In response to this Fri30May03 post by Omar Lughod:

> There is another informal fallacy called the
> "straw-man argument". It puts forth an absurd
> representation of an argument as an archetype for
> all arguments.

Yes, Omar, I know of that fallacy, and I also know that
atheists use the straw-man argument continually when
dealing with theology. Their 'objective' observations
begin with the premise that the religious humans that
they study are sadly deluded, or perhaps merely
culturally deprived. And they presume to call this,
'science.' For the Atheist, Religion is not viewed as
the human being's elevation to God, but largely as
one class of socio-economic statistic.

> To begin with, your exposition is ignoring arguments
> that begin with the presumption of God's existence,
> and lead us, by inference, to the falsity or absurdity
> of that initial presumption. Such an argumentative
> procedure is quite valid and well represented in the
> philosophical literature, whatever the worth of the
> particular arguments in question.

You are quite mistaken, Omar. I do not presume that
God exists -- and Hegel does not presume that God
exists. Hegel has *proved* scientifically that God
exists. He said so. If you had read more of his
writings you would know that. His LECTURES ON
THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (1818-1831) greatly
stress the critical necessity to *prove* that God
exists. That is the difference between Religion and
Philosophy -- Religion may *presume* that God
exists, and Philosophy must *prove* that God exists.

I have been harping on this point for many months
now. I don't get as many responses to these facts
as I get incredulous surprise -- as if somebody forged
all these quotes by Hegel!

> To favor not merely
> an adhominem (which your exposition above only
> confirms) but a straw-man procedure over legitimate
> forms of argument must be viewed with a certain
> suspicion.

There is no ad hominem (personal attack), in my
descriptions of the atheisms of Freud, Marx or Nietzsche,
Omar.

I relayed facts and only facts. (If you deny this, then
kindly show where I did not offer a fact about these
three famous Atheists.) Perhaps you were surprised
to see somebody describe them so accurately while
sharply disagreeing with them.

> I do not recognize in your exposition the atheism of
> many of the left Hegelians i have read: eg., Robert
> Pippin, McCumber, Kojeve, Rosen, Cutrofello, etc.
> All these folks have achieved their atheism fully
> cognizant of Hegel's dialectic.

So they claim. I have read Kojeve's work very closely,
and I find it to be one of the least accurate portraits of
Hegel ever. Everybody knows that Kojeve came to
Hegel because of Marx. He read Hegel (like most of
the writers involved) through the eyes of Marx. Marx
admitted that he stood Hegel upon his head, but he
also said that he was a 'disciple' of Hegel, so this
logical contradiction must always be dealt with by
his millions of followers.

The current generation of Marxist writers is at a
disadvantage, however, since the modern philosophy
student knows more about Hegel's actual texts than
the last generation of philosophy students. Marxists
are not able to put words into Hegel's mouth anymore.

> Perhaps they were mistaken in their interpretation
> of Hegel, but that must be demonstrated, not
> presupposed.

Omar, I have been demonstrating this for months. Hegel
was one of the great theologians of all time, and his
theology is woven intricately into his Dialectic, from
the Logic through the Natural Science through the
Phenomenology of Spirit.

It is -- by definition -- impossible for somebody who is
an Atheist to do justice to a world-class Theologian like
Hegel. It cannot happen because it is a logical
contradiction. The problems involved would be
insurmountable.

I have given many sound arguments in my favor. They
are not dealt with, they are generally ignored. For one,
Hegel has literally hundreds of detailed arguments
supporting Christianity as the consummate Religion
of all History. Hegel explains why it is the Religion
of Love, and why Love and Spirit are one, and why
all Religions have been fulfilled in the life of Christ.
But we hear *not one word* about this line of
thought from the Marxists -- we only hear how
such a line of thought is *impossible* and must
be "turned upside down."

This cannot add to Hegel's spiritual insights, it
can only detract. That is what I call "ignorance"
with regard to theological issues. That is not an
ad hominem attack -- that is an objective estimation.
When a writer "ignores" a line of thinking, we can
say that writer is "ignorant" of that line of thinking.

> Your exposition above is merely a strawman given
> such possibilities. And since i am certain you are
> aware of their literature, your exposition above makes
> for a bit of suspicion as to your "scientific" pretentions.

I disagree that I'm making a straw-man, Omar, since
many who have read the documents involved know
very well that I am correct. The only possible response
of the Marxists to my barrage of facts is annoyance and
personal insult. These have risen to new heights here
with this thread.

You charge me with ad hominem arguments, Omar, yet
your own posts are full of ad hominem, sarcasm, etc.
Instead you should be willing to discuss questionable
quotes from Marx, and certainly more quotations from
Hegel about Christ, Love, Spirit and the Trinity.

> You mention "age old truths" above, -the "middle
> path", the "Golden mean"? This counts for you as an
> adequate answer to arguments for God's existence and
> against atheism? this counts for you as Hegelian
> dialectical thinking??!!!

Not at all, Omar -- I merely threw a metaphor to explain
a complex idea in one sentence.

> Certainly, i must control my sarcasm, another form of
> argumentative fallacy, since it adds nothing
> substantive to an argument. For the point, the whole
> point where rationality is concerned, is the argument.
>
> =====
> Omar

Yes, Omar, by all means, the argument. Let's hear your
argument. So far you have demanded mine, and offered
little more than sarcasm in return. But show me exactly
where I got Marx wrong, or Freud wrong, or Nietzsche
wrong, or Kojeve wrong, or Hegel wrong.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo