Let me be brief.
I love brevity!
Don’t use nine words when eight will do.
Succinct communication indicates clear thinking.
In general, when you need lots of words to express your idea…
…you don’t actually have an idea.
Consider this actual statement from an actual person:
You didn’t read the whole thing, did you?
Be honest!
You dozed off after the phrase, “conducive to constructive, lucid exchanges”.
I understand.
See why brevity is beautiful?
Allow me to articulate the good professor’s point in a single, simple sentence.
It’s impossible to articulate a point in a single simple sentence.
I guess the professor is mistaken.
I defy you to find a communications expert who agrees with Taboo.
Find a speech teacher who tells the class, “Use a whole bunch of words. That’s how civil discourse works.”
What the Professor is actually doing is the OPPOSITE of communication.
He’s doing subterfuge.
Christians: Don’t Do This.
Christians: Make your point, then shut up.
Thinking requires more than shaking a bunch of words together in a bag.
It’s difficult to turn complex thoughts into easy-to-understand sentences.
It’s dead-easy to puke words into cyberspace.
And I can prove it.
I wrote the following reply to the good Professor in under 2 minutes.
It is twice as long as this entire blog post…
I’ll make an effort to be more verbose. I understand now that a volume of words will emphasize not only the validity if my arguments but the weight that should be afforded them by scrutinizing intellectuals. It is easy to be misunderstood when answers are short and uncluttered. Far better to respond with a plethora of thoughts with the hopes that something I say will be inadvertently understood as true rather than risk the rejection of a singular point by virtue of its simplicity. Simple language is the language of playground antics. I see my error clearly.
I need to work harder to be understood. And I need to gently, humbly accept the truth that when I am misunderstood it is likely due to my being wrong. Being wrong is nothing to be ashamed of and claiming that “I don’t know” will testify to my understanding that we are all limited in our ability to comprehend all history, science, philosophy and how these ideas interact with the world and reality in general despite the fact that sometimes it seems different from my point of view. Opinions are not reliable unless they are shared by many others so long as those others are not victims of group think or religious indoctrination or politically motivated. Honesty is the best policy and the truth hurts sometimes but if the shoe fits I’ll wear it.
It does feel good to finally come clean. The Science and faith question has taught me so much and given me so many insights and also provided enlightenment. I’ll make efforts to try and be vigilant to make sure that I stay alert to the ever present possibility that I could let falsehood slip into my worldview if I’m not paying attention or on the lookout for this contingency. Snarkyness serves no purpose. Concise snark is purposeless times two! And sarcasm is snark on steroids (figuratively speaking). Everyone benefits from the truth but sincerity matters more. When the chickens come home to roost, well… you know the rest.
See?
No brain necessary.
I would encourage you to jump into the discussion on the blog here…
…but you can’t because…
…the comments have been closed by the author.
I’ll only need one word to express my thoughts about that.
Bulls***.
17 Responses
Hi John. You are still writing great stuff. Life has really gotten all in my way and kept me away forever lately. These people are pros of the pleonasm, defined in some folk dictionary as “A Corporal of thought accompanied by an Army of words.” I have actually been retained to do some devotional writing for our work, and I get 225-250 words. Clarity matters. Anyway, hi to all!
May life continue to do so.
Hi Ark,Darn. Once again you have almost forced me to renounce my faith based on the strength of your arguments, and that one may be the best yet. I thank you yet again for your 4th grade contribution to an adult conversation. Peace.
Albert Einstein had something to say about simplicity…
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b8/ec/2b/b8ec2bcc087e6107ba2afd2c8fb4a3c2.jpg
But…what did he know?
More words! More words, I say!
Bah, Albert Einstein was a theist. Why should anyone listen to him?
More words, Jasmine! You only used twelve! I barely understand what you’re saying!!!!
Anybody who willingly chooses to listen to the opinion of someone who has even the remotest interest in the idea that there is a Divine Creator or Being in existence has obviously no credibility with anyone that calls themselves a rational thinker. Since Albert Einstein was never an openly confessing atheist, his opinions and thoughts on anything must —and should—come under violent scrutiny, since he has not ruled out the widely understood and documented fact that there is no such thing as the God of the Bible. As such, just because the world remembers his name and his philosophies that explore a variety of relevant topics to the study of science, those with a critical mind are wise to be hesitant to take into account anything that he might have said; against the proof that so many people have heralded his research over years and years. Since masses are so easily deluded, and they do not recognize solid facts as a general rule, their praise of Einstein is ill-warranted. Indeed, to entertain the ideas and research of anyone who has not embraced the universal certainty that evolution reigns supreme, is to be as doltish and ignorant as theists. Whether or not these facts check out with thorough research is irrelevant, because if I’ve chosen to view life through the lens of my preferred worldview, nothing will budge me from the certainty of my position. Only those who are capable of critical thinking and a full understanding of the proof I have researched and tailored to prop up my poor understanding and miserable excuse for truth will have the guts to make the claims that I have.
There. That better?
I skimmed it… but I’m convinced you’re very smart! 🙂
Heck, authors can’t make it in the publishing world unless they do this in the form of a lifeline. In fact, loglines are such a difficult art in themselves, WHOLE BOOKS have been written on HOW to write one! Yet if you fail to have 1-2 sentences at a maximum to describe your book, generally you wont have a snowman’s chance of getting published. How much more should this apply to ideologies?
I teach a comedy writing course. Editing is the most important aspect of comedy. Period.
I’m thinking of having the students write a paragraph on a topic. Give the paragraph a title. Then, throw away the paragraph and use the title.
What do you think?
That works for me. A serviceable vocabulary is advised.
Good plan. They’ll realise just how little or how much can be said in a single sentence. Reminds me of Ernest Hemingway’s six word story. You really can say more with less, but it takes intelligence; something most atheists unfortunately lack.
Alas, the Good Professor banned me from His Grace so I am unable to visit him anymore.
I think it was because I actually tried (and tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and tried) to understand him and in so doing conduct an actual conversation with him.
He thought I was being sarcastic when I confessed that I understood him not, and could he please explain what he was saying so that dummies like me could say “comprendo” in English.
The real tragedy is that he is a university professor with full and unfettered access to the young minds of our best and brightest.
He isn’t really a professor, is he?
Do you know his name so we can look him up and vex him in more public forums than Nan’s echo chamber?
I was actually kind of astounded by his suggestion that I needed to engage less succinctly. I know these people are stupid but this surprised me anyway.
The Good Professor has indicated that he teaches at a college or university in Austin, Texas.
I suppose if you visit his WordPress blog and grovel just a little, you might learn a little more about him.
He is quite the bully as are most leftists and like ALL leftists, thinks his cookie cutter, mass produced views are unique, pristine and beyond question.
Additionally, like ALL leftists, if you express disagreement with him, he thinks that you are being needlessly abusive.
Indeed, all of our conversations have ended because I have grievously wounded him with discourse.
I’m suspicious that Nan closed comments on her blog because the heathen were bleeding so profusely she feared they might expire. Sycophants are useless when they’re dead.
In the main I too prefer succinct over verbose.
The title God poisons everything , tells you pretty much what you can expect when you open the book cover.
As does the book title.
The God Delusion.
Love your image. Do you still wear them on your head?