Happy Atheist Forum

Hi! I wrote an essay about S. E. Cupp's proclaimed atheism and I am trying to iron out the kinks in my logic.  I'm not very experienced at constructing syllogisms; they may likely prove to be the weak spots in my argument.  Lately, I have been involved in several discussions over whether criticizing Cupp for being a seemingly false atheist is truly a "No True Scotsman" fallacy if her expressed ideology does, in fact, contradict the lack of belief in a god which marks atheism.  Do you agree that this criticism is valid, or am I only committing a massive "Scotsman?"


Recently, political commentator S. E. Cupp (http://www.redsecupp.com)has been popping up on various media outlets in order to promote her new book, Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Our-Religion-Liberal-Christianity/dp/1439173168). Her primary thesis is that the mainstream media is engaged in a collusive campaign with the political left to silence, persecute, and eventually eliminate the Christian majority of the United States. (I will fully admit that I have not read this book; my reading list of quality, educational material is currently too long for me to spare time for a questionable piece of opinionated nonfiction.) But a key element in every promotional appearance has been the irony of Cupp, a self-proclaimed atheist, writing a book about this alleged persecution of religion. Her atheism has been a key hook in her book tour and has garnered her much more attention than she would have likely received had she either professed Christianity or simply omitted her religious status altogether.

A description of the book from Simon & Schuster (http://books.simonandschuster.com/Losing-Our-Religion/S-E-Cupp/9781439173169), Cupp's publisher:

QuoteFrom her galvanizing introduction, you know where S. E. Cupp stands: She’s an atheist. A non-believer. Which makes her the perfect impartial reporter from the trenches of a culture war dividing America and eroding the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded.

While it does not overtly figure into the book's thesis, Cupp's atheism is clearly central to the overall promotion of her book as she has attempted to imbue her assertions with automatic validity based upon her ideological platform. Of course, this in itself does not contradict her claim of atheism; just because someone is making money off of an ideological platform does not in any way invalidate the platform itself. (Although I suppose that a platform which promotes the benefits of voluntary poverty would be necessarily invalidated if used for profit. But I digress.) However, as I continued to watch various interviews with Cupp, I was repeatedly struck by the profound contradictions of her supposed atheism. It is these contradictions upon which I base my opposition to Cupp's misappropriation of the term "atheist." In the course of this essay, I hope to logically disprove Cupp's claim of atheism and thereby successfully escape the looming pitfalls of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. S. E. Cupp's claim of atheism is illogical because she refuses to accurately label religious beliefs, presupposes the existence of a God, and exalts the worship of a higher power.

Mislabeling Belief

By refusing to label religious beliefs as delusions, Cupp is thereby insinuating that these beliefs are justified. (See 1:30 in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXuA0u4zp5g) from Real Time with Bill Maher for a direct quote.)

   1. A belief which is not a delusion is a true belief.
   2. Cupp says that religious beliefs are not delusions.
   3. Therefore, Cupp says that religious beliefs are true beliefs.


One can claim any ideological label that they like. However, if their expressed ideology then contradicts the definition of this label, the claim of this label can said to be false. The basic definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in God. Cupp does indeed say that she does not believe in God, and therefore fulfills the basic qualification of atheism. However, one who does not believe in God must necessarily reject this belief as false;
if the belief is not rejected as false, then it is accepted as true and believed. A delusion is, by definition, a false belief. By refusing to label religious beliefs as delusions, Cupp is necessarily insinuating that these beliefs are true. Expressing that a belief in God is true is complete contradictory to the single tenet of atheism.

Presupposing God

Cupp's declaration that she does not believe in God "yet" but is open to conversion presupposes that there actually is a god in which to believe. (See 4:10 and 8:00 in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8v9wGfpQI) from CSPAN and 1:00 in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0gLw4gp90)from The Sean Hannity Show for direct quotes.)

   1. If an eternal entity exists in the future, then this entity exists in the present.
   2. Cupp speaks of a future belief in the existence of God.
   3. Therefore, the subject of Cupp's future belief exists in the present.


By openly "aspiring to be a person of faith," Cupp is inferring that a belief in God is entirely possible but that she simply lacks it at the present moment. However, this is illogical; insinuating that there is an eternal god in which to eventually believe is logically the same as believing that something presently exists. If she sees a belief in a God as an eventual probability--or even just a possibility--then she is thereby necessarily saying that this God currently exists. Is there really a difference between saying "X currently exists" and "I believe in X?" Furthermore, there are additional difficulties presented by Cupp's continually proclaimed desire for beliefs which she herself claims to reject. At the very least, this represents severe cognitive dissonance as she is seemingly expressing a desire to be convinced of false beliefs. At its worse, her supposedly atheistic ardor for religious belief devolves into utter absurdity, as I will attempt to demonstrate in my next point.

Exalting Worship

Cupp extols the virtues of deriving guidance from a higher power which infers that either the concept of a higher power is true or that false beliefs are beneficial. (See 5:18 and 8:10 in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8v9wGfpQI) from CSPAN for direct quotes.)

   1. A beneficial belief is a true belief.
   2. Cupp says that the belief in a higher power is beneficial.
   3. Therefore, Cupp says that the concept of a higher power is true belief.


Even if she stills claims that she does not believe in the concept of a higher power, she is then saying that false beliefs are a beneficial. At this point, her entire platform devolves into absurdity. If false beliefs are just as beneficial as negative beliefs, then what is the point of truth? Cupp's entire thesis to her book is that the "liberal media" uses the distortion of truth to persecute religion. However, if she is genuinely supporting the possession of false beliefs, then how can she simultaneously bemoan a distortion of truth? If false beliefs are positive attributes, then truth is irrelevant and her entire platform is nonsensical.


Conclusion

I do not know whether Cupp's illogical atheism is the result of deliberate deceit, inadequate examination, or simple ignorance. Regardless, she wields the controversial banner atheism purely for the accompanying stigma. In reality, Cupp is abusing the perception of atheists as wolves while proclaiming a sheepish message that is palatable to her religious audience. Because of what I perceive to be clear financial motives in Cupp's book promotion media blitz, I am led to suspect that her claim of atheism is nothing more than a hook to sell a literary product. As I have said once before, I see Cupp's entire story as an utterly predictable prologue to her inevitably forthcoming "How I found Jesus" book and fundamentally antithetical to the entire position of atheism.

Yeah, I don't like that woman at all really.  She just seems disingenuous to me - like you said, trying to milk the negative stigma often associated with atheists to seem like a likable (and marketable) alternative.  Super lame.

So the argument is that since she is saying she's an atheist then her work therefore is somehow to be more trusted?  That's crap.  I'm an atheist and I wouldn't call myself completely "liberal" because the use of the political categorizations is, quite frankly, stupid.  Not everyone has the same views on complex issues but people will downplay their views in order to fit in with the group they think they do or should belong to - it retards actual independent thought and expression.  It looks like she's using this angle to say - "look, I'm an atheist therefore I shouldn't be on this side but I'm defending them."  It's like the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz's antipsychiatry work - the claim if often that "well, he's a psychiatrist and should be on the side of psychiatry but he's anti-psychiatry therefore psychiatry is evil".

Bottom line from my view - it's a tactic used by a publisher to sell a book and make money...no more, no less.

She may be an atheist trying to milk a concept for money or she may be a religious person purporting atheism to try to give her concept credibility.

However, just from reading about the book but not having read it myself, I get the idea that by saying beliefs are real she's just saying that people really believe what they say they do not that there is any basis in reality for those beliefs to be the truth.  Perhaps she is saying that since the beliefs are derived from the teachings of other people who believe these things it's not actually a delusion in the mental health sense but instead a case of people honestly thinking the teachings represent reality.

I don't think that religion is actually delusion but, instead, extreme misinformation.

I don't think religion is mostly good.  I think accurate information is always better than misinformation, no matter how well intended.

