Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Spiral
Posts: 23
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:46 pm

Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Spiral »

Towards the end of a discussion featuring Steven Pinker's wife, Rebecca Goldstein, William Lane Craig and Jordan Peterson, Craig quoted from a written column by Steven Pinker. At 1:56:25 of this video, Craig seems to accuse Steven Pinker of being a moral relativist. But Goldstein later found the column written by Pinker that Craig quoted. So was Craig misrepresenting Pinker or was Craig making Pinker's contingent argument one of his own?

Rebecca Goldstein, William Lane Craig and Jordan Peterson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV4oIqnaxlg

Here is the excerpt Craig quoted from Pinker's piece.

"The Moral Instinct" by Steven Pinker

"The Moral Instinct" by Steven Pinker https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/maga ... gy-t.html
Is Morality a Figment?
So a biological understanding of the moral sense does not entail that people are calculating maximizers of their genes or self-interest. But where does it leave the concept of morality itself?

Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?

Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? If not — if his dictates are divine whims — why should we take them seriously? Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist? And if, on the other hand, God was forced by moral reasons to issue some dictates and not others — if a command to torture a child was never an option — then why not appeal to those reasons directly?

This throws us back to wondering where those reasons could come from, if they are more than just figments of our brains. They certainly aren’t in the physical world like wavelength or mass. The only other option is that moral truths exist in some abstract Platonic realm, there for us to discover, perhaps in the same way that mathematical truths (according to most mathematicians) are there for us to discover. On this analogy, we are born with a rudimentary concept of number, but as soon as we build on it with formal mathematical reasoning, the nature of mathematical reality forces us to discover some truths and not others. (No one who understands the concept of two, the concept of four and the concept of addition can come to any conclusion but that 2 + 2 = 4.) Perhaps we are born with a rudimentary moral sense, and as soon as we build on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some conclusions but not others.

Moral realism, as this idea is called, is too rich for many philosophers’ blood. Yet a diluted version of the idea — if not a list of cosmically inscribed Thou-Shalts, then at least a few If-Thens — is not crazy. Two features of reality point any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction. And they could provide a benchmark for determining when the judgments of our moral sense are aligned with morality itself.

One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Fooloso4 »

It is a common complaint from those who have argued with Craig that he misrepresents what they have said. His followers employ the same deceitful tactics. They see themselves as Christian apologists and defenders of the faith. Apparently they take to heart the saying that all is fair in love and war.

Of course Craig misrepresents Pinker. As we can see from the except Craig stops after Pinker’s framing of the question. Craig misrepresents him by making it seem as if biology is the end of the story. Goldstein corrects him when she points to our ability to reason. But Craig has already made his point and his minions in the audience have already clapped enthusiastically. As far as they are concerned the victory and glory are his.

In the except Pinker lays out the two options for moral absolutism - God and moral realism. He rejects both and so he does support a form of moral relativism, but not a form of moral relativism in which any choice or action is morally equal to any other. Reason tells us that some options are better than others because they most benefit or least harm all involved.
Spiral
Posts: 23
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:46 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Spiral »

Fooloso4 wrote: April 28th, 2018, 5:59 pm It is a common complaint from those who have argued with Craig that he misrepresents what they have said. His followers employ the same deceitful tactics. They see themselves as Christian apologists and defenders of the faith. Apparently they take to heart the saying that all is fair in love and war.

Of course Craig misrepresents Pinker. As we can see from the except Craig stops after Pinker’s framing of the question. Craig misrepresents him by making it seem as if biology is the end of the story. Goldstein corrects him when she points to our ability to reason. But Craig has already made his point and his minions in the audience have already clapped enthusiastically. As far as they are concerned the victory and glory are his.

In the except Pinker lays out the two options for moral absolutism - God and moral realism. He rejects both and so he does support a form of moral relativism, but not a form of moral relativism in which any choice or action is morally equal to any other. Reason tells us that some options are better than others because they most benefit or least harm all involved.
You make two interesting points here. One is that, in your view, Craig was trying to deceive the audience regarding Pinker's beliefs. Two is that Pinker does not subscribe to moral absolutism or moral realism.

