|
eihwaz -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/31/2011 5:12:57 PM)
|
With respect to this particular excerpt from Mr. Harris's book Letter to a Christian Nation, it seems to me there are potentially at least three distinct topics to consider:
~ the plausibility of the scenario he presents involving a nuclear armed Islamist group
~ the viability, morality, and wisdom of a nuclear first strike posture toward such a group
~ whether or not Mr. Harris advocates such a nuclear first strike posture in this passage
There was a brief debate much earlier in this thread about the last of these and this is what I've assumed you and I are debating. Conversely, in this thread, I haven't ventured an opinion about the plausibility of the scenario or whether a first strike posture is a good or bad idea (although I certainly do have opinions about these, I'm considering them off-topic for now). To repeat: I've assumed that you and I have been debating whether Mr. Harris advocates a first strike nuclear posture against nuclear armed Islamist entity (nation or group) in this particular excerpt. Or, to put it differently, I've been assuming we're debating the meaning of a text rather than its content. Am I assuming incorrectly? Are we arguing different topics?
You aver that my position has shifted. I don't believe that it has, although I may have failed to state it adequately. With apologies in advance for repeating from my earlier postings, it is: Mr. Harris neither explicitly agrees nor disagrees with a first strike posture against a nuclear armed Islamic group or nation in the excerpt under consideration. However, in the subject passage, through logic, rhetorical devices, and pointed omissions, he implicitly advocates such a posture. I provided my reasons for concluding this in an earlier post.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I am going to ignore yet another refinement in your position (from “advocates” to “implying”[by omission] to “implicitly advocating”).
Advocacy is advocacy, whether explicit or implicit. On consideration (and here I am modifying my original position), "advocacy" might be too strong; "agreement" or "endorsement" might be more accurate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The only new evidence you introduce (re the Bush position on pre-emption) has no bearing on or relevance to Harris’ position, other than to provide independent confirmation of its plausibility. That people other than Harris are positing similar scenarios has no bearing on Harris’ project. Harris is not responsible for the pronouncements of the Bush Admin. Ultimately IMHO this new evidence weakens the argument further.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If Harris were engaged in a polemic, your criticisms could be, IMHO, possibly justified. However, in my reading, the entire excerpt is clearly hypothetical. He makes no claim whatsoever to be discussing reality, simply a "plausible scenario", a hypothetical possibility.
To repeat, I thought we were debating whether or not Harris advocates a nuclear first strike posture, not the plausibility of the scenario. I introduced the National Security Strategy of 2002 both as circumstantial evidence of his advocacy and in response to your claim that "Harris makes no claim to be discussing reality, simply a ... hypothetical possibility." Mr. Harris is a brilliant and well-read man who most certainly was aware of the United States government's preemptive war doctrine. He also views himself as addressing governments, thought leaders, and policymakers (a time honored calling in societies). The "hypothetical possibility" was under serious discussion at the highest levels of policy making as being more than merely hypothetical at the time he wrote.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm a tad disappointed you chose not to discuss the points I raised about the weight of language and the inadequate structure. That said, it is entirely your prerogative what when where and how you choose to engage.
All right, then:
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
As I understand it, the reasons given to support criticism of Harris are his failure to "dissociate himself [from] a pre-emptive nuclear strike" and to "repudiating a first strike posture or even seriously exploring alternatives".
My criticisms of him are, first, that he takes a position and then denies that he did so, and second, that he states his position implicitly using rhetorical devices and omissions which offer plausible deniability, rather than affirmatively and forthrightly. Whether I agree or disagree with his position or supporting arguments is a separate question.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In my view, Harris is not under any obligation to do any of the things he is being criticised for not doing. His goal is simply to outline a "plausible scenario" where religious beliefs could plunge the world into nuclear warfare. It is purely rhetorical. It is not polemical at all (though I can understand why religions' defenders might take exception to that scenario).
