Thomas Paine on Calvinism and Sophistry

[whag]

I stand corrected. Indeed I did know that sophistry isn't tantamount to "bad argument" but "insubstantial argument."

In any case, it's enough to acknowledge that Paul used manipulation to persuade. Paine was addressing Calvinists who he was certain wouldn't be persuaded any way, so it's not same.

[Outis]

Paine was addressing Calvinists who he was certain wouldn't be persuaded any way, so it's not same.

We can't say that for certain. Based on his previous habits of "preaching to the choir," and of submitting his materials to sympathetic audiences, Paine was most likely addressing the non-Calvinists. Unforunately we can't be certain of that--Paine never published this letter. It was first published in a posthumous collection in London.

[Outis]

Outis, a reasonable response to the OP would be to demonstrate why you agree with Paine that Paul's metaphor is invalid and unrealistic based solely on the more context-based methodology that you advocated.

"Reasonable" is in the mind of the beholder. What caught my eye is that you chided Paul for sophistry, while using Paine's sophistry (and your own) to do so.

Is sophistry a bad thing? Or are you simply wishing to prove your skills ("sophos") are greater than Paul's?

[whag]

Outis, do you mean he was addressing non-Calvinist Christians or skeptics? Which skeptics had a stake in the Calvinist/Arminian debate?

[whag]

"Reasonable" is in the mind of the beholder. What caught my eye is that you chided Paul for sophistry, while using Paine's sophistry (and your own) to do so.

Is sophistry a bad thing? Or are you simply wishing to prove your skills ("sophos") are greater than Paul's?

So you really did know what I meant by sophistry, didn't you? ;)

[Outis]

Outis, do you mean he was addressing non-Calvinist Christians or skeptics? Which skeptics had a stake in the Calvinist/Arminian debate?

Considering that he never published this letter, of course I cannot make a definitive statement on that. But considering the fact that then, as now, people regularly injected their religious sentiments into their political arguments, then I would say that yes--this letter, though putatively addressed to Calvinist ministers, was actually addressed to non-Calvinist-minded political enthusiasts. This is quite in line with how he intended his other works to be used, and to how they were indeed used. Common Sense, for instance, was not intended to make cold, logical arguments for independence: it used rhetoric, appeals to emotion, and other tricks of sophistry persuade, and to radicalize, the reader who was already sympathetic to the Cause. He did not attempt to persuade loyalists, consigning them to the rubbish heap of his rhetoric.

His letter above is not as radical, but it is still directed towards "his" side of the argument, not to the opponents.

[Outis]

So you really did know what I meant by sophistry, didn't you? ;)

Don't teach your grandpa how to steal sheep, you young whippersnapper.

[whag]

Don't teach your grandpa how to steal sheep, you young whippersnapper.

I'm 42 and have gray hair where I never imagined it.

[whag]

Considering that he never published this letter, of course I cannot make a definitive statement on that. But considering the fact that then, as now, people regularly injected their religious sentiments into their political arguments, then I would say that yes--this letter, though putatively addressed to Calvinist ministers, was actually addressed to non-Calvinist-minded political enthusiasts. This is quite in line with how he intended his other works to be used, and to how they were indeed used. Common Sense, for instance, was not intended to make cold, logical arguments for independence: it used rhetoric, appeals to emotion, and other tricks of sophistry persuade, and to radicalize, the reader who was already sympathetic to the Cause. He did not attempt to persuade loyalists, consigning them to the rubbish heap of his rhetoric.

His letter above is not as radical, but it is still directed towards "his" side of the argument, not to the opponents.

The effect of Calvinist preaching resulted in some suicides. Some in Jonathon Edwards' congregation, including his own uncle, took their lives because they were despondent about being fitted for the trash heap.

I think Paine wasn't as shallow as you paint him to be. I think he was passionate about this issue because of the effect that hideous theology can have fragile human minds.

If you ever get around to explaining why Paul's metaphor is invalid and unrealistic based on the more rigorous methodology you advocated, tell me. My current stance on the matter has nothing to do with "ear tickling" but the simple recognition that Paine's argumentation was the best way to attack Calvinism with the resources available to an uneducated public. You apparently have the methodological training to rebut Paul's logic in a different way but haven't seen fit to share.

I'm curious to see your approach in action.

[Outis]

I'm 42 and have gray hair where I never imagined it.

My comment stands, you young whippersnapper.

More to the topic, looking back on the thread, I guess I did rain on your parade to little actual purpose, and for that I do apologize. I will note, not so much in my defense as in a partial justification, that your argument has already been rejected by anyone on the Christin side of the equation. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, you probably already have an acknowledgement on the latest "screwball" thread ... and that is probably the ONLY acknowledgement your post will receive. A moment of amusement, then forgotten. Your argument is ineffective, for whatever reason.

Now, I don't know why you attacked this particular doctrine, or if your objections are specific (Calvinism) or more general (Christianity as a whole). But there is something I've discovered in decades of debate on the Internet, and in general: the more arguments you lose, the harder the next argument is to win. This is especially relevant when you have a largely consistent audience. The more time you spend arguing for largely unpopular positions, the more likely it will be that just seeing your name on the post will be enough to turn on the "No" switch in people's minds.

I don't know if you've reached that point, Whag, but I have seen people argue poor positions for so long that even if their next argument was something like "Water is wet" or "Ice is cold," they received rejection, mockery, and derision. Now, if you're OK arguing for its own sake, and don't care about the results, that's perfectly cool. Some people do--they live for the _argument_, and are utterly unconcerned about actually persuading people. That's not my style, but hey, it takes all sorts.

If that's where you're at, and you're enjoying yourself, great. I'll do my part to fling rocks at the castles you build. But if that's NOT where you're at, or if you are actually attempting to persuade people, or if the "Game" is not the end as well as the means, then perhaps it's time for a change?

[Outis]

The effect of Calvinist preaching resulted in some suicides. Some in Jonathon Edwards' congregation, including his own uncle, took their lives because they were despondent about being fitted for the trash heap.

I know. I grew up in Calvinist and Calvinist-influenced churches.

The problem is, this particular argument can ONLY be had from "inside the tent." If I were a Christian, my input would be accepted or rejected on its own merits. But because I am a non-Christian, there is literally _no argument_ I can ever offer that will have the slightest impact on any but a very few Christians--and those only my personal friends who were willing to give me a hearing (and, in all reality, were probably already non-Calvinist).

This particular area of doctrine, like many others, is functionally immune to the criticism of non-Christians. All a Christian has to say is "Oh, you don't believe, the Holy Spirit is not within you, your opinion does not matter," and the discussion is at an end in their eyes.

[lilpixieofterror]

You realize people in the 18 century had much more in common with people in the ANE.

No they didn't whag, they had more in common with us then they did with people living in the ANE.

[robrecht]

I know. I grew up in Calvinist and Calvinist-influenced churches.

The problem is, this particular argument can ONLY be had from "inside the tent." If I were a Christian, my input would be accepted or rejected on its own merits. But because I am a non-Christian, there is literally _no argument_ I can ever offer that will have the slightest impact on any but a very few Christians--and those only my personal friends who were willing to give me a hearing (and, in all reality, were probably already non-Calvinist).

This particular area of doctrine, like many others, is functionally immune to the criticism of non-Christians. All a Christian has to say is "Oh, you don't believe, the Holy Spirit is not within you, your opinion does not matter," and the discussion is at an end in their eyes.

I think what you are saying is true, but only about some Christians, eg, fundamentalist Christians, who typically come from traditions that emphasize faith more than reason, sometimes even irrational faith or other times faith based 'logic'. Many Christians are self-critical and accept critique from outside their own circle and value intellectual inquiry very highly.

[Outis]

Many Christians are self-critical and accept critique from outside their own circle and value intellectual inquiry very highly.

I've met very few Christians who were simultaneously Calvinist and open to critique from non-Christians. That's not to say that they were all rude sots--there have been more than a few who cheerfully walked me through the arguments and patiently listened to my critiques, all the while saying, as kindly as possible, "This is not something you are equipped to understand."

[robrecht]

I've met very few Christians who were simultaneously Calvinist and open to critique from non-Christians. That's not to say that they were all rude sots--there have been more than a few who cheerfully walked me through the arguments and patiently listened to my critiques, all the while saying, as kindly as possible, "This is not something you are equipped to understand."

If you're speaking specifically about Calvinists, you very well may be right, I do not know as I have very little familiarity with Calvinism.