I thought Craig did seem to act a little bit shady by debating a person, in this case Steven Pinker, who was not in the audience. But I think often believers in God have the impression that all atheists are moral nihilists.
mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by mattfara50 »

Leading up to the invocation of Pinker's quote (paraphrasing):

Craig
-----
1. Non-human primates exhibit some behavior similar to human behavior that we consider moral
2. This behavior is therefore selected for its survival value
3. Thus this behavior has no transcendant referent
4. Moral progress is unwarranted since it implies a standard which naturalism cannot furnish

Rebecca's counter
-----------------
You assume that on naturalism, it is impossible to ground morality.

Pinker's quote
--------------
Some parts of subjective experience have no objective counterpart in the world, since these experiences merely exists due to selective pressures and genes: prettiness of flowers, foulness of carrion, etc. If moral experience is likewise biologically determined, why believe it to be objective? Then why believe any action is wrong on that scale?

End of paraphrasing.

So it seems to me that this is a question of intellectual charity. The most charitable, and thus, I think, most useful, interpretation of Craig's invocation of the quote is as follows: Pinker obviously worries along the same lines as Craig, even if they diverge on how to resolve the issue. Craig invokes the quote to show Rebecca that even prominent atheists grapple with this concern, and that the issue is by no means resolved. It is still controversial. And note that in the quote itself, Pinker uses the word "if." Thus, the quote does not suggest that Pinker believes that the horrors of genocide were morally neutral acts. However, using a quote by Pinker, her husband, was obviously a rhetorical flourish that was obviously meant to push her off balance. That's a debating tactic.

You can read Craig's thoughts on that by reading this [url=Leading up to the invocation of Pinker's quote (paraphrasing):

Craig
-----
1. Non-human primates exhibit some behavior similar to human behavior that we consider moral
2. This behavior is therefore selected for its survival value
3. Thus this behavior has no transcendant referent
4. Moral progress is unwarranted since it implies a standard which naturalism cannot furnish

Rebecca's counter
-----------------
You assume that on naturalism, it is impossible to ground morality.

Pinker's quote
--------------
Some parts of subjective experience have no objective counterpart in the world, since these experiences merely exists due to selective pressures and genes: prettiness of flowers, foulness of carrion, etc. If moral experience is likewise biologically determined, why believe it to be objective? Then why believe any action is wrong on that scale?

End of paraphrasing.

So it seems to me that this is a question of intellectual charity. The most charitable, and thus, I think, most useful, interpretation of Craig's invocation of the quote is as follows: Pinker obviously worries along the same lines as Craig, even if they diverge on how to resolve the issue. Craig invokes the quote to show Rebecca that even prominent atheists grapple with this concern, and that the issue is by no means resolved. It is still controversial. And note that in the quote itself, Pinker uses the word "if." Thus, the quote does not suggest that Pinker believes that the horrors of genocide were morally neutral acts. However, using a quote by Pinker, her husband, was obviously a rhetorical flourish that was obviously meant to push her off balance. That's a debating tactic.

See Craig's thoughts on this by reading this transcript from Craig's podcast. There, Craig concedes that Pinker resists moral nihilism, though Craig disagrees with his line of reasoning.

Taking the most charitable interpretation is, I think, psychologically useful because it prevents a person from dismissing arguments on an ad hominem basis. For example, if I think that Craig explicitly cherry-picked Pinker, then I think Craig is dishonest, then I'm more likely to judge his arguments with prejudice or even dismiss them before reading them carefully. If I am charitable, on the other hand, I am more likely to engage his arguments per se.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Fooloso4 »

mattfara50:
Taking the most charitable interpretation is, I think, psychologically useful because it prevents a person from dismissing arguments on an ad hominem basis. For example, if I think that Craig explicitly cherry-picked Pinker, then I think Craig is dishonest, then I'm more likely to judge his arguments with prejudice or even dismiss them before reading them carefully. If I am charitable, on the other hand, I am more likely to engage his arguments per se.
When Craig says:
But it is hard to know if she thinks that these humanistic values that she champions are merely the contingent byproducts of evolution and social conditioning or whether she thinks they have some sort of objective validity. That wasn't entirely clear.
What is the more charitable interpretation - he is unable or unwilling to consider that this is not an either/or option?
… someone said something doesn't need to have an eternal consequence in order to be meaningful or significant. I said that would only be the case if you were presupposing it has objective value.
What is the more charitable interpretation - he is unable or unwilling to consider that meaning or significance can and do exist because they are valued? Is he unaware that the alternatives are not objective value or no value?
With Goldstein it wasn't as clear because she did seem to think that moral values are just sort of based in human feelings.
Is that how it seemed to him? I think she made it quite clear in her response at the end (I did not watch the whole thing) that the ability to reason is central. The interviewer even points this out, but Craig says nothing about it in his response.
I can't see that she said anything with respect to how, on naturalism, our lives have objective purpose, value, or significance.
Again, is he not aware that purpose, value, or significance do not have to be objective? Their disagreement hinged on naturalism versus objectivism but he misrepresents that difference by tying purpose, value, and significance to an objective foundation.
That is where my claim would be relevant. Without an absolute standard, without a transcendent source of value, everything becomes relative and there is no objective difference aesthetically between nails on the chalkboard and a symphony.
Is it more charitable to interpret this as his ignorance or his unwillingness to differentiate without appeal to an imagined objective standard? There is no God given transcendent source of value necessary to enable us to differentiate between nails on the chalkboard and a symphony. Is he ignorant of the fact or unwilling to admit that relative does not mean equal? Surely he has debated with enough relativists to know that.
That was so well illustrated by Rebecca Goldstein's ignorance of the response to the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I do not know whether Goldstein is familiar with Craig’s response to the Euthyphro Dilemma, but having just read it, I do not find it convincing. And yet he treats it as if it is the final word. More significantly, notice how he sets it up as us against them:
I have had people who are Reasonable Faith listeners say that they just couldn't believe their ears when she trotted out the old Euthyphro Dilemma …

They don't read Christian philosophers. They are ignorant of what it says. So they rehearse these tired old objections over and over again.

That was so well illustrated by Rebecca Goldstein's ignorance of the response to the Euthyphro Dilemma.
His followers will repeat the argument and regard others as ignorant.I won’t go into it, but if we look to Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro instead of some formulation of the “dilemma” the problem becomes clear and Craig himself can be seen as a contemporary "Euthyphro".
He [Pinker] doesn't want to be a moral nihilist.
Of course he doesn’t, and there is no reason to think that what he says leads to nihilism. Craig presents a false dichotomy and a smarmy response, as if Pinker doesn't want to be a moral nihilist but can't help avoiding it.
I debated with myself whether to do it … So I thought I will just read it to her and see what she has to say. She was a little miffed about that after the debate. She said, I want to see that out of context quotation! I said, OK, I've got it right here, but it is not out of context. I then gave her my copy of the quotation that I had brought with me.
Craig makes it seem as if she is miffed because he quoted Pinker, as if that is something she did not want to come to light and that he was a bit ambivalent about even bringing something so embarrassing out in the open. The problem is, despite his denial, he did quote Pinker out of context.

I agree that arguments should not be dismissed without reading them carefully. When, however, there is a long, well-documented history of misrepresentation one is no longer deserving of being read charitably.
mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by mattfara50 »

Fooloso4 wrote: April 29th, 2018, 12:47 pm mattfara50:
Taking the most charitable interpretation is, I think, psychologically useful because it prevents a person from dismissing arguments on an ad hominem basis. For example, if I think that Craig explicitly cherry-picked Pinker, then I think Craig is dishonest, then I'm more likely to judge his arguments with prejudice or even dismiss them before reading them carefully. If I am charitable, on the other hand, I am more likely to engage his arguments per se.
When Craig says:
But it is hard to know if she thinks that these humanistic values that she champions are merely the contingent byproducts of evolution and social conditioning or whether she thinks they have some sort of objective validity. That wasn't entirely clear.
What is the more charitable interpretation - he is unable or unwilling to consider that this is not an either/or option?

