04.17
Last time I promised another example of relativism being employed as a rhetorical device. This time it’s Andy Ihnatko doing it in an ad for audible.com during an episode of This Week in Tech(TWiT). He’s recommending an audiobook by Julia Sweeney entitled Letting Go of God. Watch the video of it starting at the 1:40:45 mark(you should be able to just click play and it will jump to 1:40:45):
So, here’s the key quote:
“This is the most powerful argument I’ve ever heard. She simply walks you through… not through the argument against God, but why she herself came to this decision ([that God doesn't exist]) and why this was the right decision for her.”
This is an often used tactic employed by atheists that are committed, but haven’t had the time or fortitude to dig deep into the arguments. So, they end up falling back on cliche’d, “God is an emotional crutch” rhetoric. But, instead of just coming out and saying that, he’s obscuring that idea behind some relativism language: “this was the right decision for her.”
Now, if God doesn’t exist for you, then he doesn’t exist for me either. We both live in the same world. And, if I believe he does exist then I’m either (A) ignorant or (B)playing emotional make-believe games. Those are the only two options I’m left with, given his view. But, it’s obvious that he is compelled by the personal journey type aspect of this lady’s story. So, He attempts to soften the logical blow a little by bringing in the “…for her” bit on the end. But, the message is still crystal clear.
What he is logically saying is that theists believe in things that aren’t real. On his view, we theists play make believe games. But, he’s going to be kind and not judge us for it since he’s saying that it’s simply a personal decision. That’s like saying it’s a personal decision whether or not to believe that polka dotted rabbit people from outer space live inside of coke machines and deliver cokes out of the hole when I put in my money. Of course that’s not a personal decision. If you believe that, you are insane.
Now, just as I did before, let’s re-package what he said into a syllogism to more clearly expose the relativism:
- God doesn’t exist.
- Julia Sweeney realizes this.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist for Julia Sweeney.
Again, the conclusion is not sound. In essence, he is arguing for conditional existence based on mental awareness of the truth of a proposition. That’s complete nonsense, and I doubt that’s what he even intended at all. It’s probably just force of habit on his part. He’s not stupid. But, when you employ relativism, that’s what you are left with. Nonsense arguments disguised in emotional sophistry. Evidently that type of thing qualifies as the “most powerful argument” he’s “ever heard.” Jeez. When it comes to the God argument, he really needs to dig a bit deeper than a stage performance by a lady that had a hard life. I hate that she had hard times, but that really has nothing to do with whether certain objects exist or not. The existence of things in the real world are not conditional upon the emotions of a lady on stage.