I'm not sure what are these "things he is being criticised for not doing." I'm saying that, given the logic expressed by the text, by not expressly repudiating a first strike posture, he implicitly endorses (or advocates or agrees with) it. That's not a criticism. I was merely explaining how -- in consideration of this and several other pieces of evidence -- I arrived at the conclusion that the passage does indeed advocate such a posture. His primary goal may indeed be to illustrate "how religious beliefs could plunge the world into nuclear warfare." However, the question I thought we were discussing was whether he advocates, in this passage, a preemptive nuclear posture in response.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It may be the case that this particular excerpt forms part of a broader anti-religion polemic. But that is an entirely different, and for our purposes, irrelevant issue.
Agreed. My understanding of our issue is whether or not this passage advocates a first strike nuclear posture against nuclear armed Islamist entities.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Sorry, but I feel the argument against Harris here is laboured and contrived.
I'm not arguing against Harris (although I do have definite opinions about his positions). I'm making a case using a textual analysis that he's advocating (or agreeing with) a first strike nuclear posture against nuclear armed Islamist entities in the passage under consideration. Textual dissection tends toward the dry and pedantic. Sort of like the explanation of why a joke is funny isn't as funny as the joke itself.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Further, the categorical language which it is agreed by all he uses to condemn a strike against the Muslin [sic] world ("absurdity ... unthinkability ... unconscionability ... insanity") is robust, even extreme.
Not agreed by all. According to my reading of the text, and at risk of annoying you by repeating myself, Harris avers that the target Islamist entity would be responsible for the profound immorality of such a strike by virtue of having forced it upon the United States.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
IMO, to mount a case that he is advocating or implying such a strike against such extreme condemnation, far more concrete and substantial evidence and argument than implication by omission is required... An argument relying entirely upon an implication by omission is IMHO manifestly inadequate.
This is the essence of the matter, about which we really do disagree. I don't have anything to add to the case I've already made.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Finding your arguments ‘contrived’ and ‘manifestly inadequate'
Ouch! and ouch!
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
causes me to ask myself: is there another explanation for your position? One alternative explanation could go like this:
Harris is engaged in an anti-religious polemic overall. As part of that polemic, he posits a credible scenario where religious views lead directly to a nuclear war. Apologists for religion have an obvious vested interest in refuting this. As I understand it, criticism of Harris comes, in the main, from the pro-religion corner (if I may call it that).
To me, the arguments being advanced seem consistent with an ideologically driven position. They are exactly the type of arguments one sees when an indefensible ideologically driven position is threatened. – the charges of a hidden agenda, the contrived nature, the insistence that meanings are the opposite of what they appear to mean, the constantly shifting ground, the absence of any clear direct evidence, the reliance on rhetorical techniques such as implication by omission, the overall absence of substance, trenchant criticism for omitting a matter he is under no onus whatsoever to include and if I may say so, the air of desperation that seems to me to permeate the gossamer thin arguments. (If valid, this list of flaws ought to be sufficient to damn any argument one would think.)
To me, the argument appears to be desperately clutching at straws in order to maintain a pre-determined position.
While there may be other cogent explanations, I find this explanation far more persuasive than the argument advanced.
I feel like I'm being swept up in a much larger discussion than I intended. Again, I thought we were arguing about whether or not Harris advocates or agrees with a preemptive nuclear posture towards nuclear armed Islamist entities in several paragraphs excerpted from a book he wrote in 2005. Except for the geopolitical context of the National Security Strategy, I focused on the actual words of that passage in deriving my conclusion.
You might ask me what my opinions actually are before ascribing to me "an indefensible ideologically driven" motivation!
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL eihwaz
So we agree to disagree?
Sounds good to me [:D]
Edited to add extra flavour and fresh herbs
Far more interesting and of much more significance than what Harris's position is or is not in a particular book excerpt are the questions raised: Is the scenario he presents plausible and is the response he describes the best option?
ETA correct typos
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" -- Henry II, referring to Thomas Becket
|
|
|
|