I think Cupp has probably led a very sheltered life and has never seen the negative effects of religion herself.  Many people have not.  They haven't been harassed, had their property vandalized, their children frightened or harmed, lost a job, or lived in fear of having their lack of belief discovered.  She probably is unable or unwilling to see that religion causes as many as 400,000 American children to become homeless when they are discovered or suspected to be homosexual by their religious parents.  Without direct experience some people are unable to process that these things might be happening to others.  Some people who are personally untouched by these horrible events may be unable to understand their causes or to care enough to seek the causes.

Quote from: "Shine"Presupposing God

Cupp's declaration that she does not believe in God "yet" but is open to conversion presupposes that there actually is a god in which to believe. (See 4:10 and 8:00 in this clip from CSPAN and 1:00 in this clipfrom The Sean Hannity Show for direct quotes.)

1. If an eternal entity exists in the future, then this entity exists in the present.
2. Cupp speaks of a future belief in the existence of God.
3. Therefore, the subject of Cupp's future belief exists in the present.


By openly "aspiring to be a person of faith," Cupp is inferring that a belief in God is entirely possible but that she simply lacks it at the present moment. However, this is illogical; insinuating that there is an eternal god in which to eventually believe is logically the same as believing that something presently exists. If she sees a belief in a God as an eventual probability--or even just a possibility--then she is thereby necessarily saying that this God currently exists. Is there really a difference between saying "X currently exists" and "I believe in X?" Furthermore, there are additional difficulties presented by Cupp's continually proclaimed desire for beliefs which she herself claims to reject. At the very least, this represents severe cognitive dissonance as she is seemingly expressing a desire to be convinced of false beliefs. At its worse, her supposedly atheistic ardor for religious belief devolves into utter absurdity, as I will attempt to demonstrate in my next point.

This is a clever argument, I see what you're getting at.  But...(I'm just taking a stab here, others please correct me if I'm wrong - Squid, I'm looking at you): there's something slightly wonky about the conclusion of the actual syllogism.  I don't think your syllogism matches what you argue the subsequent paragraph.  In Premise #1, you seem to speak, in the way you phrase your premise, of the objective existence of a hypothetical entity, not of Cupp's belief in that entity, although I get that you're trying to clarify the meaning of "eternal entity."  In #2, you speak of the status of Cupp's belief, not of the existence of the entity.  Your conclusion doesn't follow, because you are essentially, by combining 1 and 2, making existence dependant upon belief - it actually seems to say that since Cupp speaks of the possibiltiy of changing her mind in future to a belief in god, that god must actually exist in the present (as opposed to her belief in that god existing at present).  But this is absurd.  It is possible to hold a false belief so that the subject of your belief does not in fact exist (and obviously Cupp would be mistaken if she did hold that belief, but I don't think that's your point).  I don't think this is what you intend - I think you intend to show that if she is open to the possibility of believing in god in the future, she actually does believe in god in the present because of the nature of an eternal entity, whether she realizes it or not, but I'm not sure that's actually what your syllogism says.  

And in any case, the status of belief has nothing to do with the status of reality.  Just because an eternal entity must always exist, it doesn't follow that belief in that entity is eternal and must also always exist.  Belief can change irrespective of the status of the object of a belief.  If evolution is true, for example, it must always have been true, I would argue.  But a xian stating that they are open to being convinced of its veracity doesn't mean that they actually do now believe in evolution.  Dawkins himself says that, if he were presented with exactly the right kind of evidence, he would immediately change his beliefs about god in this regard, because the evidence would warrant it.  But that does not mean he currently believes.  He makes this point precisely to show that there is not such evidence now available (and also to argue that it is not HE that is a fundamentalist.  Fundamentalists believe regardless of the status of the evidence).  Her talking about "faith" is, to my mind, more indicative of someone who actually probably does believe at present, than it would be if she just stated that she is open to having her mind changed.

Quote from: "Shine"Exalting Worship

Cupp extols the virtues of deriving guidance from a higher power which infers that either the concept of a higher power is true or that false beliefs are beneficial. (See 5:18 and 8:10 in this clip from CSPAN for direct quotes.)

