…and this is a 
Got a few hours to spare? Here's another recent debate, this time between Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens vs. Boteach, D'Souza, and Taleb in Mexico, with Robert Wright stuck in the middle. The sound quality is OK, but very low…so crank it up to hear it.
Don't want to listen? Here's a quick summary.
Shmuley Boteach: Yeesh. What an awful, screechy person. There is a god because evolution is impossible, and god is the only reason people are moral. Oh, and Hitler. Tiresome and cliched.
Sam Harris (about 9 minutes in): There are only 3 ways to defend god: 1) argue that your specific religion is true; 2) or you argue that religion is useful; or 3) you attack atheism. Only (1) is valid. He brings up a beautiful metaphor: what would you think of a friend who announced that he was so happy because he was destined to marry Angeline Jolie? The usefulness of this belief, or the idea that it makes him happy, is irrelevant against the falsity of the claim, yet this is the kind of argument defenders of religion always make.
Dinesh D'Souza (20 min): Claims to rise to Harris's challenge to speak about the truth of religion in a 21st century way…so he chooses to talk about life after death. Tries to argue that believers in an afterlife and those who don't believe are in exactly the same state of ignorance. Then he says there is empirical evidence for life after death, which I anxiously await.
Wait…he says that the Big Bang proves the existence of other realms, therefore there is a heaven? Dark matter and dark energy could be where are immortal post-death souls are stored? This guy is nuts. Oh, and Pascal's Wager.
Christopher Hitchens (29 min): What matters is not what you think, but how you think, and discovery has come from non-religious thinking. Religious arguments are useless and unverifiable. Refutes the fine-tuning argument by pointing out the fate or our planet, our sun, and our galaxy is destruction. D'Souza's argument of equivalence is false: we don't claim absolute knowledge, we say that the theists have failed to provide any evidence.
Robert Wright (39 min): Doesn't want to be on either side. Muddled as always.
Nassim Taleb (47 min): Can't track reality with science and equations. Religion is not about belief. We were wiser before the Enlightenment, because we knew how to take knowledge from incomplete information, and now we live in a world of epistemic arrogance. Religious people have a way of dealing with ignorance, by saying "God knows". At least he's making a novel argument, but he's still full of bullshit.
Daniel Dennett (54 min): This is familiar, from his talk at AAI. He discusses his study of priests who have become atheists, but remain in the pulpit. Theology evolved as a way to accommodate theologians' personal integrity with what society told them they had to believe in their religion. The idea that you can't be good without god is the biggest lie spread by religion.
Second round!
Shmuley Boteach (60 min): Hitler. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. Evolution can't have love. Evolution leads to racism. All morality comes from religion. Man, this guy is a scumbag.
Sam Harris (64 min): Points out that the other side hasn't provided any evidence for their position — they're using the arrogance of their iron age faith, only. The real issue is the veracity of the textual narrative of the Bible, which is clearly a clumsy pastiche.
Dinesh D'Souza (69 min): Why is there a universe? Why are we here? Where are we going? Science doesn't have an answer to any of them. Has this fathead ever considered the possibility that they're bad questions? See Harris's first discussion: D'Souza is arguing his point 3. Finally resorts to misstating scientific claims about life on other planets. Total moron.
Christopher Hitchens (73 min): Call's D'Souza's argument "piffle", and that he's misleading people about science. Science can say what will make us stop accepting an idea; theists do not have anything equivalent to 'rabbits in the precambrian'. Theists make positive and entirely implausible claims about what god is telling us to do. A wager: Name a moral action that a believer will take that he can't.
Nassim Taleb (77 min): Until about 70 years ago, visiting a doctor would reduce your chance of living. From this, he leaps to the conclusion that science hasn't been good at dealing with evidence. Even now, doctors kill us — fewer people die when hospitals go on strike. WTF? This guy is a real crank. If you remove religion, what will you replace it with?
Daniel Dennett (82 min): We are going to replace religion with secular morality, without the dogma of religion. How has religion proceeded? Not one person in this room would choose to live by old testament morality. We've worked together to adjust our morality, we make these adjustments.
Robert Wright (86 min): Argues with everyone. Accomplishes nothing. Oh, and the New Atheists are fundamentalists. FU too, Wright.
The rest of the event seems to be commentary in Spanish…I turned it off. I hung in there long enough, and should have bailed out the instant Boteach opened his mouth.
Comments
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 29, 2009 9:29 PM
That saves me 90 minutes... and a broken screen from throwing something at it when fundie goes Godwin.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 29, 2009 9:29 PM
The question seems to be why Harris, Dennet and Hitchens are back debating these morons who have proven time and again to be not only ignorant fools, but also dishonest lying scumbags.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 29, 2009 9:34 PM
Actually there seems to be more after the Spanish part.
Posted by: obi juan | November 29, 2009 9:35 PM
D'Souza is just selling his latest book: Life After Death something something. It's on Amazon.
Posted by: Furcas | November 29, 2009 9:35 PM
Can anyone please provide me with a link to an article or debate or interview where Robert Wright clearly explains why he thinks the NAs are fundamentalists? I feel like losing a few IQ points.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2009 9:36 PM
Before watching that, I had no idea what a smarmy little creep D'Souza is. I've seen him call in the stupid boat, but his performance in that debate really made me uncomfortable; it was gross.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 29, 2009 9:38 PM
What an extraordinary amount of crap. So, ignorance is just fine and dandy because religionistas can slap a the ways of god are mysterious sign over it?
Posted by: Levi in NY | November 29, 2009 9:44 PM
Holy crap that Boteach guy is annoying. I find it amusing how he mocks the anti-scientists for their immaturity then goes on to make a series of immature, childish, completely unfunny jokes that nobody laughs at.
Posted by: NIja | November 29, 2009 9:45 PM
I bailed shortly after Boteach opened his mouth.
After his PATHETIC fine tuning argument, of which EVERY ASPECT is wrong - I couldn't stand listening to such a bullshitter.
Posted by: Levi in NY | November 29, 2009 9:46 PM
"Mocks the scientists", I mean. Heh, I almost wrote "scientits" there. Can you tell I'm not sober tonight?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2009 9:46 PM
When they try the "we can't know right and wrong without god" they ignore the fact that Hammurabi published his laws before Moses allegedly did. So Hammurabi has priority (and so do the 1500BC Shang Dynasty Chinese philosophers) - so how did this work? Did god give all those people contradictory morals because god is a big flaming asshole, or did god talk to Hammurabi first?
The other thing god gave us, in addition to morals, was he anointed the kings he set over us. It won't surprise any of you to know that Hammurabi claims he was put in power by the gods. Almost every tin pot dictator in the ancient world ruled by divine decree - what a coincidence!
So how do the creos square that? God gave us morals but it was OK to discard the kings?
Posted by: RC Nelson | November 29, 2009 9:48 PM
I placed an mp3 with improved sound, and only the parts that are in English, at:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?vmtmnrjymyr
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 29, 2009 9:53 PM
I think PZ's synopsis is good enough for me. Nothing new said by the godbot side. One would think that after 2,500 years, they would have their patter and evidence down. Patter maybe, evidence, no.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 29, 2009 9:55 PM
Duh, no. Dark matter is what angels are made of. Geez, it was spelled out right there in The Subtle Knife. Hasn't Dinesh been keeping up?
Posted by: jellay | November 29, 2009 10:01 PM
I watched it a while ago. Can't remember the exact points, but I thought that Robert Wright had very sane commentary (especially compared to the religious side) for the most part - he is the sort of person you could live with fine. Except for when he called atheists fundamentalists and spent half the time whining about nobody else agreeing with him.
And as screechy and annoying as D'Souza and Boteach were, I found Taleb the most abominable. They at least have some system that they defend, he only has ignorance and empty, emotional quips about everything being better in the good ol' days.
The parts in between the Spanish bits at the end are very interesting. Watch how the audiences eat up simplistic religious appeals of the "if we didn't have Jesus, we'd have no reason to live" kind.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 29, 2009 10:05 PM
Rabbi Shmuley is supposedly one of the more moderate Orthodox Jews......
Posted by: Buzz Buzz | November 29, 2009 10:08 PM
Jesus, the first guy is a shrieking douchebag.
And also he used that falsely attributed Huxley quote.
Hard to listen to, PZ.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 29, 2009 10:08 PM
there's actually a couple of good comments after the break and right after Boteach leaves, by the bald guy and the next (the Swedish) guy. Unfortunately, the Mexicans and the Spaniard guy aren't up to par, they're just babbling feel-good incoherences. Having been born and raised in Latin America this kind of disconcerts me.
Posted by: obi juan | November 29, 2009 10:09 PM
Whenever anyone trots out the "can't be good without God" stuff point them to this essay by C.S. Lewis in which he denies that religion is essential to morality: http://books.google.com/books?id=e19zlwlOVwUC&lpg=PA55&dq=C.S.%20Lewis%20Christianity%20presupposes%20it&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 10:10 PM
I saw this a while ago. It was a real bloodbath. Heavy casualties on the theist side. No injuries for the three horsemen. Robert Wright spent his time shaking his finger at both sides, so much that I think he may have pulled a muscle.
Andyo, #2:
The horsemen debate with them because apparently the theist side can only supply dishonest lying scumbags who are morons.*Note to concern trolls: if there are exceptions to this, I would be pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Pareidolius | November 29, 2009 10:24 PM
Well ol' Shmuley was Michael Jackson's spiritual buddy and we all know how well that turned out. And now he's written a book about Jackson and has a tape series you can purchse on his website for only $25.95. I guess times have been tough since his "reality" series Shlom in the Home was cancelled. He says you can't be good without god, but evidently being all godly doesn't prevent one from cashing-in on one's connection with dead superstars.
Posted by: JRQ | November 29, 2009 10:29 PM
One of the commenters at the end is Phil Zimbardo (of Stanford Prison Experiment fame), and he makes a comment I kind of like: that the religious side is always talking about how we need to be "compassionate", but that religious compassion doesn't necessary translate into any kind of objective action to improve the human condition. He says what we really need instead are heroes who will actually objectively do things improve the well-being of people in the world.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 29, 2009 10:30 PM
The Mexican guy with the thick rim glasses and blond hair, who seems to be the host, at the end says that belief (implying religion) is an evolutionary adaptation.
I think these people are arguing different things. Since they can't have actual truth, they weasel out into a "way of life" thing, or a morality thing. That much is obvious to us, but even when one of the speakers specifically mentioned it, they still go on with that bullshit.
Posted by: R.E.Parker | November 29, 2009 10:34 PM
"fewer people die when hospitals go on strike."
Taleb specifically mentions elective procedures. That, I think, is pretty shady. Why should more people die when they can't have elective procedures? Who dies from not receiving a hip replacement? If emergency procedures were unavailable and fewer people died, he might have an argument--an argument on the helpfulness of medicine. He'd still, as we know, be unable to invalidate science.
Posted by: Tulse | November 29, 2009 10:36 PM
Only slightly OT: an excellent demolishing of 36 Arguments for the Existence of God (scroll down to see the summary). I think it pretty well covers the whole lot.
Posted by: JRQ | November 29, 2009 10:44 PM
Taleb is your classic autodidact crank. Well-read, and an intelligent recognizer of patterns, but a deeply confused and undisciplined thinker. He knows just enough to have an interesting basic point (his "extremistan" idea in The Black Swan), but too little to realize that his point reduces to the absurd when generalized too far beyond the context in which he derived it.
Posted by: bungoton | November 29, 2009 10:56 PM
I struggled through the terrible sound quality of this last week. The most interesting part was Daniel Dennett talking about the atheists in the pulpit - that was a real eye opener. I always assumed they avoided all the BS in seminary. I guess they don't and that is why the more honest ones end up leaving. Some are stuck between leaving and pretending and choose to pretend as a compromise.
My father-in-law is a minister and I can't wait to ask him about what he learned in seminary. He is cut from a different cloth from most preachers. He spent his career helping people instead of getting rich. He is retired and volunteers teaching grief counselling to other ministers.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 29, 2009 11:00 PM
I remember seeing a Hitchens video where he spelled out the problems with this notion. It's taking the gambit that for 200,000 years humanity went on its merry way, fighting and killing and raping and whathaveyou. Then only 3000 years ago God decided to descend upon the Middle East and give the Jewish people a moral code.So that innate moral sense that is across humanity despite the 150,000 years of separation? Nothing until the magic man came out of the sky and laid the framework. How civilisation formed in the Americas we'll never know...
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 29, 2009 11:01 PM
Hola PZ Myers,
Muchas gracias sinceramente por el sito debate y su ayuda encontrarlo.
No todos se toman el tiempo pero yo hacera'
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 29, 2009 11:11 PM
I don't even need to know Spanish, to know that the Lyin' Lions post is irrelevant, non-cogent, and utterly inane. Don't worry Lyin, not being able to read you is the second best post you can make. The best post is the one you don't make. You can do better.
Posted by: eddie
|
November 29, 2009 11:11 PM
Is this an example of the religiots' reset button; that nomatter how often the same-old is trounced, it's all they got so they trot it out again? What do they hope to achieve by looking so foolish, the sympathy vote?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 29, 2009 11:17 PM
For a second I thought about bothering to translate Lion IRC and then realised that it's very unlikely he's going to be able to write anything worthwhile in Spanish considering how he has demonstrated - repeatedly - how useless he is at writing anything worthwhile in English.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 29, 2009 11:18 PM
I don't believe in the supernatty, but Nerd of Redhead has the uncanny ability to post hot on the paws of El León.
Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 11:21 PM
Lion IRC tomó el tiempo para observar el debate.
Predicción: Pronto se Godwin nuestros comentarios de nuevo, al igual que Shmuley Boteach hizo durante el debate, pero también lo hará en español.
Y hubo gran regocijo.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 29, 2009 11:22 PM
Damn, the walking sack of toxic sludge can speak gibberish in multiple tongues? How many languages must a moron speak before it is no longer a moron? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the moron's skull.
Posted by: Tulse | November 29, 2009 11:23 PM
I think Lion said "My hovercraft is full of eels", but my dictionary may be off.
Posted by: Sil | November 29, 2009 11:24 PM
Taking Lion's lead, in all further arguments with creationists, I will address them completly in Nahuatl. That'll show'em, and I'll look so smart too.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 29, 2009 11:27 PM
Hi Kel OM / Marcus Ranum,
I don’t think human morality was left unattended until Moses. Certainly the bible does not say this either.
Job, Noah, Lot, Abraham – all righteous men in the bible – all came long before Moses.
If any monotheist claims God ignored human morality until Moses they are grossly mistaken...OR...they are being misrepresented.
Many here have heard Mr Hitchens do his...”why not China instead of those illiterate goat herders” routine and he gets a lot of laughs ...from people who don’t realize that Abraham’s family came from Ur. The only people in the audience who laugh at Mr Hitchens lame mockery are those who don’t know that Ur of the Sumerian Chaldees is better known in modern times as Iraq. The only people in the audience who laugh are those who forget that (Tigris & Euphrates) Mesopotamia where Abrahams family were living was well and truly LITERATE.
I'm sure Mr Hitchens can count on his audiences to include a fair number of people who don’t know that Ur/Iraq has been literate since 8000 BC.
Those “goat herders” understood a little about accounting and commerce. Ur was one of the largest cities in the ancient world and anyone who thinks they couldn’t write should do a little investigation of one word which perhaps THEY have not read before – CUNEIFORM
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 29, 2009 11:29 PM
Tulse, if that is what the turdcat said, it is more sensible than anything else I have read from him. Perhaps you should get out of the facilitated communication business.
Posted by: eddie
|
November 29, 2009 11:35 PM
At least el leon de lamancha no este YEC.
Posted by: Jerry | November 29, 2009 11:38 PM
disappointing ppl, as far as I can make out he just thanked pz for posting about the debate, nothing more.
I also thank pz for providing a summary. I've given up watching these debates, as their nearly always one sided affairs with IDiots on one side, so the other side doesn't even need to be one of the famous debaters to wipe the floor with their arguments.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 29, 2009 11:44 PM
If that's the case, why do so many of your dipshit co-religionists turn to the 10 Commandments as the be-all and end-all of ethical civilization, without which we'd all become amoral rape-crazy murderous monsters?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 29, 2009 11:46 PM
noah was righteous for getting drunk off his ass and then unishing his son for accidentally seeing him that way?
abraham was righteous for being too chicken to claim sarah as his wife, and instead let her be raped?
lot was righteous for being willing to let a wild crowd rape his daughters?
interesting definition of righteous you have there (and this is leaving aside the issue that none of these people actually existed, but rather are mythological characters)
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 29, 2009 11:47 PM
Dinesh D'Souza... I had never seen him speak before, and I don't think I ever want to see him speak again. Utterly incomprehensible. Then again, anyone who says nonsense like it was the Christians who single handedly ended slavery, despite ample evidence that Biblical rationalizations were used for centuries to justify it is obviously off their rocker. Plenty of Christians did call for the end of slavery, but plenty more opposed them based on the same holy book. What is it with these particular tribes of Christianity and their constant attempts to rewrite history?
Robert Wright was okay when he wasn't chastising everyone. I wonder if he ever gets tired of his high horse.
Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 11:47 PM
Lion:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Abraham actually existed. That would have no substantive effect on Hitchens' point. That point is that a god (if, also for the sake of argument, it exists) must have waited from the beginning of the universe until whatever arbitrary time during Jewish history to tell humanity about morality or even to give any indication of its existence. This is not to mention that the Bible itself gives no indication of divine origin.
However you chop it up, our 13.7 billion year universe gives us no indication of an intelligent or benevolent designer. To assume that a "god" created everything for human benefit is a claim so extraordinarily stupid, arrogant, and myopic that it's hard for me to understand how anyone takes it seriously. To support it, you'll need quite a lot more than speculations on ancient literacy rates.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 29, 2009 11:53 PM
Hallo Janine,
#35
Wir konnen Deutsche sprechen wenn du wilst?
Ich glaube du gefalt das besser nicht va?
Mit freundlichen Grüsen
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2009 11:55 PM
Lion writes:
Ur/Iraq has been literate since 8000 BC.
The Sumerians worshipped Marduk, Ishtar, and Sin. Are you saying that those are the gods that give you your morality?
Posted by: beaudathée | November 29, 2009 11:55 PM
Maybe this is because I am a little high, but that Dinesh dude is f***ing funny!!
quote:" I just wrote a book about life after death... It's called LIFE AFTER DEATH..."!!!!!!
Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 11:57 PM
Actually, Lion, just ignore everything I wrote in #45.
I have a better plan:
STFU!
Posted by: Sili
|
November 29, 2009 11:58 PM
No.This has been simple answers to simple questions. We now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.
Posted by: Levi in NY | November 29, 2009 11:58 PM
Is Nassim Taleb the Timecube guy? He sure rambles like him.
Posted by: anthonzi
|
November 30, 2009 12:03 AM
God should strike down the uploader of this video for the terrible audio quality.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 30, 2009 12:07 AM
I wrote:
The Sumerians worshipped Marduk, Ishtar, and Sin. Are you saying that those are the gods that give you your morality?
And I forgot the obvious follow-on question, to wit: since nobody seems to believe in Marduk, Ishtar, and the other gods of Sumeria, why aren't people marrying their dogs and eating children?
Here's another clue for you: Hammurrabi's code (which was based on the Sumerian laws, apparently, but I couldn't find a translation of any older Sumerian laws than Hammurabi's) is not the same as Moses' 10 commandments. For one thing, Hammurrabi's is about 200 rules long and makes a lot more sense (although it's got "...death" as the remedy for a whole lot of social ills) so how do you make sense of that? Since Hammurabi had precedence, why aren't creos going around screaming about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (and, if you are suspected of bearing false witness and are thrown into a river and float your suspectors owe you their house) does that superceed Mosaic law?
I'm familiar with Hitchens' argument (he makes it brilliantly and wickedly) but I'm actually OK with asserting that god gave us morals as long as we allow for proper publishing priority. Which means that god-given morality is Hammurabi's. We can be sure of that because Hammurabi says so:When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. In real wet clay. You can't argue with that! It's real clay! Inspired by Anu and Bel!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 12:07 AM
aww, look, it Godwinned! ungramatically!you're a despicable fuckface, tardkitteh
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 30, 2009 12:08 AM
I didn't say it was until Moses. You've missed the point by a long way. Not that there's any evidence that Moses actually existed. But still...To think about it another way, either the claim that one needs God for knowing right and wrong is true - in which case society doesn't need right or wrong as societies tens of thousands of years removed from the dislodged Caananite peasants. Or that the claim is false... take your pick
Posted by: Eric | November 30, 2009 12:08 AM
@ RC Nelson (#12)
Thanks very much! I usually listen to these types of things while out on a walk. That way it's not a complete waste of my time listening to a bunch of idiots jabber on about how Jeebus is their friend and how his father created the Goldilocks Galaxy. I at least get some exercise out of the deal.
I would almost rather hear Boteach debate D'Souza on whether or not Jesus was the son of god...
Posted by: Sili
|
November 30, 2009 12:09 AM
Lion,
Ich glaube Sie sollen das T/V Distinktion studieren.
I denke nicht das Frau Janine haben Ihn Ihn zu duzen Erlaubnis gegeben.
(Meine Entschuldigungen aus alles Deutschesprechende Pharyngulisten.)
Posted by: Sili
|
November 30, 2009 12:12 AM
PeeZed,
You forgot the "god" in the title:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/dennett_harris_hitchens_vs_bot.php
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 30, 2009 12:15 AM
I just wrote a book about life after death... It's called LIFE AFTER DEATH..."!!!!!!
When I saw that, I couldn't help thinking it'd be fun to write a book called 'the evidence for LIFE AFTER DEATH" - you know, one of those books with 100 blank pages? Dedicated to Dinesh.
It's easy to get an ISBN# and I think if you do that, Amazon'll list it. And then people searching for "LIFE AFTER DEATH" would... um. Oh, that'd be nasty. Almost as nasty as publishing one's own version of Origin.
Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 12:19 AM
aww, look, it Godwinned! ungramatically!
Yep, and that means my prediction at #34 came true. I am a prophet. Please, everyone, hold your applause.
For my next prophesy: Lion will remain an annoying troll until PZ lays down the banhammer.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 30, 2009 12:24 AM
Once upon a time, I liked Rabbi Shmuley. I thought he was practical and left his superstition at the door in favour of actually helping people. This is complete horseshit though. I'm so tired of "Without faith you can't be good." And denying history - come on!
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | November 30, 2009 12:26 AM
My hovercraft is full of eels
For those who haven't had the pleasure.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 30, 2009 12:26 AM
Also, damn your tolerance, PZ. BAN THE TROLL.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 12:27 AM
I watched this days ago and was very tickled by Sam's analogous Angelina Jolie delusion, Hitchens appeared to have been studying up with new twists in his dependable debate points, and Dennett was as sensible as always. What is there not to love about our side in this debate?
Posted by: AC | November 30, 2009 12:30 AM
This is the same Boteach that claimed Stephen J. Gould did not accept Evolution....
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 30, 2009 12:40 AM
I'm thinking about banning that twit.
Of course, sometimes it doesn't help. Would you believe "Help Ma Boab" is still whining at me in email?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
November 30, 2009 12:42 AM
The bit about the death rate going down when hospitals go on strike is an old favourite with the medicine-bashing crowd. You don't hear it so much any more. Probably because of a couple of uncomfortable facts:
- Christian Science followers have a shorter than average life expectancy, despite tending to abstain from tobacco and alcohol excess.
- people without health insurance have a worse outcome in emergency visits, probably because they delay getting medical attention until things get bad. Also, they have much worse measurements on a number of health indices (blood pressure, for instance).
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 30, 2009 12:43 AM
LOL!!!!!
Posted by: crewvy | November 30, 2009 12:44 AM
Never heard of Taleb before ,he appears to be a very angry person.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 30, 2009 12:46 AM
It's not like they have anything better to do. You should be flattered. You play a major roll in their lives. They can't function without you.
Posted by: Shadow
|
November 30, 2009 12:49 AM
#43
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM Author Profile Page | November 29, 2009 11:46 PM
Don't leave Job out -- after all, the lesson was that loving g-d (even when used as a human cesspool by said deity to prove a point) will get you rewarded.
That also assumes you believe Job's wife and children were possessions that can be replaced.
No emotional attachment to the family on Job's part, just loving the sky fairy who's rat f-cking him.
If that's righteous, I'll pass.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 12:52 AM
Yes I would. It made no difference how many times we schooled, refuted, or helped the red boaby learn (or as in Zetetic and Owlmirror's cases, decimated the Boab), HMB kept trotting out falsehood after falsehood and did everything possible to continue being ignorant and repugnant. Lion IRC is following that path nicely. Prepare for a litany of whines from Lion should you happen to take that one to the dungeon, too.Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 12:53 AM
Hi Marcus Ranum,
Archeology has shown that most homes began, in that era, to incorporate family shrines – ancestor worship. That “emerging religion” began to rival even moon worship. Was that “one bridge too far” for Abrahams father? Too many gods to keep up with? Too much politics disguised as religion causing him to leave Ur? I don’t know. I am happy to have the religion/morality discussion with you or discuss the history (and logic) behind the emergence of monotheistic thinking at that time in history if you like. (Here? Now?)
And I don’t have any problem with the CS Lewis comparison of various religions with people all trying to do a mathematical equation – some get closer to the correct answer than others. Or the comparison with 4 blind men all feeling different parts of an elephant and perceiving a different type of animal. In that respect, ALL theism is closer to Christianity than atheism. Certainly, Christianity does not say it knows everything there is to know about God but disproving ALL other religions is the task atheists must achieve – not me.
Finally, on the point about morality, I have not seen any (multi-person) morality which did not derive from a Higher Authority - God, democracy, canon of reason, arm wrestling, etc.
Two humans arguing about what is moral is a nil-all-draw. I would never challenge an atheist about their ability to act morally – only to explain why their morality is better than that of another atheist whose “innate morality “just so happens” to believe that 11 year olds CAN give informed consent.
Even the supposedly atheist French Revolution morality of liberte, egalite and fraternite cannot withstand the Higher Authority test.
Liberty = free will – the soul.
Equality = “all created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain etc etc”
Fraternity = all share the same Father and are obligated to respect our siblings on that account.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 1:04 AM
1)not monotheistic thinking; monolatric practice. monotheism came much much later. or what do you think "no other gods before me" means?
2)CS Lewis was a Master at Mental Masturbation
3)once again, introduction of magical beings into the explanation of the world is not necessary until evidence for them is presented; until then, we won't accept them just on your say so. we don't need to disprove anything, since we're not the ones introuducing extras into working explanations.
4)all the "moralities" you've described were simply man-made rules. wtf is your point again?
5)You fail Enlightenment thinking; also, you're again conflating atheism with deism.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 30, 2009 1:15 AM
To which the honest response by a thinking human being is that humans invented gods to explain things they - at the time - couldn't understand. Your god is just another invention made redundant by science and reason - it's just the people like you are afraid to admit it.
How, exactly, does the existence of historical ancestor worship serve your argument? It proves your god was the invention of one particular tribe. If unrelated civilisations all had the same god-concept then maybe you'd have something - but they didn't, and so you don't.
Wrong again. If you want anyone to accept that your faith in Christianity is the result of reasoned analysis rather than an emotional clinging to a culturally-ingrained belief system then you have to prove that Christianity is correct and/or other religions are not.
There are many which have beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity; ergo you cannot believe both are valid. Failing to demonstrate why you are right and they are wrong is the act of a coward lacking the courage of his/her convictions.
Please cite the number of the post where you have demonstrated that either (or both) 'free will' and 'the soul' exist(s).
Please cite the number of the post where you have demonstrated that a creator exists.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 1:16 AM
Since "monotheistic thinking" did not emerge "at that time" (because Abraham did not exist), you have nothing to discuss.
What a moronic analogy. There is no correct answer to x=1/0.
Amusingly enough, this destroys that particular moronic analogy.
If the "elephant" were real, the "blind men" could change places and discover that their compatriots were each correct in their descriptions -- and that it was a single animal!
You obviously have an idiosyncratic definition of "Christianity", then. Or have you not heard of the Nicene Creed?
You still don't understand "burden of proof", do you?
"Reason" is not an authority. If it were, you would submit to it. But you continue to persist in your irrational blather.
What a moronic equation. Liberty is the freedom to act; no "soul" is necessary.
More moronicity. Equality simply means equality under the law. No God necessary.
Obviously false. All humans share the same evolutionary heritage, not some damn spook that you can't even prove exists.
Your inanity continually irritates.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 1:24 AM
Aratina,
I saw the 12 hours of mayhem caused by David Mathews and I realise my time may be short as well. But if I am banned I will assume it is permanent and although I will continue to read pharyngula (some really good content) I wont be emailing PZ Myers.
My final appeal to PZ Myers would be along the lines that most of us will only EVER see the grand Hitchens/Dawkins/Myers debates as lowly spectators. All our 20/20 hindsight of these debates is as good as it gets. We (atheists and theists) sit around telling ourselves…”if I was Dawkins I would have shown that Lennox a thing or two” …or…”why didn’t Frank Turek hit him with the killer argument which I thought of?” Sites like pharyngula give mere mortal atheists a chance to be gladiators and debate mere Christians.
If PZ Myers is Caesar and pharygula is the colosseum doesn’t it make sense to allow his “gladiators” the opportunity to take part in the sport of their heros?
If I get banned I will be like Ned Kelly and say to the gallows – such is life!
Concern trolling – nope. If I am unpopular here I want it to be for my REAL views. I would hate to get banned for something accidentally misinterpreted. At least give me time to confirm that – YES that really IS what Lion does think.
Godbotting – The only time I would use the bible as a reference is if ANOTHER pharyngulite challenged me to do so by mentioning something IN the Bible FIRST.
I understand that you don’t want the bible used to resolve anything OTHER than whether or not a particular thing/statement/event is or is NOT written therein.
Eg. The bible includes the words…”Pilate said”. This is a true/false proposition. What is not accepted by pharyngula is the proposition that Pilate actually spoke the words attributed to him IN the bible. Surely it is not Godbotting to use the bible itself to settle a dispute of fact about what is or is not written therein.
Insipidity – I strive to avoid repetition but naturally, I cannot prevent others calling me boring. I would not want to accuse someone of calling me boring for any ulterior motive so I accept in good faith that what one person finds interesting enough to elicit a response, another may find so boring that they cannot resist posting a complaint about how boring they find Lion’s posts. Naturally, it’s your prerogative to allow people to repetitively announce how boring they find Lions posts each and every time I post anything on any topic.
Morphing/Sock puppetry - Nope. I want my yes to mean yes and my no to mean no. If I am banned it will be because of what I say. I am not ashamed to be known by what I say and I would not want to deny Christ three times by saying “no – you have me confused with someone else.
Slagging – I am glad you have this rule. A rule not applied uniformly loses some of its integrity.
Spamming – The only webblogs or websites I have or would mention on pharyngula are those promoted by atheists.
Stupidity – This appears to be a catch-all rule. A bit like “refusing to comply with a reasonable request from a Police Officer” or a sort of “No Disruption” rule number 10 on a list of ten rules which get you banned from other places (eg #scripture channel IRC). Irrelevant stupidity? Fair enough! Infantilism stupidity? Fair enough. Unresponsive/flooding stupidity? Fair enough. But …”You must be stupid because I don’t like you” is a hurdle I can’t jump over.
Trolling – Even trolls can’t agree on what trolling is. Maybe science could give us an empirical definition.
Wanking – Well ego is not a dirty word. Intellectuals and pedagogues are not immune from this. Nor are people who want to impress their New Atheist mentors. I would have to say that I am probably the most humble person in the whole world.
Lion IRC
Posted by: Rorschach | November 30, 2009 1:35 AM
*irony meter self destruct*
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 1:44 AM
BWAHAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!Posted by: Godless Steve | November 30, 2009 1:55 AM
Just started the video but my god is Boteach a tool. Really weak arguments from him as well.
Posted by: Levi in NY | November 30, 2009 2:08 AM
By the way, the rest is not all commentary in Spanish. Many of the commenters speak English, and each of the panelists has a final word.
Besides, I don't understand why my fellow Americans don't take the effort to learn to at least understand Spanish. It's a very easy language for English speakers, and it's so useful.
El futuro de nuestro país es un futuro bilingüe. Recomiendo a todos mis compatriotas que aprendan español.
Posted by: Finch
|
November 30, 2009 2:11 AM
Definitely Agree: I should've turned off the video before Shmuley finished. That way I wouldn't have had to hear the utter SHM-it he had to spew. Unfortunately, I watched to the end of Rabbi Boteach's screed, and was anxiously waiting for somebody (I was thinking that Hitchens' rhetorical style would be perfect, which is rare for me) and I had to wait WAY too long for Dennett to come in (1:24:00)and finally smack down his illogic. It felt so good.
Posted by: Safi | November 30, 2009 2:13 AM
That Shmuley Boteach angered me. Just his manerism. Ugh. What an a-hole. "The sanctity of life" my, excuse my french, derriere. Did anybody else have issues with volume?
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 30, 2009 2:15 AM
He doesn't speak Spanish any more than google translate can (hint).
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 30, 2009 2:31 AM
Andyo, I do not know what the turdcat is saying until other people feel the need to quote him. Killfile is such a useful tool. I made no claim about if he can speak spanish. But if it is as bad as his use of english, it can only be gibberish.
But I thought that someone would have been amused by my mangling of Dylan.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 30, 2009 2:40 AM
I wasn't hinting that you should use google, I was saying that he did. It's still incoherent, but with English at least his incoherences are properly constructed. So the question "How many languages must a moron speak before it is no longer a moron?" doesn't apply.
Posted by: Colin Meier | November 30, 2009 2:43 AM
Yeah, but we don't have to put up with him. Take one for the team, PZ. ;)
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 30, 2009 3:05 AM
Andyo, sometimes it does not pay to take apart a joke.
'snicker'
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 30, 2009 3:12 AM
I didn't get the reference.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 30, 2009 3:19 AM
Like I said, mangled Dylan.
How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?
...
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 30, 2009 3:42 AM
haha I wouldn't have gotten it anyway. Argentinian 70's rock, maybe...
Though I've been meaning to get into old Dylan stuff, heard good things.
Posted by: vltava | November 30, 2009 4:14 AM
@bungoton #27: Yeah, it's pretty fascinating stuff. You can see Dennett's 45-minute talk on the subject at AAI '09 at http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet#p/u/6/D_9w8JougLQ
As a former church choir director/organist/accompanist, all the while an atheist, the issue has some relevance to me too.
Posted by: Beelzebub | November 30, 2009 4:59 AM
I agree with you completely about Boteach. He should be No-teach. I saw him in a debate from a few years ago and he was such a loose cannon that I thought someone was going to have to call in the men in white coats. Can you imagine the kinds of bullying sermons he must give? Pray for the people.
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
November 30, 2009 5:18 AM
"Hubo mucho regocijo" mi amigo
Posted by: Godless Steve | November 30, 2009 5:18 AM
Alright Taleb is speaking complete gibberish, the other two on his side might not be all that convincing but at least it's coherent. Also Wright is useless, really don't see why they bothered to have him.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 30, 2009 5:53 AM
There is a god because evolution is impossible
It's this kind of bullshit I love to see. This retard is admitting evolution makes his magic fairy unnecessary, an idea I completely agree with.
Posted by: bsk | November 30, 2009 6:00 AM
I said this over at Jerry Coyne's blog, but I think it's worth repeating here.
I’m absolutely shocked at how stupid Taleb is. He was the of the few economists whose view of markets I found superficially plausible.
What does this say about my understanding of economics, or about economics in general? How was his complete disregard for logic not immediately evident?
Posted by: F
|
November 30, 2009 6:08 AM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM #85 & 90
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 6:14 AM
I must join in the laughter at this. Wahahahahaha!
Silly Lion, is that how you think it is? Nobody shackled your declawed paws and dragged you onto the arena. You recklessly jumped the sidelines, tongue swinging loosely from the side of your toothless muzzle, eyes crossed, and tried to attack one of the statues of Caesar.Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 6:32 AM
-I would have to say that I am probably the most humble person in the whole world. -
How can you possibly want to get rid of Lion when he gives us such comedy moments as noted above. He is wrong, and doesn't yet understand why he is wrong but on the troll scale he is barely off-green.
Posted by: scooter | November 30, 2009 6:35 AM
Sounds like D'nesh reads Deepak, and oops, sounds like Hitchens missed Krauss' last talk at AAI on Cosmology and dark energy, no big crash at the restaurant at the end of the Universe.
Posted by: F
|
November 30, 2009 6:42 AM
Complete blockquote FAIL @ #98
Quote is limited to the first sentence.
Posted by: scooter | November 30, 2009 7:12 AM
Robert Wright has Sarah Palin jowls
Posted by: Mario | November 30, 2009 7:34 AM
Lion can't speak Spanish, I'm Spanish and I can't understand a word of what he wrote (appart from "Hola").
Posted by: Lilith | November 30, 2009 8:10 AM
Thank you so much for the most amusing synopsis, PZ. saved me wasting time on listening to the damn thing and made me laugh, as well.
Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 8:29 AM
dannystevens:
Sorry, as is probably also the case with Lion IRC, everything I learned about Spanish, I learned from this movie.Posted by: ChrisH
|
November 30, 2009 8:46 AM
Hmm, won't be able to listen to this today (thanks RC Nelson @ 12) but it's downloaded and ready to go.
Dinesh is pretty much a moron, but I had the misfortune of seeing a debate with Boteach a while back and... oh my... If he's the best that Judaism has to offer then I'm (almost) sorry for it.
I'm looking forward to hearing Taleb spout. Are we going to get the nonsensical Muslim view this time, like this guy?
I may be making an assumption because of the name though...
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 30, 2009 8:59 AM
Dinesh D'Souza = total moron according to PZ, and I agree, but I think it would be more accurate to say he's full of shit, and of course he knows he's full of it.
Anyway, I'm very pleased that the people defending Christian woo-woo are pathetic imbeciles. Unfortunately their gullible customers are even worse.
Posted by: JRQ | November 30, 2009 9:19 AM
I don't think Taleb is himself religious -- he's a finance expert who has argued for a long time that economists and statisticians rely too much on "Platonic" models of reality, thus overestimating how much they know (he calls it the "Ludic Fallacy"). He's got two pretty interesting books -- Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan -- both of which are worth reading, and the latter of which predicted the global banking crisis. But once he goes beyond finance, the dicsussion goes off into absurdistan. He thinks this problem is endemic to all areas of science, and that therefore nearly all experts in all areas of empirical study -- and academics in particular-- are full of shit.
He seems to think the only valid way of deriving knowledge through science is to jettison all theory, and take a purely bottom-up, data-driven approach -- he thinks this is the only way to maintain a realistic estimate of uncertianty. You might think of him as radical proponent of "science as stamp collecting".
Posted by: Randy
|
November 30, 2009 9:20 AM
Taleb is probably one of the lesser-known of the six, so I figure I'll give some commentary on him.
I've read Taleb's previous two books, but I found him disappointing this time around. Why is he involving himself in debates like this? He was more convincing with his past points about charlatanism (You only see books with stories of success, not failure, published, and if someone wants to publish a book about failure that can teach you more than the books about success, they're pretty much forced to publish the book themselves because no publisher will touch it. Look up "What I Learned Losing a Million Dollars".).
I've seen him make points regarding religion in the sense of "believing in randomness and chance does not imply atheism", and how religion is not about belief but practice, citing Eastern Orthodox clergy as examples, because if asked what they believe they "will not tell you what they believe, but what they practice."
He's also made points about creationism vs. evolution (though claiming in The Black Swan that he doesn't partake in these debates) such as how people who believe everything has a purpose or design behind it is essentially naive. "With the advent of things like the computer and modern car, it's hard to believe that they were part of an aimless process. Yet they were."
I'm still not clear *how* he fits religion in with his beliefs and practices but it's confusing at best. Anyone else wanna chime in?
Posted by: MMAtheist | November 30, 2009 9:28 AM
There was a bit more after the audience gave their views.
One of them said he believes in both God and science and thinks "maybe God is the greatest scientist of all" or something like that, and the crowd gave huge applause.
Harris responded nicely with "if someone would have said 'Zeus is the greatest scientist', no-one would have applauded.
Boteach and D'Souza are incredibly annoying, dishonest douchebags and I'm glad Dennett called Boteach on his "breath-taking" ignorance on the subject of evolution (to some nice applause, I might add).
Obviously, Boteach then played the hurt feelings-card.
Posted by: the God | November 30, 2009 9:31 AM
Nassim Taleb (47 min): Can't track reality with science and equations. Religion is not about belief. We were wiser before the Enlightenment, because we knew how to take knowledge from incomplete information, and now we live in a world of epistemic arrogance. Religious people have a way of dealing with ignorance, by saying "God knows". At least he's making a novel argument, but he's still full of bullshit.
( first of all end of the world is coming soon
as you have mega worry.
too soon my SLSG will be absolute scientifically
pragmatic against 9.8mh global liquidation trap
rather than it. you also mind & never know your
real existing so called "9.8mh devil" no human
while you would say partly reason like above.
for example 9.8mh knowledge - 9.8mh society-
9.8mh you(how much can you estimate yourself)
guess! anything as original value is changing.
9.8mh also is change in the universe.
9.8mh devil also not metaphor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Until about 70 years ago, visiting a doctor would reduce your chance of living. From this, he leaps to the conclusion that science hasn't been good at dealing with evidence. Even now, doctors kill us — fewer people die when hospitals go on strike. WTF? This guy is a real crank. If you remove religion, what will you replace it with?
( really strange ? it is also contradiction as
just one(nothing value)in 9.8mh global total all
environments!!. but i told all truth in the past.
about what? your absolute original value as
9.8mh existing regardless of any 9.8mh
knowledges such as person ,people, human...
both 9.8mh religion and 9.8mh science are
based on 9.8mh experiences & 9.8mh reasons
commonly. pityfully more keep going on 9.8mh
experiences & 9.8mh reasons hyper-accelerately.
finally both 9.8mh religion and 9.8mh science
will take answer through too soon my SLSG launch
at the same time who I am & who are you all ?
till too soon my SLSG launch
worldwide all 9.8mh arrogant ignorant cruel
coward disgust ridiculous dirtiest fake
talkative ....................................
devils' survivor insolvent growing debt war is
inevitable like I told wrote all truth in the
past. it is 9.8mh devils !!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Randy
|
November 30, 2009 9:33 AM
@109 JRQ:
That's what puzzles me about Taleb. I just cannot accept that his notion about "expert stupidity" and his contempt for the bell curve are endemic to all areas of science. With that kind of thinking, he could essentially say that cobbling together a theory of evolution is naive. Doubt financial experts, "portfolio theory," economic models etc. all you want, after all the market is volatile. But it's laughable to think that scientists around the globe are being arrogant. The scientific method by its very nature revolves around keeping theories in check. There are always people working simultaneously 'round the clock to disprove something. So it's easy to see that "experts" in finance who might be able to get away with making a model no one will check, can be subject to Taleb's wrath, but science is always being checked.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 30, 2009 9:35 AM
That word salad almost got deleted as spam. Don't you know it's too early in the morning to be doping yourself up with hallucinogens?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 30, 2009 9:41 AM
Wowbagger, OM writes:
To which the honest response by a thinking human being is that humans invented gods to explain things they - at the time - couldn't understand.
I don't think people invented religion for such a simple reason. It seems to me much more obvious that it's a tool for social control, as a less damaging and less risky way of keeping people in line than ramming a spear through them. It's no surprise or coincidence that, all across the Earth, there are societies that independently cooked up the idea that their various gods had placed the seal of divine approval on the king. It's everywhere.
Although I suppose "how do you know he's the king?*" is a class of thing people couldn't understand. :)
(* Because he hasn't got shit all over him, of course!)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 30, 2009 9:47 AM
Lion IRC writes:
Finally, on the point about morality, I have not seen any (multi-person) morality which did not derive from a Higher Authority - God, democracy, canon of reason, arm wrestling, etc.
Do you believe morality came from the gods of Sumeria?
Arm wrestling is a "higher authority"? Do you worship arm wrestling, too?
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 30, 2009 9:52 AM
Really? We were "wiser" back when the average life expectancy was in our 30s and people died from conditions that could be easily treated today? We were "wiser" back when books were burned for their "hertetical" ideas and reason was considered to be the tool of Satan? We were "wiser" back when monarchs and aristocrats used the "divine right of kings" to justify slavery, serfdom, and tyranny?
I'll take "epistemic arrogance" over what Taleb considers wisdom any day of the week.
Posted by: ChrisH
|
November 30, 2009 9:54 AM
Marcus #115
I would have gone for tentative explanation first. The spear ramming starts about 5 minutes after the first argument about who's lightning god is the real one...
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 30, 2009 10:01 AM
I'm guessing he's one of those types who "believes in belief;" that any religion, no matter how ridiculous and vaccant of facts, is good because it keeps the plebs happy and in line.
Posted by: Me | November 30, 2009 10:24 AM
Christopher Hitchens... "Name a moral action that a believer will take that he can't."
Go adopt a dozen kids in orphanages around the world Mr. Hitchen's that need a home and a father- or would that cut down on your boozing. Come on Hitchen's MAN UP and do it!
Posted by: Robocop | November 30, 2009 10:36 AM
I'm still not clear *how* he fits religion in with his beliefs and practices but it's confusing at best. Anyone else wanna chime in?
Nassim is Orthodox and says that, for him, religion is essentially an aesthetic choice: "religion is mostly an emotional-aesthetic commitment and one that is shared with other people; it becomes a collective commitment. It is not about belief, but about trust...."
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm
Note in particular (from the link): 114, 108, 81, 61, 29, and 25.
Posted by: JRQ | November 30, 2009 10:38 AM
@Randy 113,
Yeah, I read and enjoyed Taleb's books, attended a talk of his once and even met him briefly. My impression of him has always been that he's a sort of useful crank -- he has an interesting point to make which can be appreciated if you can get past his flippant anti-expert quips and tendency for grandiose overgeneralization to fields he doesn't know much about.
But none of that prepared be for the level of ridiculousness and incoherence on display here in this debate...wow.
Posted by: Carl | November 30, 2009 10:38 AM
Thanks for the MP3, RC. I like listening to this sort of thing in my car, and skipping through the non-English parts would have been a major pain. I appreciate the effort.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 10:40 AM
-Go adopt a dozen kids in orphanages around the world Mr. Hitchen's that need a home and a father- or would that cut down on your boozing. Come on Hitchen's MAN UP and do it!-
I can think of many moral positions that christians take that I would not want to. The old testament is full of them.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
November 30, 2009 10:44 AM
I share the exasperation over Rabbi Boteach's style. The two US debates he did against Hitchens are on YT, and both of them are yell fests on his part. I think the only reason CH "debates" him is to show how raving even some well-respected and well-known theists can be. Boteach annoys me because he basically is the Jewish equivalent of a Christian creationist nutcase. He never consistently addresses points made by the other side, and even when he does it's to spout the usual crap. That he goes Godwin so fast and so often is a disservice not only to intelligent discussion, but to the memories of his forebears who had actually known Hitler's devastation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 30, 2009 10:58 AM
"Dark matter and dark energy could be where are immortal post-death souls are stored?" Where did he get THAT from? Internal emails hacked from the Church of $cientology?
And who the Hell wants his soul "stored" in "dark" anything? I, for one, would prefer Jupiter, if Earth was off-limits. Lotsa color, lotsa storms, and a big red permanent hurricane that sometimes looks like a vagina -- never a dull moment...
Posted by: Haruhiist | November 30, 2009 11:03 AM
@Lion IRC:
Neat trick, think you can bore me in my native language, Dutch as well?
But please, make it a bit more grammatically correct than your German, I know almost no German and even I could see it was wrong...
@Sili: you've got me curious, what is the T/V distinktion?
Posted by: ChrisH
|
November 30, 2009 11:09 AM
#112 is definitely spam... Google 9.8mh
http://www.businessinsider.com/singapore-homebuyers-leave-blank-checks-with-the-broker-2009-11
:-)
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 11:13 AM
Not sure if others have made this point yet, but Hitchens' Wager is flawed. It begs the question. He challenges believers to name a moral act that a believer could do but that an unbeliever couldn't. Okay, fine: Baptism. Of course we don't think it is moral, but believers do. If you define "moral" as something that both believers and unbelievers agree on as being "moral", then obviously unbelievers can still do it. Thus, it clearly begs the question.
Not sure if he used it in this debate, but the second part of Hitchens' Wager is more powerful: Now try to name an evil act that a believer could engage in but that an unbeliever couldn't. It's trivial to do so, and this is a powerful argument. The "name a moral act" thing... not so much. It's a tautology. Begging the question.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 30, 2009 11:15 AM
Not baptism, maybe, but I guess missionary work would fit?
Posted by: edinblack | November 30, 2009 11:28 AM
Re: Raging Bee's remark, "And who the Hell wants his soul 'stored' in 'dark' anything? I, for one, would prefer Jupiter, if Earth was off-limits. Lotsa color, lotsa storms, and a big red permanent hurricane that sometimes looks like a vagina -- never a dull moment..." (#126)
I remember reading a sci-fi novel years ago about how the entire population of Earth was depleted when it turned out we could transform ourselves into the inhabitants of Jupiter, frolicking in the colors... But I can't remember the author or title. Anyone?
Posted by: edinblack | November 30, 2009 11:31 AM
Oh, and PS: Shmuley's a schmuck.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
November 30, 2009 11:37 AM
James Sweet, I think Hitchens' first part still stands. Unbelievers could perform the actions of "baptisms" too. Your point necessitates that something substantive is happening by the practitioners' execution of the act. There is no evidence with which to think they are doing anything moral or substantive whether they think they are or not.
The point is that a baptism is only moral within the context of a few particular versions of one religion, not all denominations of it, let alone all religions. Also, the "morality" of that act has no bearing on anyone else, therefore one can't really call it moral. It's sort of like the victimless crime: In this case we have something that's "moral", but the effects are confined to the one or a few persons involved in the ceremony. Society could give a crap if one or a million people are baptized.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 30, 2009 11:42 AM
(¡El león de La Mancha! LOL!)
Why is there a universe? Why not?
Why are we here? Because we got that way.
Where are we going? In what sense? That's a pretty nebulous question.
So that I should rule over the Sumerians like the Babylonian sun god.
"Black-headed people" is how the Sumerians liked to call themselves, BTW.
Definitions are arbitrary conventions, not scientific hypotheses. They belong to nomenclature (and thus arguably to philosophy), not to science.
But a definition is easy: someone who comes in, says something that's calculated to get people outraged, and then snickers at how easily he got everyone outraged.
You are wanking. Res ipsa loquitur.
If you're omniscient, you don't need to do science.
What does God want with a starship?
Tc, my friend. Not mh. It's 0.98 Tc.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 11:45 AM
Many of us do. Only this weekend I was invited to some friends with a new baby. They are not religious and do not intend to have the baby baptised. However they did want a semi-formal event where friends and family could meet the little 'un. Thankfully the formalities were restricted to a couple of short speeches, and then it was on with the eating and drinking.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2009 11:46 AM
Especially given that He's dead, Jim.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 30, 2009 11:47 AM
LOL!
He's trying to talk about du vs Sie, implying that el león de La Mancha has been impolite, but that doesn't matter much in a blog with anonymous commenters.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 12:11 PM
James Sweet,
I don't think that is the point of that part of the challenge. Hitchens is saying that nothing separates atheists from theists morally since each could do the same "moral" action, so the whole "you can't be good without god" line is bullshit otherwise theists would have the ability to do "moral" things atheists couldn't. I don't think it hinges on what one considers to be moral but on what someone in the other camp considers to be moral. All too often, theists bring up things like prayer, baptism, and tithing as answers, but an atheist could just as easily sit palms together pretending to communicate with some ineffable entity, dunk a person ritualistically in water, and cede money to a church as a theist could.
Hitchens makes this part more cogent in the Q TV interview by pointing out that clearly wicked actions (e.g., suicide bombing) are in fact part of some religions. Such actions could be done by atheists, but not because of a religion (unless you start nitpicking the definition of atheist to include Buddhists and other fuzzy-deity religions) and certainly not because of the revealed command of a god. So religiously/theistically derived morality may not be good at all despite theists' belief that you need a god to be good, which naturally leads to counter talk of Mao and Stalin on the theist's part.Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
November 30, 2009 12:20 PM
I desperately tried to watch this on friday. The sound was only coming from 1 side, which is painfully annoying with headphones. And the sound was so low that I had to crank my volume, so every time my email would "Ping", my ears would bleed...
Thank you for the blow-by-blow! It saves me!
Posted by: rawnaeris
|
November 30, 2009 1:00 PM
You know, I really tried. I've seen debates between The Hitch and D'Souza before and D'Souza just gets harder to stomach each time. I wound up skipping most of the religious parts. It's Monday morning, I'm tired, and they made no fucking sense whatsoever.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 30, 2009 1:09 PM
David Marjanović, you understood #112? Would you kindly translate it for the rest of us?
Posted by: Matt | November 30, 2009 1:30 PM
Taleb is a proponent of the Austrian School of Economics, which is pretty much what the Discovery Institute is to biology to economics.
No wonder he doesn't like evidence or empirical study of behavior.
Posted by: bsk | November 30, 2009 1:52 PM
Matt: That's giving the Discovery Institute WAY too much credit...
Posted by: Cogito | November 30, 2009 2:12 PM
What an ass Nassim Taleb was in this debate. I liked 'Fooled by Randomness', but man, I have never heard so much fail in my life. He actually said that science has given us nothing and that going to the doctor is pointless. What an utter moron.
Posted by: The Nerd | November 30, 2009 2:40 PM
Thank you for the summary! It's a huge help to those of us who don't have the 2-hour window to sit and watch a video.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
November 30, 2009 3:01 PM
Well, now after having watched (or rather listened while I worked) the whole thing, I would say that this is a damn near fruitless shot at settling anything. The theists spouted their usual crap, with Dinesh being the brightest bulb on that side for using amusing pseudo-contradictions within science as supposed weaknesses or refutations. They provided no defense or positive content beyond mere assertions. On the atheist side you got little more than a surface level glance at some objections to the theist perspective, but nothing nearly as satisfying as seeing CH go head-to-head against someone for 90 minutes. Sam, Dan, and Chris did what they could but the brief windows of time allotted everyone gives the nod to theists. I know, I know, atheists being able to get *something* out in a sizable public forum in a big Western but very religious country is at least a small win in a theist-populated world; but the result was very milquetoast IMO. If I were to give my personal view, the theists won. I know our arguments are stronger but this format is just not good. Too much content. If this were a day-long or days-long conference, my view would be different perhaps.
With respect to the speakers, who the hell is this Taleb guy? He's an atrocious thinker. Scientists have to stop thinking and get to the task of figuring out how to keep soceity from blowing up the world. Since it appears to be so easy to get on these stages and talk, can I sign up to appear with Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris?
And this Wright guy is beyond tedious. Now I have the ultimate example of what many athests call the "agnostic asshole", who grips the middle ground simply as a matter of principle. He spoke three times and said a whole lot of nothing. At least the theists gave us something.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 30, 2009 3:52 PM
edinblack @ # 131: ... a sci-fi novel years ago about how the entire population of Earth was depleted when it turned out we could transform ourselves into the inhabitants of Jupiter, frolicking in the colors... But I can't remember the author or title. Anyone?
I suspect you're thinking of Clifford Simak's classic City.
Posted by: Humanistic Jones
|
November 30, 2009 3:53 PM
Five minutes in listening to Boteach and I don't have enough bread crumbs to get home. I've heard of the Gish Gallop, but the Boteach Bamboozle is new on me.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 4:18 PM
BlueIndependent:
(aratina cage makes a similar point)
This defangs the argument to the point of triviality. Okay, unbelievers could also fly planes into buildings, too. It's physically possible. So what? If all we mean by "You can be good without God" is "It is physically possible for atheists to perform the same actions of theists," then that's a pretty useless message.
Later in BlueIndependent's comment, though, is to me the real meat behind "You can be good without God":
Right, the core of the matter is that what a modern person considers to be "good" is more in line with secular morality than with a "morality" derived from the idiosyncratic dogmas of a particular band of Stone Age goatherders, or whoever. This is the crux of "good without God": For those things which a modern-minded person considers to be the most important criteria for "goodness", religion is completely superfluous.
There is a subtle distinction between this assertion and Hitchens' flawed challenge. The "good without God" argument presents a secular morality and tries to show that this is all that is necessary. The conclusion is not a mere rephrasing of some unstated premise -- it hinges on convincing the listener of the legitimacy of a secular morality.
Hitchens' Wager, on the other hand, is classic begging the question. The unstated premise is that "secular morality is the yardstick by which we must evaluate what is moral". That's the only way his argument works, otherwise "baptism" is a valid retort -- or you are reduced to making the rather sad argument that atheists are technically capable of going through the motions of baptism, but this is rather weak tea for me (and in any case, some theists might argue that the act is only moral if one also believes in the divine connotations of the act, and that an atheist merely going through the motions would not be moral). But isn't "secular morality is sufficient" the conclusion we are gunning for?
The unstated premise is that secular morality defines all legitimate morality, and the conclusion is that secular morality is sufficient to satisfy all legitimate morality. Ho hum.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 4:27 PM
Sure, but I'm sure hardcore traditionalist Catholics still believe that the "little 'un" is destined for the eternal flames of Hell should any misfortune befall him or her. This semi-formal "baptism" event is, from a traditional Catholic perspective, not morally equivalent to the act of sprinkling holy water on the baby's head by a priest.
Hitchens' Wager does nothing to deflate this, because it puts the cart before the horse. Rather, the idea that priest-with-holy-water baptism is "more moral" should be attacked head-on: What kind of moral code condemns an innocent child to the lake o' fire just because some creepy old guy didn't splash some H2O on 'em? Expose the inevitable conclusions of this bullshit stone age morality, and show that they are despicable to modern sensibilities. Don't just blindly assert that a "secular baptism" is just as good, tell us WHY it's dumb to say the Catholic baptism is magically better.
Posted by: humbert dinglepencker | November 30, 2009 5:54 PM
The poor, poor xtians are simply terrified that Boteach is what Jeebus looked and sounded like.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 6:03 PM
Hi Me,
#120
Mr Hitchens seems to think an atheist morality "could" include anything that a theist could. Christian morality includes one act which is described as having no equal.
And it's one which I cannot envisage a scenario where a TRUE atheist could explain why they did it.
It would be an action done in the knowledge/belief that this life is NOT the only one.
It would be an action done unselfishly and without fear. In order to do such an act one would HAVE to believe in life after death.
Laying down your own life for a complete stranger.
That love/morality, I think, has no equal and I would like to see Mr Hitchens explain NOT that he could if he wanted to by WHY he would WANT to do it.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Apologies for imperfect second language skills. I can't imagine poking fun at a non-native English speaker for faults in their ESL.
A best, it's not politically correct. At worst it is bigoted unclear thinking. Haruhiist? Mario? Andyo? Is THAT the best you got?
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 6:06 PM
James Sweet #149 wrote:
I don't think Hitchen's Wager is classic begging-the-question, because the entire point of the question is to reveal that the unstated premise (that secular morality is the yardstick) is shared by atheists and theists. Secular morality is the common ground.
Yes, of course a religious person could say that atheists could never be as moral as theists because they don't undergo baptism, or pray, or sacrifice goats, or whatever -- but they generally don't say this, for good reason. They know it's weak. It reduces their God-given morality into the special, narrow rules and rituals which outsiders aren't expected to follow, if it's not their religion. When they appeal to the moral necessity of God, or belief in God, though, they want to lay claim to the common ground. They want to say that atheists are borrowing or stealing what isn't theirs.
The power of Hitchen's Wager is that it forces the theist to confront the fact that they can't legitimately claim this. On the contrary, they have to assume the unstated premise, in order to persuade an atheist. This means that the morality people really care about claiming, when they use the Moral Argument for God, is grounded in the world.
I also agree that the ideas that baptism or goat sacrifice are somehow "more moral" should be attacked head on, but I think this is better done once Basic Morality (whatever it is) has been granted as shared. Now, we're just quibbling over empirical facts -- and their "facts" aren't just unproven, they often suck.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 6:30 PM
Lion IRC #152 wrote:
No, your example fails, because it undermines your conclusion. A "sacrifice" which is done with the belief that there's no real risk of loss, is considered less praiseworthy than one which is made with the conviction that the sacrifice is significant, and permanent.
When an atheist chooses to sacrifice their life to save the life of another, they do not tell themselves that they won't "really" die, and will instead go on to an afterlife with God. No, they fear death as the end-- but experience a genuinely unselfish love. They're not rewarded with eternal joy. They will lose the only life they will ever have, and they will gain no other reward but the knowledge, as they act, that another will benefit.
That's real love, Lion. Of a kind you should envy. And it happens -- but only from an atheist.
Now, what theists often really mean with this response is that someone is more likely to sacrifice themselves IF they are persuaded that they'll be safe in the end. Nothing bad will happen to them, it will only look that way: there's no real danger. A soldier who is convinced he's wearing bullet-proof armor is more likely to run into battle courageously than a soldier who knows he's just wearing cotton, and needs real bravery.
But that's not a moral argument. You wouldn't say that the first soldier is braver than the second, or a better person. He's just managed to trick himself in a way the second hasn't, and thus the outcome might be better, from a pragmatic standpoint. But, in a sense, the first soldier has had his ability to display honest courage stunted.
And a theist who will only sacrifice if he can put little scare quotes and a wink on the concept of "sacrifice" is less commendable, than he might otherwise have been.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 6:32 PM
James Sweet, I think Sastra did a better job of explaining why Hitchens' Wager is not begging the question than I ever could have. I just wanted to add that Hitchens has never accepted "prayer", "tithing", or "baptism" as answers to the first part of his wager (a moral action that a believer can do that a nonbeliever could not) that I know of. I remember him briefly explaining why when someone said "prayer" in a video I watched a long time ago on YouTube, but I'd guess because those things are rituals and don't really have any real effects on a person's well-being (and tithing is just a form of paying taxes or donating, which nonbelievers do all the time). I have not read God is Not Great, but I wonder if it is in there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 6:42 PM
Yawn, the Lyin' Lion is Lyin' again. He couldn't tell the truth even if his mangy this existence only life depended on it. You see Lyin', you diety doesn't exist, and jebus was a myth. So your eternal nonsense is false, which makes your whole argument a waste of bandwidth. You have shown no conclusive physical evidence otherwise. So every time you pretend you have, you are nothing but Lyin' Lion.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 30, 2009 6:47 PM
How is dying for a cause and then magically ending up in a place that going to be better than the existence one previously had a "sacrifice?"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 6:51 PM
Pat Tillman would like a word with you, tardkitteh.Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 30, 2009 6:54 PM
Much like Jesus' so-called 'sacrifice', which was nothing of the sort. Suffered for a while, dead for a few days, then up to heaven to party-on for however long it is before he comes back to kick ass. But don't mention that last part to Christians; they'll work themselves up trying to explain why, despite the fact he said it'd be 'pretty darn soon', it's been nearly 2,000 years.
What would have been a true sacrifice is if he'd known he wasn't going to rise again. That's having the courage of your convictions.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 7:02 PM
Wowbagger OM #159 wrote:
Compare Jesus with the god Prometheus, who gave the fire of knowledge to Humanity, and for his pains was forced to have his liver eaten every day, tortured for all eternity. Is his sacrifice supposed to be less than that of Jesus, who, if anything, emerged even stronger, better, happier, and healthier than before the crucifiction-- as most Christians would admit (if they don't otherwise argue that Jesus could not be anything but perfectly blissful at all times, in essence)?
Posted by: Joe | November 30, 2009 7:11 PM
Discussing the existence of God has become a public sport, except it's more boring than baseball on a cold cloudy day. Only the fanatics on both sides still take seriously. Most of commonse sensical people just shrug their shoulders and continue to live their lives. None of these arguments are new and none of them is convincing.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 7:18 PM
Joe #161 wrote:
No, I think most of the common sensical people believe that the existence of God and value of faith and spirituality is common sensical truth -- and that the arguments of the atheists are indeed new to them. They may not find them convincing -- at least at first -- but finding out that their common sense is not firm ground, is often unsettling enough.
Posted by: Courtney Franklin | November 30, 2009 7:32 PM
maybe one day these "can't be good with out religion" people will read their chosen holy book for once.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 8:11 PM
I will keep watching the thread for an "actual scenario" in which an atheist would lay down their life for a stranger. An atheist “soldier” doesn’t cut it. They are defending what they HAVE.
And anyway, the bullet proof vest would prevent them from laying down their life.
Here are the elements of the moral thing I don’t think Mr Hitchens could willingly do as a secular act – The sacrifice of your own earthly life for a stranger.
1. It involves doing something you didn’t HAVE to. It’s voluntary.
2. It’s giving up what you HAD and could have continued to have. You could continue your full life on earth and get to heaven ANYWAY even without the sacrifice.
3. Only the stranger benefits from the sacrifice – along with others who may benefit by the ripple effect that love/morality/altruism has.
4. The Hitchens/Atheist might not want to embrace the afterlife concept and might prefer to simply say…”I want to die knowing that future generations will benefit from my unselfish act.
But that fails on three counts. a) The atheist doesn’t “die knowing” anything and b) how does one express gratitude to a non-existent atheist soul and c) why is it empirically good (bene-fit) that a stranger pass on their DNA to strangers of the future – the “nothingness to which the universe is headed according to Mr Hitchens?
Could Mr Hitchens repeat with sincerity the moral statement – “Greater love hath no person than laying down their life for no earthly reward”
In fact, I don’t think Mr Hitchens could make ANY moral statement which began with …”Greater love hath no person than by doing …xyz”
How, in atheism, does one define good, better, best morality?
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 8:21 PM
Oh come on, Lion IRC. That is a low blow coming from "the most humble person in the world". But I'll play along anyway. Why YES you witto cutie-putootie-putty! Onwee a teeist wood way down his or her rwife to save a stwanjah.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 30, 2009 8:22 PM
As usual, you're not making sense. A soldier who falls on a handgrenade (something that'll get him a posthumous medal) isn't defending what he HAS. He's sacrificing his life for his comrades.
Your optimistic naivety is endearing but misplaced. Vests don't cover the head, the torso below the waist, or the limbs. If you lose an arm, you'll bleed to death in less than a minute.
Posted by: j h woodyatt | November 30, 2009 8:33 PM
"We were wiser before the Enlightenment, because we knew how to take knowledge from incomplete information, and now we live in a world of epistemic arrogance. Religious people have a way of dealing with ignorance, by saying "God knows". At least he's making a novel argument, but he's still full of bullshit."
He is *NOT* making a novel argument. Religious people have been making baseless assertions that their "methods" of abduction are the only reasonable and pragmatic ones since well before the Enlightenment, and it's a testament to the enduring strength of their mindless, blithering faith that they yet remain blissfully ignorant of the subsequent discovery of methods of non-religious abduction that actually work better at leading to paths of deductive and inductive reasoning than throwing up your hands and saying, "God knows."
Dammit, these pseudo-intellectual crap artists can be so annoying.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 8:36 PM
aaah, tardkitteh moving the goalposts again.
tell me tardkitteh, how does a soldier who voluntarily gives up a career as a football star to do what he considers to be protecting the freedoms of others, and then dies in the process, "defend what he has"?
religionists aren't more self-less than atheists.
Posted by: j h woodyatt | November 30, 2009 8:38 PM
Oh, and Lion IRC should study Bushido and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 8:41 PM
Lion IRC #164 wrote:
Both atheists and theists have, at various times, laid down their lives for strangers. That's not at issue.
What is at issue is whether it is nobler, and braver, to do so believing that your death is temporary -- or permanent. You're arguing that a minor sacrifice is better than a major one. This isn't going to work.
Ok. Two similar hypothetical situations: in one, an atheist sacrifices their life for another, in the other one, a theist sacrifices their life for another. Only the theist believes that he will emerge, in heaven, unscathed -- and not just that, but happier and better than ever. Even though he has given up his "earthly life," he believes that his eternal life is intact. The sacrifice is temporary.
The atheist's sacrifice is permanent, with no reward, no take-backs, no eternal life, nothing but nonexistence. Love given, for the sake of nothing but the benefit to the person it is given to. I think this is far more difficult, and braver.
You can't argue that, because it's more difficult, and less self-seeking, it's less worthy.
Sure they did. As they died, they knew they were helping another. Are you saying that it should not have been enough? They should have been meaner? That won't help you -- it would only highlight an inability to properly consider what sacrificial love involves.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The dead person will never know how grateful future generations are -- they won't be able to thank him so he will know. He will go without personally receiving any thanks, and knows it.
This makes his sacrifice more noble, not less.
Because love is valuable, for its own sake.
Again, you're undercutting your own argument. You're essentially saying "you're a chump to do something for nothing; you're a fool to care about people for their own sake; you're a sucker to act out of unselfish love." And then you think you can go on to make the case that, as a theist, you understand the concept of unselfish love better?
No; I'd drop this line of argument. It leads to the opposite conclusion.
I can't speak for Mr. Hitchens, but I suspect he would also point out that it can be harder -- and better -- to live and work to help make the world a better place. You die in an instant.
I also suspect that he might amend your statement with "Greater love hath no person than laying down their life for no reward at all -- not on earth, and not in heaven, either." It trumps the first statement, so he'd probably say it, or something like it.
The same way they do it in theism: they look for examples on earth.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 30, 2009 8:53 PM
Spot on. No reward, just annihilation - and therefore infinitely braver than any carrot-on-a-stick Christian act.
And what about those other inspirational acts are performed by religious believers who are convinced they will be rewarded in the afterlife? I'm fairly sure people in New York won't ever need a reminder of the real result of encouraging that kind of thinking.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 8:56 PM
Hi Tis Himself,
While I was trying not to smile at Aratina's attempt to avoid the question I couldnt help noticing the gender specifics in your post #166.