The most charitable would be assuming he is able and willing to consider that this is not an either/or option, but through reasoning has concluded that those are the only two options. Whether he is wrong about that is beside the point. Charity would lead one to read his writing on the topic to examine his argument for that dilemma.

… someone said something doesn't need to have an eternal consequence in order to be meaningful or significant. I said that would only be the case if you were presupposing it has objective value.
What is the more charitable interpretation - he is unable or unwilling to consider that meaning or significance can and do exist because they are valued? Is he unaware that the alternatives are not objective value or no value?

Pretty much same response. Charity would behoove you to read his writing on the subject to see the mechanics behind his stated conclusions. A podcast is no place to expound all of that.

With Goldstein it wasn't as clear because she did seem to think that moral values are just sort of based in human feelings.
Is that how it seemed to him? I think she made it quite clear in her response at the end (I did not watch the whole thing) that the ability to reason is central. The interviewer even points this out, but Craig says nothing about it in his response.

Charity would have you assume that Craig would have more to say on the subject were he pressed. He'd likely give you an argument stating that one would only feel reason can justify moral precepts, and trot out Hume's is/ought.

I can't see that she said anything with respect to how, on naturalism, our lives have objective purpose, value, or significance.
Again, is he not aware that purpose, value, or significance do not have to be objective? Their disagreement hinged on naturalism versus objectivism but he misrepresents that difference by tying purpose, value, and significance to an objective foundation.
That is where my claim would be relevant. Without an absolute standard, without a transcendent source of value, everything becomes relative and there is no objective difference aesthetically between nails on the chalkboard and a symphony.
Is it more charitable to interpret this as his ignorance or his unwillingness to differentiate without appeal to an imagined objective standard? There is no God given transcendent source of value necessary to enable us to differentiate between nails on the chalkboard and a symphony. Is he ignorant of the fact or unwilling to admit that relative does not mean equal? Surely he has debated with enough relativists to know that.

Again, he probably has reasons for his unwillingness.
That was so well illustrated by Rebecca Goldstein's ignorance of the response to the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I do not know whether Goldstein is familiar with Craig’s response to the Euthyphro Dilemma, but having just read it, I do not find it convincing. And yet he treats it as if it is the final word. More significantly, notice how he sets it up as us against them:
I have had people who are Reasonable Faith listeners say that they just couldn't believe their ears when she trotted out the old Euthyphro Dilemma …

They don't read Christian philosophers. They are ignorant of what it says. So they rehearse these tired old objections over and over again.

That was so well illustrated by Rebecca Goldstein's ignorance of the response to the Euthyphro Dilemma.
His followers will repeat the argument and regard others as ignorant.I won’t go into it, but if we look to Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro instead of some formulation of the “dilemma” the problem becomes clear and Craig himself can be seen as a contemporary "Euthyphro".

I'm glad you won't go into it, since that would be off topic.
He [Pinker] doesn't want to be a moral nihilist.
Of course he doesn’t, and there is no reason to think that what he says leads to nihilism. Craig presents a false dichotomy and a smarmy response, as if Pinker doesn't want to be a moral nihilist but can't help avoiding it.

Obviously there is a reason to think that, since Craig thinks it. Whether you agree with it is up to you and your judgment. And whether he does indeed present a false dichotomy is secondary to whether he knowingly presents a false dichotomy. If it is merely a lapse of reason on his part, then he is honest. That's charity.

I debated with myself whether to do it … So I thought I will just read it to her and see what she has to say. She was a little miffed about that after the debate. She said, I want to see that out of context quotation! I said, OK, I've got it right here, but it is not out of context. I then gave her my copy of the quotation that I had brought with me.
Craig makes it seem as if she is miffed because he quoted Pinker, as if that is something she did not want to come to light and that he was a bit ambivalent about even bringing something so embarrassing out in the open. The problem is, despite his denial, he did quote Pinker out of context.

But it seems like you're begging the question. I don't see an argument from you on why the quote was out of context. I provided you an alternative interpretation of his use of the quote.


I agree that arguments should not be dismissed without reading them carefully. When, however, there is a long, well-documented history of misrepresentation one is no longer deserving of being read charitably.

First, I don't see you showing evidence for concluding that there is a long, well-documented history of misrepresentation. Even if I conceded every point you made here, that's far from long and well-documented. And more importantly, most of what you said is off topic. Even if Craig was actually malicious in the instances you pointed to above, it would not mean that he necessarily quoted Pinker out of context. They are separate questions.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Fooloso4 »

mattfara50:
Charity would lead one to read his writing on the topic to examine his argument for that dilemma.
Where does he discuss reasoned deliberation about moral issues and how does he fit this into the either/or options he frames the issue in?
Pretty much same response. Charity would behoove you to read his writing on the subject to see the mechanics behind his stated conclusions. A podcast is no place to expound all of that.
And once again, where does he discuss this option?

A charitable reading of what an author says in one place does not require reading everything he has ever said elsewhere.
Charity would have you assume that Craig would have more to say on the subject were he pressed.
Sounds more like faith or hope than charity.
Again, he probably has reasons for his unwillingness.
Again, a charitable reading does not mean that an author "probably" has a satisfactory answer to everything, or any answer at all.
Obviously there is a reason to think that, since Craig thinks it.
Craig’s argument is based on the false dichotomy of objectivism vs. nihilism. Since Pinker does not support objectivism Craig is suggesting that he is an unwitting nihilist. Craig is a Christian apologist. His goal is to frame arguments in a way that he can win. What he may actually think is something we are not privy to.
If it is merely a lapse of reason on his part, then he is honest. That's charity.
A single lapse in reason is one thing, but there is a well established and documented pattern of misrepresentation, misleading, and deceptive argumentative tactics on his part. Either he is astonishingly inept or dishonest. His sophistic skills make it clear that he is not inept.
I don't see an argument from you on why the quote was out of context.
Spiral presented the context. I addressed it in my first post.
I don't see you showing evidence for concluding that there is a long, well-documented history of misrepresentation.
I haven’t, but if you are interested, reading the results of a quick internet search will keep you busy for a long time.
mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by mattfara50 »

Fooloso4 wrote: April 29th, 2018, 4:56 pm mattfara50:
Charity would lead one to read his writing on the topic to examine his argument for that dilemma.
Where does he discuss reasoned deliberation about moral issues and how does he fit this into the either/or options he frames the issue in?
Pretty much same response. Charity would behoove you to read his writing on the subject to see the mechanics behind his stated conclusions. A podcast is no place to expound all of that.
And once again, where does he discuss this option?

A charitable reading of what an author says in one place does not require reading everything he has ever said elsewhere.

I agree. Charity would have you withhold judgment until after reading the relevant writing. And note, the relevant writing. not everything. A straw man won't get you anywhere.

Charity would have you assume that Craig would have more to say on the subject were he pressed.
Sounds more like faith or hope than charity.

Since merely asking Craig to say more about the subject would answer the question, it's by no means faith claim. It's an appeal for charity. And of course it is plausible that he has reasons for thinking what he thinks. He is a professional philosopher, after all.
Again, he probably has reasons for his unwillingness.
Again, a charitable reading does not mean that an author "probably" has a satisfactory answer to everything, or any answer at all.

Then what would a charitable reading be in this context?

Obviously there is a reason to think that, since Craig thinks it.
Craig’s argument is based on the false dichotomy of objectivism vs. nihilism. Since Pinker does not support objectivism Craig is suggesting that he is an unwitting nihilist.

That's exactly right. But whether that dichotomy is indeed false is not the question at issue. Whether Craig's dichotomy is false has no bearing on whether he used the quote out of context. It's just not relevant. Secondarily, it is a philosophical question whether the dichotomy is false. Simply claiming, as you do, that the dichotomy is false does nothing to prove it.

If it is merely a lapse of reason on his part, then he is honest. That's charity.
A single lapse in reason is one thing, but there is a well established and documented pattern of misrepresentation, misleading, and deceptive argumentative tactics on his part. Either he is astonishingly inept or dishonest. His sophistic skills make it clear that he is not inept.

You'd have to engage with Craig's argument as to the validity of the dichotomy. You haven't done that here. Should I just take it on faith that you have an irrefutable objection to Craig's arguments for that dichotomy? No. But I should assume that you have some reasons for thinking so. That's charity. Maybe we could make that a new topic, since it's not exactly relevant here.

I don't see an argument from you on why the quote was out of context.
Spiral presented the context. I addressed it in my first post.
As we can see from the except Craig stops after Pinker’s framing of the question.
Craig misrepresents him by making it seem as if biology is the end of the story.
Just because the audience and Goldstein herself interpreted Craig's use of the quote as an attempt to misrepresent Pinker does not guarantee that this was, in fact, what Craig was doing. I provided a more charitable alternative interpretation of Craig's use of the quote. Again, the quote itself uses the word "if." It's up to the listener to supply the requisite antecedent to draw any conclusion. If the listener hallucinates an antecedent or assumes that Pinker supplies one outside the quote, that's their problem. You could be right. Maybe Craig did cherry pick. Perhaps he knew that Goldstein would perceive his quoting Pinker as an attempt at cherry picking, even if Craig didn't actually do so technically. Still dishonest. The point is, more than one possibility exists, and the principle of charity would have you choose mine or one like it.

In the except Pinker lays out the two options for moral absolutism - God and moral realism. He rejects both and so he does support a form of moral relativism, but not a form of moral relativism in which any choice or action is morally equal to any other. Reason tells us that some options are better than others because they most benefit or least harm all involved.
Craig's contention is that no relativistic moral system can be objectively grounded, and as you admit, Pinker's position is relativistic. Thus it's not objectively grounded. So which premise is flawed: Craig's or yours? Moreover, Pinker does not answer Hume's is/ought objection, which he must if reason alone can be a source of morals. But again, this isn't really on topic.

I don't see you showing evidence for concluding that there is a long, well-documented history of misrepresentation.
I haven’t, but if you are interested, reading the results of a quick internet search will keep you busy for a long time.
Frankly, the arguments stand and fall by their own strength. I'm much less interested in the attempt to impute malice or interpret quotes. Logic is what matters. For example, suppose Mao derived a mathematical proof. It wouldn't be wrong based on his character. Charity allows me to stay focused on the important things.
Spiral
Posts: 23
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:46 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Spiral »

mattfara50 wrote: April 30th, 2018, 4:48 pm
Craig's contention is that no relativistic moral system can be objectively grounded, and as you admit, Pinker's position is relativistic. Thus it's not objectively grounded. So which premise is flawed: Craig's or yours? Moreover, Pinker does not answer Hume's is/ought objection, which he must if reason alone can be a source of morals. But again, this isn't really on topic.
How does William Lane Craig answer Hume's is/ought objection? God is. Does this mean human being ought behave in one manner versus another?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Fooloso4 »