1. A beneficial belief is a true belief.
2. Cupp says that the belief in a higher power is beneficial.
3. Therefore, Cupp says that the concept of a higher power is true belief.


Even if she stills claims that she does not believe in the concept of a higher power, she is then saying that false beliefs are a beneficial. At this point, her entire platform devolves into absurdity. If false beliefs are just as beneficial as negative beliefs, then what is the point of truth? Cupp's entire thesis to her book is that the "liberal media" uses the distortion of truth to persecute religion. However, if she is genuinely supporting the possession of false beliefs, then how can she simultaneously bemoan a distortion of truth? If false beliefs are positive attributes, then truth is irrelevant and her entire platform is nonsensical.

You go on to explain this in your paragraph in a way that clarifies your point well, but in your Syllogism, #1 is patently false.

Evolutionary scientists have made a number of points about how we are not constructed, in many ways, to represent reality accurately, but have evolved to see things in ways that benefit our organism's survival.  We have evolved, for example, to, often, presume danger where there is none, to start at shadows, because it is better to flee and mistake danger than not to flee and mistake safety.  And it depends upon what you mean by "benefit."  It can be beneficial in some regard to hold a majority belief, or at least to espouse it, which might be false, in order to keep from being killed for holding an unpopular, but true, belief.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I don't think that religion is actually delusion but, instead, extreme misinformation.

Delusion is defined as something that is falsely or delusively (not always psychotically) believed or propagated regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite no evidence, indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all.
All religions are superstitions. All superstitions are delusions.

Shine,

QuoteHer primary thesis is that the mainstream media is engaged in a collusive campaign with the political left to silence, persecute, and eventually eliminate the Christian majority of the United States. (I will fully admit that I have not read this book...

The problem here is that you're trying to disqualify Cupps 'thesis' by not reading the evidence. And that totally disqualifies your next portion of the sentence:

Quotemy reading list of quality, educational material is currently too long for me to spare time for a questionable piece of opinionated nonfiction.)

How can you question her work if you don't read it? The best you can do here is to critique the stuff you heard in the interviews.

QuoteA description of the book from Simon & Schuster, Cupp's publisher:

 

QuoteFrom her galvanizing introduction, you know where S. E. Cupp stands: She’s an atheist. A non-believer. Which makes her the perfect impartial reporter from the trenches of a culture war dividing America and eroding the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded.

Yeah, and the same was said of Lee Strobel.

QuoteCupp's declaration that she does not believe in God "yet" but is open to conversion presupposes that there actually is a god in which to believe.

Every intelligent person should think this way...with the exception of the word "presupposes". I do not presuppose that a god does or might exist, yet if any reasonable evidence comes my way, I am and should always be open to believe that such entity exists. If Cupp does presuppose that a god exists, then she is not an atheist.

QuoteCupp extols the virtues of deriving guidance from a higher power...

Cup is no atheist.

Quote1. A beneficial belief is a true belief.
2. Cupp says that the belief in a higher power is beneficial.
3. Therefore, Cupp says that the concept of a higher power is true belief.

Cupp needs a logic course.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"She just seems disingenuous to me - like you said, trying to milk the negative stigma often associated with atheists to seem like a likable (and marketable) alternative.  Super lame.

This is exactly what bothers me.  I don't care about her politics; I'm only irritated that she is deliberately misappropriating the label of "atheism" to get attention without actually following through on the points which people find to be controversial.  I may have a hard time directly telling my religious family members that I think their beliefs are ultimately delusions, but I am not openly advertising myself as an atheist and making money off of my ideology (or lack thereof).

Quote from: "Squid"It looks like she's using this angle to say - "look, I'm an atheist therefore I shouldn't be on this side but I'm defending them."  It's like the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz's antipsychiatry work - the claim if often that "well, he's a psychiatrist and should be on the side of psychiatry but he's anti-psychiatry therefore psychiatry is evil".

Exactly. It's the "Hey, I'm the enemy and even I say that this is wrong so, therefore, it must really be true!"  So cheap.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Perhaps she is saying that since the beliefs are derived from the teachings of other people who believe these things it's not actually a delusion in the mental health sense but instead a case of people honestly thinking the teachings represent reality.

I agree that religious beliefs are not "delusions" in the psychiatric use of the word.  However, because she is not a psychiatrist and was not asked the question in the context of mental health, I do not think that the clinical definition would necessarily apply.  At its most basic, a delusion is a false belief.  I agree that the clinical use of the term "delusion" implies an actual mental impairment, and I agree that this is not the case with religious beliefs.  I think that religious delusions result from social conditioning and fear whereas psychotic delusions are the result of abnormal brain chemistry.  If Cupp was opposed to the term "delusion" on the basis of its clinical implications, then I think that she should have said so instead of outright refusal of the term.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"I don't think this is what you intend - I think you intend to show that if she is open to the possibility of believing in god in the future, she actually does believe in god in the present because of the nature of an eternal entity, whether she realizes it or not, but I'm not sure that's actually what your syllogism says.

I'm glad that you were able to understand my intention even though my syllogism was sloppy.  :D), but I think it resolved the conflation of existence and belief in the first syllogism.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"We have evolved, for example, to, often, presume danger where there is none, to start at shadows, because it is better to flee and mistake danger than not to flee and mistake safety.  And it depends upon what you mean by "benefit."  It can be beneficial in some regard to hold a majority belief, or at least to espouse it, which might be false, in order to keep from being killed for holding an unpopular, but true, belief.

I made a big mistake in not qualifying my use of the term "beneficial" in the essay; because it implies a value judgment, I was very unclear in not stating the direct goal which I thought that true beliefs would benefit.  I intended to say to that true beliefs are beneficial towards the goal of understanding and operating within reality.  However, I realize now that this goal itself encompasses two very different aims; to understand something is not necessarily the best way to operate in something.  My main point of contention is that Cupp admires Bush and other politicians who rely upon guidance from a higher power.  Therefore, I think that she is then saying that this false belief somehow helps politicians understand reality better, thereby functioning better within reality and making better decisions.  Maybe it should read like this:

1. A true belief is beneficial in understanding reality.
2. Cupp says that the belief in a higher power is beneficial in understanding reality.
3. Therefore, Cupp says that the concept of a higher power is true belief.

Or maybe I should substitute "understanding" with "functioning?"  (By the way, thanks for indulging my infantile attempts at constructing syllogisms! :blush:   I've only had a couple semesters of philosophy classes at a community college smack in the middle of central Texas; although the classes were supposed to be secular, we always ended up stuck on the basics of Christian theology confronting rudimentary philosophical concepts.  For example, in my ethics class last semester we discussed gay marriage.  Instead of delving into the more complex issues of paternal obligation and such (which are still easily refutable, in my opinion), we never got beyond the "The Bible says it's WRONG!" argument.  I had one guy argue against me that gay marriage could not be allowed because it violates marriage as defined by the Bible.  I replied that marriage as an institution predated the Bible by several millennia.  To which he then replied, "Really?  Which Bible are you looking at?  Cause mine says, 'In the beginning...'"  

Needless to say, I did not really learn much from the discussions in that class except for how to better mask my astonishment at idiotic religious drivel.  Consequently, I know that my attempts at logic are often sloppy at best and blatantly wrong at worst.  Could you elaborate on what is wrong the syllogism?  I constructed a revised version in this post as a reply to Black Jester; I tried to resolve the problem of an unqualified use of the term "beneficial."  Thanks!  ;) )  The only way to remedy ignorance is to just throw it all out there, right?

After reading the last post of yours, I think you're on the right track. But you could simply shorten the entire thing by saying "Cupp is a liar"...*laffin*

Quote from: "Gawen"After reading the last post of yours, I think you're on the right track. But you could simply shorten the entire thing by saying "Cupp is a liar"...*laffin*

just add tl;dr: at the end.

Quote from: "Gawen"But you could simply shorten the entire thing by saying "Cupp is a liar"...*laffin*

I totally agree!  :blush:

Quote from: "Shine"Brevity has never been my strong suit.  

They seemed just fine to me; didn't repeat yourself or use a bunch of fluff, so everything said kept my interest. I really have no criticism to offer except keep posting.

Quote from: "Davin"They seemed just fine to me; didn't repeat yourself or use a bunch of fluff, so everything said kept my interest. I really have no criticism to offer except keep posting.

Thanks!    Sometimes it is difficult--for me, at least--to walk that fine line between incoherency and redundancy.

Quote from: "Shine"I'm glad that you were able to understand my intention even though my syllogism was sloppy.  I am definitely not trying to insinuate that existence is dependent upon belief. Hmm...maybe it would read better like this?

1. If a future entity in which to believe is eternal, then the entity in which to believe necessarily exists in the present.
2. Cupp speaks of a future entity in which to believe.
3. Therefore, Cupp necessarily implies a present entity in which to believe.

I think that is still a bit wonky (I love that word, by the way ), but I think it resolved the conflation of existence and belief in the first syllogism.

Mmmm.  Closer, I think - my next question would be: does Cupp actually speak with certaintly about this future belief?  Does she, in fact, state that this eternal entity is something in which she will believe, without doubt, at some future time, or was she merely expressing the possibility?  I can't imagine she would be so impolitic and incoherent (and her slippery, evasive, and placating answers in fact show her to be very politic indeed) as to state outright that she would, with certainty, believe something in future that she doesn't now believe.  

If one posits doubt about the state of one's future belief, one can cogently argue that it is at least logically possible to believe two different, contradictory things at different points in one's life, and not be hypocritical.  We all do that.  Change our minds as evidence changes.  However, if she has some kind of foreknowledge of what she will come to believe, it would be fairly impossible to maintain that argument without seeming disingenuous. I don't think it would be conclusive, but it would be highly suggestive.

Still, it will be difficult to demonstrate what she actually believes at present via a syllogism, and I think you wouldn't even need to get into the eternal nature of the object of the belief were you to do so.  In fact, I think it would be a mistake.  Just as existence cannot be dependent upon belief, belief is not necessarily dependent upon existence.  Just because the entity is eternal and, if it exists, it must exist in the present, as well as the future and past, her belief thereof is not eternal.  She could even have a strong gut instinct that she will change her mind, without knowing why.  Now we might, rightly, presume from that admission that she was predisposed to do so, but it would be just that - a presumption based on psychological theorizing.  

You are trying to argue that one thing, her belief, is necessarily dependent on another, the eternal nature of the entity, and I don't think you can do that, strictly via a syllogism.  But my imagination may merely be failing me, in this regard.

Quote from: "Shine"1. A true belief is beneficial in understanding reality.
2. Cupp says that the belief in a higher power is beneficial in understanding reality.
3. Therefore, Cupp says that the concept of a higher power is true belief.

Just as a technical thing: the way you state this syllogism, it still doesn't follow, even if you accept the truth of the premises.  This syllogism only works if you first make it clear that ONLY true beliefs are beneficial to understanding reality.  If you don't do that, the way you have it now, a "true belief" could be one class of things that are beneficial in understanding reality (or for functioning within reality, if you prefer), while Cupp's belief in a higher power could be another class of things beneficial to reality.  See?  Right now it sounds like the larger class of things is: "Things with benefit reality" which could have 2 subclasses: "A true belief" and "Cupp's belief in a higher power."  You're not really equating "True belief" with "belief in a higher power."  And also...Cupp might not believe in premise 1, she might believe that false beliefs benefit just as well as true beliefs.  Remember - you're arguing what "Cupp says," not what you say.

QuoteHowever, one who does not believe in God must necessarily reject this belief as false; if the belief is not rejected as false, then it is accepted as true and believed.

Alternatively, one may say, "I'm unsure to a degree whether God exists or not."

