I’m thoroughly enjoying the tennis match with my friend Captain Cassidy 😀 I really do hope the feeling is mutual — she seems to be pretty sporting about it all so far, so I think I’m not overstepping my bounds to hope that she’s also getting something out of our exchange. Thanks also to others who have weighed in on the matter — I’ve gotten to meet several new people so far, which is always a good thing! Y’all are very welcome, make yourselves at home 🙂
This time, I must thank the good Captain for introducing me to a new term: PRATT, which stands for “Point Refuted A Thousand Times.” In her recent article, she establishes the groundwork for this term and then outlines a list of examples of such that I am supposed to have employed against her. (The points she made therein seemed very similar to those she made in her first response.) Some are fair points, others I’m pretty sure are not so fair — and some are more addressed at my tactics than my points themselves. (If you’re interested in my answer to some of these points, feel welcome to check out my response article and my direct response to her comment.) All, however, seem to come with a hefty dose of caricature, to the point where even I can’t find much about them to take seriously (even though I am supposed to have said them myself).
However, the article the Captain cited on RationalWiki that dealt with PRATTs had a few examples of its own — and, since they seem to be the authority on the matter, I figure I’ll go right to the source. (more…)
Often when I’m discussing a topic with skeptics and critics of Christianity, they will cite one of the common arguments that the more popular apologists use — which is great, because it means that people are doing their homework engaging with the best points from the “other side,” and I always admire that. I try to do that myself, as much as possible — hence this blog, where I invite people of opposing views to come together and discuss these issues in a common forum. Hooray for community! 😀
Anyway… in such a context, usually the argument is brought up so that the individual can refute it — which is also great. However, most of the time, the way they refute the argument shows that they didn’t really understand the argument to begin with. They are refuting (whether intentionally or not) a straw man version of the argument, one that I would dismiss just as readily. This sort of thing happens often, and I end up repeating myself to a lot of individuals, helping them to see the argument in its intended light rather than in the easily-dismantled pseudo-argument they believe is being presented.
Thus, I’ve decided to start an ongoing “Misunderstood Arguments” series, mostly so that I can have a repository from which to draw in such discussions — hopefully it will save me a lot of typing in the future, when such misunderstandings surface again 😉
Today, I would like to elucidate the oft-misunderstood argument of the faith of the early church in the resurrection of Christ. I’ve heard apologists such as Craig and Habermas use this argument, and I’m sure many others have as well. Here’s the basic version of the argument: (more…)