (according to the article) Prometheus Books plans to publish his writings about this change of mind, I suspect that #3 is what is really going on (though I don't expect much from the new arguments). Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee -----Original Message----- From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 12/10/2004 3:09 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God At 3:58 PM -0500 12/10/04, Stephen Black wrote: >On 10 Dec 2004, Jim Guinee wrote: >> >> So your point is what -- his transition from atheist to deist is >> an indication of dementia? >> >> Talk about DESPERATE. >> >> And prejudicial. >> >> Dr. Jim Guinee >> Firm Believer > >Well, I tend to the opinion that if Firm Believers can say that an >allegedly loving God is going to torture me in Hell for all eternity >for not believing (and eternity's a pretty long time, isn't it?), >then I can say that the sudden switch of a prominent atheist to a >believer in God may be an early sign of Alzheimer's disease. > > I don't see anything prejudicial about that. And at least my >hypothesis is testable. And given the vague support (basically the argument from ignorance: if I don't understand how something works I'm justified in making up an explanation) given so far for the (near) deathbed conversion, the hypothesis is consistent with the data. -- "No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -H. L. Mencken * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