Not that that is what she's doing here, don't take me wrong.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteHowever, one who does not believe in God must necessarily reject this belief as false; if the belief is not rejected as false, then it is accepted as true and believed.

Alternatively, one may say, "I'm unsure to a degree whether God exists or not."

Not that that is what she's doing here, don't take me wrong.

True, but I think that statement would fall more on the spectrum of knowledge with agnostic/gnostic rather than belief with atheism/theism.  But I do think that you are on to something; even Hannity rejected her claim of atheism and pretty much got her to admit that she is more in line with the label "agnostic."

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Mmmm.  Closer, I think - my next question would be: does Cupp actually speak with certaintly about this future belief?  Does she, in fact, state that this eternal entity is something in which she will believe, without doubt, at some future time, or was she merely expressing the possibility?  I can't imagine she would be so impolitic and incoherent (and her slippery, evasive, and placating answers in fact show her to be very politic indeed) as to state outright that she would, with certainty, believe something in future that she doesn't now believe.

I think that she treats a belief in God as an inevitability because she speaks of it as something that she does not do yet rather than something that she simply does not do.   I'll concede that this could be considered just an extreme expression of a possibility rather than a certainty.  But she also mentions frequently that she actually aspires to someday believe; in this sense, it seems like a purposeful goal to believe in the eternal entity.  

Quote from: "The Black Jester"If one posits doubt about the state of one's future belief, one can cogently argue that it is at least logically possible to believe two different, contradictory things at different points in one's life, and not be hypocritical.  We all do that.  Change our minds as evidence changes.  However, if she has some kind of foreknowledge of what she will come to believe, it would be fairly impossible to maintain that argument without seeming disingenuous. I don't think it would be conclusive, but it would be highly suggestive.

I agree that we all change our minds as new evidence arises, but Cupp is not speaking of new evidence; she aspires to be a "person of faith" someday and therefore is not looking for evidence to alter her conclusions.  Because of her desire for faith alone, I think that she is strictly looking to adopt a belief for the sake of the belief alone.  But I do understand what you are saying about evidence; I think that you are probably accustomed to a bit more intellectual honesty than Cupp happens to possess.  :bananacolor:

Quote from: "The Black Jester"And also...Cupp might not believe in premise 1, she might believe that false beliefs benefit just as well as true beliefs.  Remember - you're arguing what "Cupp says," not what you say.

Hmm...I think that this is actually what I might be aiming for.  Ultimately, I wanted to demonstrate how utterly ludicrous it is for her to admire people who derive divine guidance from a divinity which she supposedly does not believe to exist. Her entire platform is that the liberal media distorts the truth and bashes Christianity, a position which is dependent upon the value of truth in adhering to reality.  (I think?  Or maybe I am wrong in that...)  I do not see how she can then logically support the possession of false beliefs if she considers the purported falsities of the media to be such grandiose transgressions.

Thanks for the critique; I really do appreciate it!  

Quote from: "Shine"Hmm...I think that this is actually what I might be aiming for. Ultimately, I wanted to demonstrate how utterly ludicrous it is for her to admire people who derive divine guidance from a divinity which she supposedly does not believe to exist. Her entire platform is that the liberal media distorts the truth and bashes Christianity, a position which is dependent upon the value of truth in adhering to reality. (I think? Or maybe I am wrong in that...) I do not see how she can then logically support the possession of false beliefs if she considers the purported falsities of the media to be such grandiose transgressions.

I think you have it here.  It may not be a syllogism, but it's a strong line of argument.  Although, strictly speaking, aspiring to be a person of faith only undermines her credentials as a believer in the scientific method and the value of evidence, not necessarily her current lack of belief in a diety.  One could conceivably be an Athiest and also an extreme epistemological skeptic.  But such a person likely wouldn't trust "faith" either.  

In any case, the more potent argument is that you cannot, on the one hand, dismiss the value of evidence in matters of "faith," where faith contradicts reality as illuminated by the evidence, and on the other hand rely exclusively on such evidence to illuminate the "reality" of a conspiracy theory you are nursing.