But I’ve recently been reminded I didn’t do a very good job call of duty modern warfare 3 strategy guide pdf it. In order to rectify the error, here is a nice clean post on the concept that adds a couple of further thoughts to the original formulation.
The original Shackel paper is intended as a critique of post-modernism. I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas a great big nuclear furnace. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly.
The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
But God is just another name for the beauty and order in the Universe! You’re not denying that there’s beauty and order in the Universe, are you? If you don’t accept Jesus, you will burn in Hell forever. But isn’t that horrible and inhuman?