mattfara50:
I agree. Charity would have you withhold judgment until after reading the relevant writing. And note, the relevant writing. not everything. A straw man won't get you anywhere.
Unless someone brings other writings to your attention that are relevant (you have not) you either have to read everything, go with what you have, or withhold judgment. What kind of charitable interpretation can one make while withholding judgment?
Since merely asking Craig to say more about the subject would answer the question, it's by no means faith claim.
Have you done so? What did he say?
He is a professional philosopher, after all.
He is, in my opinion, a professional sophist and Christian apologist. He is not a disinterested thinker interested in pursuing the truth wherever it may lead. He is interested in winning arguments.
Then what would a charitable reading be in this context?
It would be to read what is written. If we assume an author probably has unstated reasons then if we are to take them into account we need evidence in support of the assumption, otherwise, if we let our assumptions determine our interpretation the results might be quite uncharitable and false.
But whether that dichotomy is indeed false is not the question at issue. Whether Craig's dichotomy is false has no bearing on whether he used the quote out of context.
Once again, that he takes the quote out of context is clear from the extended quote provided by Spiral and my initial comments on it:
As we can see from the except Craig stops after Pinker’s framing of the question. Craig misrepresents him by making it seem as if biology is the end of the story. Goldstein corrects him when she points to our ability to reason.
Craig makes it seem as though Pinker’s framing of the problem represents his position. It does not as the rest of the quote provided by Spiral makes clear.
Secondarily, it is a philosophical question whether the dichotomy is false. Simply claiming, as you do, that the dichotomy is false does nothing to prove it.
That it is false is easy to demonstrate: I reject a) objectivism but I also reject b) nihilism, I hold that what we do and think makes a difference. If there is some third option it is not a dichotomy.
You'd have to engage with Craig's argument as to the validity of the dichotomy. You haven't done that here. Should I just take it on faith that you have an irrefutable objection to Craig's arguments for that dichotomy?
From my first post:
He rejects both [forms of objectivism] and so he does support a form of moral relativism, but not a form of moral relativism in which any choice or action is morally equal to any other. Reason tells us that some options are better than others because they most benefit or least harm all involved.
Just because the audience and Goldstein herself interpreted Craig's use of the quote as an attempt to misrepresent Pinker does not guarantee that this was, in fact, what Craig was doing. I provided a more charitable alternative interpretation of Craig's use of the quote. Again, the quote itself uses the word "if."
Here is your charitable alternative interpretation:

The most charitable, and thus, I think, most useful, interpretation of Craig's invocation of the quote is as follows: Pinker obviously worries along the same lines as Craig, even if they diverge on how to resolve the issue. Craig invokes the quote to show Rebecca that even prominent atheists grapple with this concern, and that the issue is by no means resolved.
And this is what we find in the transcript of the podcast provided by Spiral following the debate:
KEVIN HARRIS: You quoted her husband to her. That was a pretty firm moment, I think. You really pushed her there. You were polite but you certainly threw it at her.

Craig: I remembered in my files this marvelous statement by Pinker about moral values being similar to purely subjective phenomena like the fear of heights or the foulness of carrion. He had no good answer to why then events like the Holocaust would be objectively wrong rather than just personally distasteful.
Craig did not “invoke” the quote in order to show Rebecca that even prominent atheists grapple with this concern. In the debate he leaves out Pinker’s opening: “Here’s the worry”. (I checked again and found nothing about an 'if' clause.) He calls it is a “statement” rather than a question or problem that Pinker addresses. In the transcript he says it is a “statement by Pinker about moral values being similar to purely subjective phenomena like the fear of heights or the foulness of carrion”. He words it in such a way that it seems as though this is Pinker’s position on moral values, but in a way that he can also deny it by claiming that he did not say that this was Pinker’s position. It is intentionally misleading and deceptive. If that was not his intention he could easily have made a clear and unambiguous distinction between Pinker’s posing of a problem and his response to the problem.
Craig's contention is that no relativistic moral system can be objectively grounded, and as you admit, Pinker's position is relativistic. Thus it's not objectively grounded. So which premise is flawed: Craig's or yours?
My “premise” is that relativism does not entail nihilism. Once again, it is not either objectivism or nihilism.
Pinker does not answer Hume's is/ought objection, which he must if reason alone can be a source of morals.
According to your notion of charity of interpretation would oblige you to reserve judgment regarding the is/ought distinction, since Pinker may discuss it elsewhere. He does not say that reason alone is the source of morals, biology and evolution play a part. In any case, even if we accept that what ought to be cannot be derived from what is, we can still deliberate about what ought to do.
Frankly, the arguments stand and fall by their own strength … Charity allows me to stay focused on the important things.
Does a strong argument require charity? It is one thing not to reach conclusions too hastily, it is quite another to donate when one is weak or poor or lacking.
Logic is what matters.
Well, if we were dealing with logic rather than morality there would be much less room for disagreement. Within a formal logical system there are objective determinations. Morality is not like that.
mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by mattfara50 »

Fooloso4 wrote: April 30th, 2018, 7:05 pm mattfara50:


I checked again and found nothing about an 'if' clause
...Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?
This is within the quote Craig invoked.
Fooloso, I'm going to come back to this tomorrow. My wife needs some help studying for a test. I really appreciate the opportunity to hash this out with you. It's a delight. My wife only gets annoyed with philosophy. Til then
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by Fooloso4 »

mattfara50:
This is within the quote Craig invoked.
I misunderstood. I thought you meant he began the quoted material with ‘if’.

Goldstein was emphasizing reason and mentioned moral progress when Craig interrupted to selectively quotes Pinker. The problem is that based on where he stops the idea of moral progress would seem not to make sense. The reason it would not make sense is because Craig ignores the necessity of reasoned moral deliberation.

In the last statement from Pinker’s text he rejects the “if” brain wiring. If Craig has quoted that his version of the naturalistic argument he attacks would be irrelevant because Pinker’s naturalism is not simply a matter of brain wiring.
mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?

Post by mattfara50 »

Fooloso4 wrote: April 30th, 2018, 9:53 pm mattfara50:
This is within the quote Craig invoked.
I misunderstood. I thought you meant he began the quoted material with ‘if’.

Goldstein was emphasizing reason and mentioned moral progress when Craig interrupted to selectively quotes Pinker. The problem is that based on where he stops the idea of moral progress would seem not to make sense. The reason it would not make sense is because Craig ignores the necessity of reasoned moral deliberation.

Actually, it's beginning to seem more plausible that he did cherry pick that quote to try to make his own point, and to put Goldstein in the awkward position of arguing against her own husband, ostensibly. If Goldstein didn't recognize the quote's author, the audience can't be expected to, and thus one could not expect the audience to know the context of that quote. Then again, were the conversation not about to be pushed along by the moderator, perhaps Craig would have gone on to flesh out the context. Maybe Craig then would have shown where he thinks Pinker's objection to the framing of the question fails to show an objective basis for morality. So the quoting out of context might have been intentional or incidental to time constraints. But given that pregnant pause after Craig reveals the quote's author, it does seem less plausible it was incidental. And he knew time was short when he delivered the quote. I think you're right.

Craig clearly thought, given the popularity of Jordan Peterson, that this conversation was a golden opportunity to win over hearts and minds. He perhaps justified the dishonesty on that basis. And he tries to make it seem less dishonest on his podcast by stating that Pinker, even if he does object to the framing of the question, fails to successfully object. Personally, that is the more interesting question to me, and I've taken the time to map out Craig's moral argument from one of his books. And given how much difficulty Craig has had debating this particular reasoning for the existence of God before (against Shelly Kagan, for example), I think it makes sense to invest a bit more time here.

Fooloso, thank you for this debate. I think you perceived the more plausible explanation faster than I did, and you had the patience to pull me toward that. Some of what you said seemed irrelevant or question-begging, and you seem to think simply asserting Z when someone else has an argument for X and Y being the only viable options proves that X and Y are falsely dichotomous. So I still disagree with you on quite a bit, but I look forward to continuing in another post. Craig is human. He makes bad choices. But that doesn't undermine his arguments, so I'll continue trying to understand them, steel man them, and break them. I hope you join me.

In the last statement from Pinker’s text he rejects the “if” brain wiring. If Craig has quoted that his version of the naturalistic argument he attacks would be irrelevant because Pinker’s naturalism is not simply a matter of brain wiring.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021