A soldier who falls on a handgrenade (something that'll get HIM a posthumous medal) isn't defending what HE has. HE'S sacrificing HIS life for HIS comrades. - (are they all male too?)
I think you've tainted Jadehawks unbiased language too.
Mr Hitchens set the goal posts very firmly.
We all know where they are. I claim a "touch down" with my "Greater love" example.
I will keep watching the thread with interest. Mind you, I may be banned by PZ Myers at any moment. I don't know if he was referring to me at #66
Lion (IRC)
PS - "Thinking about it" means there must be some pros as well as cons.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 8:56 PM
The same way hominids have done for a million years or so, without the aid of your man made deity. They observed what helps to keep the tribe strong, and individuals healthy. And guess what, idjit cat, what they came up with is similar to the golden rule. Just like game theory would predict. There is no need for your 2,500 year old man made deity. Our wisdom goes much further back than Yahweh. The fact that this is the umpteenth time you've asked that inane question shows you have a serious comprehension problem. You are one stoopid Lyin' Lion.Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:03 PM
To Lion IRC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsKxVMvTXw#t=7m0s
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:03 PM
Yes he was. And the applause of gratitude will be heard around the blog when that happens. You add nothing but stoopidity Lyin' Lion. We learn nothing from you. Maybe if you close your yap and actually listened and learned something, you might gain real wisdom. But nobody is holding their breath.Posted by: Kel, OM | November 30, 2009 9:09 PM
Consequences.Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 9:14 PM
Hi Nerd of Redhead OM,
I'm very glad you point out that "The Tribe" is the external factor. That IT is The Higher (Stronger) Authority.
Obeying what The Tribe commands is most certainly a way to keep "healthy".
I think you will find that Mr Hitchens rejects the "Higher Authority" concept and says his morality is independent of that - innate.
I am waiting for a person who thinks like Hitchens to say WHY they would lay down their life to benefit the DNA of a stranger into the irrelevant future. Maybe someone CAN.
Lets see if what they come up with is anything remotely recognizable as "morality"
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 9:16 PM
Kel, OM #176 wrote:
Not just consequences -- also methods.
To my mind, that's a major moral lapse in theism, and faith -- a tendency to believe that, if you end up being right, then you did the right thing, and to hell with how you got there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:18 PM
How did I know that Lyin' Irk would latch on to an irrelevancy and ignore my main point? I must be psychic. Either that or I've been watching Lyin' Irk's modus operandi. When one of his claims has been refuted, he tap dances and hand waves in hopes that nobody will notice he's been shot down again.
Yes, Lyin' Irk, I could have written my post in a gender neutral fashion. I didn't. Now answer the point, asshole, or admit that, as usual, you can't.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 9:19 PM
Lion IRC #177 wrote:
Love.
For its own sake. No other reward, on earth or in heaven.
Well?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:22 PM
*munches popcorn while watching the Lyin' Lion get kitty slapped*
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:25 PM
Now Sastra, Lion IRC probably doesn't believe that meat machines like us (the ones without souls) can actually feel Love™.Posted by: Mr meaT machine | November 30, 2009 9:31 PM
Love.
Does not compute.
Error.
Meat-circuits overheating.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 9:35 PM
Hi Kel OM,
Consequences?
What consequences are there if you do it when nobody is looking and you never get found out.
That is precisely the point Mr Hitchens makes.
He doesnt define his "innate" morality (the one which is independent of a Higher Authority) by its "consequences".
That would unravel the entire premise of people like Dakwins and Hitchens who (quite rightly) reject any morality done just in order to avoid consequences - eg. punishment from God
I take it by "consequences" you mean benefit to others. The more beneficial the consequences the more moral an act may be called.
That simply reframes the question.
How, in atheism, does one define good, better, best consequences/morality?
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 30, 2009 9:38 PM
Well, okay, I dunno 'bout laying down my own life, no...
But I'd push Lion in front of a bullet to save a stranger...
(Course, that's hardly what I'd call a tough one, either...)
(/And see also 'Win win...')
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:46 PM
AJ, that's hardly a sacrifice.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:47 PM
How do you show physical evidence for your imaginary deity? When did you stop beating your wife? When did you last masturbate? All those questions are a meaningful as yours.Check my post #173 and comment intelligently on it, by imagining your deity never existed. If you have the manhood and imagination to do so.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 30, 2009 9:50 PM
Oh no... it'd be a wrenching moral quandry for me, I assure you...
(/I'd be all like 'Gee... I wonder if there was another way'... might agonize over that for minutes, even...)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:55 PM
How do you do this in real life? Do you get on your knees and pray "should I put a dollar, two dollars or three dollars in the Salvation Army kettle?" Or do you just make a quick decision to donate and how much you'll give?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 30, 2009 10:06 PM
What if? Consequences don't necessitate social justice, but implications for yourself and others. So just because you get away with it, it doesn't make it right. Stabbing someone in the dark still has the consequence of ending a human life.Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 30, 2009 10:10 PM
'Tis, I would not give a penny to the Salvation Army. It is an extremely anti-LGBT organization.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 30, 2009 10:24 PM
In theism, how does one define it? Is it pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious? The problem with theistic morality is it is nothing that even remotely resembles morality. It's consequentialist in the sense that if you cross God he'll make you suffer, but there's no justification for why to do anything in the first place. You've either got an amoral entity dictating behaviour or a universally-inherent sense of morality.So in atheism, how does one define it? Any way they want, atheism is not a doctrine. It's merely non-belief. Ultimately a lot of it comes down to value judgements, consequentialism provides a framework for making value judgements in as informed a manner as possible. Just ask yourself why you should care about others, and if you can't figure out that there's some intrinsic worth to humanity, at least realise you're in a non-zero sum situation and there's benefits to you to value in others as they would to you... after all, there's a reason why reciprocal altruism is present in social species.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 30, 2009 10:30 PM
Haha Lion, the ability to use google translate is not "imperfect second language skills."
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 10:30 PM
James Sweet (Lion, you may be interested, too),
I found the video (2007, Hugh Hewitt Show) on YouTube where Mark Roberts (MR) responds to Christopher Hitchens' (CH) first challenge with "praying for my children before they go to bed each night".
So it appears that Hitchens is drawing the line on moral actions as things that directly aide others, not things that appease a god or call on a god for divine blessing, which rules out baptisms, tithing, and prayer.Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 10:31 PM
Hi Tis Himself OM,
#166 / #179
Of course I will answer you. Please forgive the delay.
The fact that your post contained NO question marks unfortunately lead me to think you were just making a general observation.
I must also tell you that posts you claim you are directing to me #166 but which don’t even include my nick sometimes get missed. (You can use my actual nick or some really witty original contrivance guaranteed to cause side-splitting laughter like Lyndance or Loincloth or Lie On I Arse See)
Your comment that a soldier might give up his (or her) life to save that of his (or her) fellow soldiers made NO mention of the soldier being an atheist. The word was conspicuously absent in fact. Maybe there are no atheists in foxholes afterall.
Can you explain how we would know the motivation of that soldier? Was the soldier an avid bible reader? Were the lives saved those of strangers to whom the soldier had no feelings of mutual obligation to act that way whenever possible? Was there a Higher Authority (God and Country) involved which lead the soldier to act a certain way or can we truly say it was completely innate and independent morality?
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 10:37 PM
More inane questions from an inane and stoopid questioner. Your imaginary deity isn't needed for anything. To pretend otherwise, shows your own ignorance and lack of imagination. Until you conclusively show physical evidence for your deity, and physical evidence that whatever holy book you are using for morality is the actual word of god, your who argument rests upon your delusions. Which means it is a fallacious argument from the git go.Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 30, 2009 10:40 PM
Lion IRC - how can any soldier be a Christian? It goes against everything Christianity allegedly stands for, let alone 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. It would be far more accurate to say that there are no Christians in foxholes - at least not informed, intellecutally honest and consistent ones.
Then again, it's quite accurate to say that there are no Christians anywhere who meet that description; if you're informed, intellectually honest and consistent you're almost certainly going to have thrown of the shackles of delusional superstition and become an atheist.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 30, 2009 10:42 PM
Lyin' Lion, check the dungeon. There are people there who kept asking the same inane questions over and over like you are doing. Pay attention to our responses, and you can learn something. We are not learning anything from you. We reserve that for smart folks, which excludes you. Inane questions like yours are just mocked. Keep asking the same inane question, and you will most likely be residing in a cell next to those others.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 30, 2009 10:52 PM
... Now the way I think I'd eventually learn to live with this would be: hell, the word is there's this deity had his own kid iced to redeem the sins of the world... and/or make up for his own shoddy workmanship... either way...
... anyway, really, given that, it seems to me that at the very least ya gotta be ready to do what a man has to do, and accept the regrettable reality that sometimes ya might just have to trade a generally kinda lame web troll for, say, someone's beloved pet goldfish...
(/Next fascinating ethical question for this forum: if old Yahweh hadda trade his son for the sins of the world, and I just had to throw Lion under the bus for a goldfish, who was the better negotiator, at the end of the day?)
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 30, 2009 11:06 PM
Hi Aratina Cage,
Yes I have listened to that Hitchens discussion in full a couple of times.
I cannot envisage THAT man throwing himself on a grenade to save the life of a stranger when he says; (in another interview)
” What cheers me up? Mainly bloating over the misfortunes of other people. I guess that has to be. Mainly crowing over the miseries of others. It doesn’t always work but it never completely fails”
A bit disingenuous for him to use the word "morality" and expect people to know what he means.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 30, 2009 11:08 PM
#120 Me
Ya mean, like Brad & Angie 'cause Brad says he's "Probably 20% Atheist and 80% Agnostic". Damn selfish atheist!Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:12 PM
Lion IRC, your ad hominen of Hitchens aside, I think he would quickly sort "sacrifice" into the "doing it for god not for good" pile. Doing something you expect is going to kill you to save another person's life is not the same as sacrificing yourself to a god so that the god doesn't go bonkers and exterminate humankind. I think you need to differentiate sacrifice of the self in the religious sense from the secular sense.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:15 PM
*cough* — ad hominem — *cough*
Posted by: N.Schuster | November 30, 2009 11:16 PM
I understand that Boteach debated Dawkins circa 1995. Dawkins did so poorly that he denied that the debates took place. When Boteach produced the videos, Dawkins said he forgot, then compared Boteach to Hitler.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 30, 2009 11:18 PM
Lion IRC #195 wrote:
I'm rather hoping that my post to you at #180, which did contain a question mark, and mentioned you by full name (as I always do), will end up on your list of posts to which you will eventually reply.
I seem to get lost in the shuffle, somehow. Maybe I have other bad habits.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 30, 2009 11:20 PM
Most humans have at least some feelings for other humans they don't know. It's called empathy. Combining empathy for others with the higher level reasoning and abstraction that normal humans can perform, and you have all sorts of opportunities for perfectly sensible self-sacrifice.
Would I lay down my life for the lives of a thousand people who I don't know? I don't know, but I like to think I would. Maybe I'm too much of a coward to do so, but intellectually, I believe that it would be the right thing to do.
I don't see how doing it because it's "right" in that sense is any less moral than doing it because I fear divine punishment or desire divine reward, or because the promise of an afterlife is so great that it makes what I do in this life irrelevant either way. I would argue that it is more moral, because the stakes are more real and there are no ulterior motives.
Posted by: N.Schuster | November 30, 2009 11:22 PM
RE: #201
According to some accounts Brad and Angelina are too busy to actually raise the children. They leave that to the nannies. SO they may very well, be suing the kids for a photo ops and positive press. Or I'm just too cynical.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:23 PM
N.Schuster, have you figured out what the scientific method is yet?
Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 11:28 PM
Does this all revolve around whether you or I or anyone else thinks Christopher Hitchens is moral or adequately explains what he believes morality is? I could easily say it's disingenuous for you to expect us to know what you mean by "morality".Define precisely what morality is, then make that claim against Hitchens, then try to comprehend that has nothing to do with "atheist morality" in general, if there is such a thing.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:29 PM
Just to show what kind of Christofascist lout N.Schuster is, here is a quote from the person:
There's plenty more in the murky depths where that came from.Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 30, 2009 11:32 PM
#109 JRQ
Sigh! Sounds like that ol' arrogant anti-elitism rearing its ugly head. "My ignorance trumps your experience. So there!!".Yeah, economists do over estimate the accuracy of their models - cause they all too often forget they are social scientists, not physicists! (though they can dream...) Economic theory today is as good as evolutionary theory was before Darwin wrote OotS, Mendel discovered the Laws of Heredity and biologists knew about the existence of genes. Hopefully, Economics will make the same progress in the next 150 years as biology did in the last 150.
Posted by: N.Schuster | November 30, 2009 11:34 PM
errrm: Aratina
I'm not a Christian. Have you figured out the scientific method yet? And I taught high school science for several years. I found that every textbook has a different explanation of the scientific method. So I'm not sure that anyone has figured out the scientific method.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 30, 2009 11:36 PM
N. Schuster:
I remember that, unfortunately. Doesn't exactly square up in the face of the current christian-based bill in Uganda. There's murder for ya.
Posted by: N.Schuster | November 30, 2009 11:37 PM
aratina:
Can you say "ad hominum?"
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:41 PM
N.Schuster,
I didn't say you were.
I just did.Posted by: 386sx | November 30, 2009 11:43 PM
N.Schuster doesn't know how to spell abl homlimurm!!
Posted by: N.Schuster | November 30, 2009 11:44 PM
Then what does christofacist mean?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 30, 2009 11:47 PM
#207 N.Schuster
Nannies?? Wow! People rich enough to afford to hire childcare, in their own home, actually do? Like millions have down all through history and all over the world. But, nope, gotta be nefarious if Brad& Angie do it.Donating money to an African orphanage or sponsoring a children's charity (a la Oprah) could have got them lots of good p.r. with less hassle. I guess they were too stupid to figure out that if you take home the cute puppies you get stuck walking the big old ugly dogs every day.......
Oh, no, I would not use the word "cynical" for such a cheesily stupid comment.
Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 11:48 PM
If aratina cage were attacking N.Schuster with an ad hominem/poisoning-the-well, he would've said something to the effect that your previous comments (or something entirely irrelevant about you) made your new claim false or invalid. This did not occur.
Note that Lion IRC just tried to do this with Hitchens.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:52 PM
N.Schuster,
Oh no, I'm not playing the definitions game with you. I was just sending out a warning shot across the thread that le Majestic troll had arrived.Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
November 30, 2009 11:55 PM
aratina cage at #203,
I kinda like ad hominen, too. Like an ad hominem, but just a little shorter. ;)
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: N.Schuster | November 30, 2009 11:56 PM
MrT.
So technically Aratina's name calling and bringing up an irrelevent post wasn't even an ad hominem? It was just name calling?
Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 12:02 AM
I want to see a mud-wrestling match between le Majestic troll and León de La Mancha.
I'm betting on you, le Majestic, because you seem inordinately interested in mass murder. I want you to break his mind, as if it was not already broken.
Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 12:07 AM
The "christofascist lout" part was name calling. The rest of it was aratina cage's memory functioning, bringing that bit of history to our attention. You don't seem to deny that you wrote those comments.
Posted by: Joel
|
December 1, 2009 12:20 AM
We have a semantics problem here..."righteous" does not, in this instance, mean "morally upright" but rather it means "in line with the petty dictates of a certain provincial Levantine demiurge."
Those things are not righteous because they are morally correct in any kind of objective fashion, they are righteous because Yahweh didn't have much of a problem with them at the time. On other days, of course, Yahweh wakes up on the other side of the bed and things like getting drunk, running around naked in front of your kids, lying, handing over your spouse and/or daughters as a rape offering, etc. are all seen as immoral and will get you summarily smited and damned to hell for all eternity.
Good luck figuring out what kind of mood Yahweh's in today, sucker.
And therein concludes today's lesson on Biblical Moral Objectivity. You may enjoy recess for 45 minutes before we move on to: Human Sacrifice, From Isaac to Chemosh...Good or Bad? And Where Does Jesus Fit In Exactly, Anyway?
Posted by: the God | December 1, 2009 12:24 AM
guess!
my greatest answer about that debate .
my global hyper-accelerately growing popularity
is just based on reality = evidence= proof
namely because I am absolute original best
perfect appearance & sexiest. rather than
too soon getting physically officially absolute
power, wealthy , fame through SLSG launch.
How 9.8mh ignorant arrogant devils !
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 1, 2009 12:26 AM
Hi Sastra,
Yes I definitely noticed your comment;
“Because love is valuable, for its own sake"
It really caught my eye. And I agree with you.
Oh if only I hadn’t heard dozens of real atheists say love is nothing but hormones – chemicals.
Loving your neighbors is valuable to both neighbor, self and third party onlooker.
When I do it makes me feel good. When it is done to me I feel good. And when I see someone doing it to their neighbor I feel good even if it has no material impact on me.
But what if throwing grenades at people made me feel good?
The debate is not about what is moral or how do you define degrees of morality or whether an atheist with no thought of afterlife is nobler.
To me the issue hinges upon the simple case of 2 competing claims for morality and what yardstick is used.
I say the Higher Authority trumps the individual, "innate" morality.
I believe you cannot call it "morality" UNLESS you can validate it with the imprimatur OF a higher authority - God, Democracy, Common Good, Canon of Reason, Tribal Elders - ANYTHING other than...."I just so happen to find xyz immoral.”
When two scientists disagree – they peer review.
When two litigants disagree - they adjudicate in court.
When two bloggers disagree – they get PZ Myers to do what he did at the culmination of the Chicago Deep Rifts thread (WOW! did ya see that?)
When two countries disagree – they do the UN thing or they arm wrestle.
When satan wants to fight God – the stronger will win. It can’t just go on forever spinning its wheels in the mud going nowhere
Everything reverts to an upward appeal to Higher Authority. It’s not a surrender to the notion that “might equals right”.
It’s a claim that Right (True Morality) will always win because
a) it is always backed by the majority who prefer it
b) it is always backed by people who know that you must cooperate with the inevitable.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 12:35 AM
you're a fucking idiot; I was referring to a specific person.aah, the morality of a child: it's only bad if you get caught. figures the tardkitteh thinks in such selfish terms.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 12:41 AM
what about the fact that love is made of brain chemistry makes it not valuable? then you'd be harming others, and those others would remove you from their society; social morality works with both reward and punishment. this is basic. go learn something. yes, we know. you're an authoritarian, and cannot wrap your mind around organically developing societal mores. this lack of imagination on your part is not our fault, nor does it constitute a valid argument.amusingly enough, "peer review" is not an authority; that's what the "peer" part means. it's a system maintained by the mutual agreement of all people involved, because they believe it works in their benefit.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 1, 2009 12:49 AM
Lion IRC wrote:
Please feel free to explain - in detail - how this makes the reaction on the part of the organism reacting to the hormones/chemicals any less real or valid. Alternatively, you could provide an example of something that experiences love but doesn't operate via hormones/chemicals.
Your god is meant to be infinitely powerful. How is it that Satan can't be destroyed? Is Satan as powerful as your god? How can that be?
Not to mention, of course, you have yet to demonstrate the existence of one or both of these beings - or explain how, even if we accept your unsupported assertion of their existence, you obtained the knowledge you have of their particular qualities and the steps you followed in verifying the accuracy of the data.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 12:50 AM
A dippity if there ever was one. Akin to saying love is a 4 letter word...Posted by: Stanton
|
December 1, 2009 12:51 AM
So f Lion IRC were commanded by God, or what he perceives to be God, to murder other people by throwing grenades at him, would he consider that a good thing to do?
Posted by: the God | December 1, 2009 12:51 AM
guess!
my lowest quality answer to debate about me.
now am I ghost or dumbness or on Mar ?
over there without me
what are you 9.8mh devils doing ?
it is also 9.8mh contradiction about hyper-
accelerately being misused by global9.8mh devils.
so global total all hyper-accelerately 9.8mh
dog comedy front me.
Is it hide & seek for 9.8mh children ? no !!!
do you like your real original 9.8mh devils'
quality ? absolutely yes! (9.8mh kaesujak to fake
lie for free sex & food hyper-accelerately)
Posted by: raven | December 1, 2009 12:54 AM
Xian morality involves doing things most of us have no interest in whatsoever.
We have no interest in finding a Canaanite city, and slaughtering everything "that breathes". Old Yaweh the geonocidal monster ordered his people to slaughter the men, women, and children. To start with. Then came the livestock, oxen, donkeys, sheep and chickens. Finally the pets, cats and dogs. The bible is silent on whether the people have to slaughter the rats, mice, and cockroaches, which would be a difficult task with just a sword.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to eradicate the cockroaches and mice with just edged weapons?
Really, to do it right, one would have to just nuke the place. It's the only way to be sure.
I'm sure the xians have figured that out and are pining away for the ultimate in religious equipment.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 12:54 AM
Lion IRC (aka Lion of The Wilderness–did I get that right Mr.T?)
Uh-huh. Thought so.
Except you have not provided any evidence for a higher authority that hands out rulings on what is moral and what is wicked, let alone evidence for a higher authority at all.
But you said it was several days back: link to evidence and quote:Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 1, 2009 12:58 AM
No. You might want to read Dawkins' account. There probably was no debate, although Dawkins concedes that among the many he did, perhaps Boteach was in one of them. The debate, if it happened, doesn't seem to be available on the web.
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 1, 2009 1:11 AM
Hi Jadehawk OM
Nah! You werent.
#168
"...how does a soldier who voluntarily gives up a career as a football star to do what HE considers to be protecting the freedoms of others, and then dies in the process, "defend what HE has"?
Try
Soldiers who do what they consider
Soldiers who consider they are defending
The "consequence" point make by Kel OM #178
needed to be clarified because a person might think that they could do something immoral as long as there were no consequences to them.
See #184 and many others I have made you will realize my central recurring point is that morality transcends (must transcend) individual whims, whether or not you get caught (consequences) and whether or not you feel compelled to be moral.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 1, 2009 1:13 AM
"I cannot envisage THAT man throwing himself on a grenade to save the life of a stranger"
Perhaps I arrived a bit late here, but why exactly is laying down one's life to save the life of a stranger assumed to be a good thing? One person lives, one dies, it seems like a wash, really. Maybe for more than one life.
I don't know, I just get suspicious when I hear people praising the notion of personal sacrifice. It's usually the people who stand to benefit from said sacrifice who do all the talking.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:16 AM
Dawkins has a knack for being in the audience when opponents least expect it. From the link PZ provided in #236 by Dawkins to Boteach:
Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 1:16 AM
aratina cage:
Well, La Mancha is a region in Spain, which of course was made famous by Cervantes' El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha.
However, according to Google Translate, "la mancha" means "stain". Google Translate knows best. ;)
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:22 AM
Lion IRC,
Re-read #158 then #168. And Let Me Google That For You
Posted by: Joel
|
December 1, 2009 1:22 AM
The stain in Spain falls mostly on the plain.
(OK, that's done with, you were all thinking it, now it's out, the conversation can proceed...)
Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 1:29 AM
Lion:
Name a specific action of any kind that has no consequences. It makes no difference whether it is moral, amoral, or immoral -- just provide a single example of an action in which there are absolutely no consequences.I think Newton had something to say about that... they were probably just some set of "laws" handed down by a "Higher Authority"...
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:32 AM
Mr T, I must have looked in the wrong online encyclopedia to get "wilderness" O_o (haven't read Don Quixote). Gotta love Google Translate! :D
Joel, gack! It's stuck in my head now.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 1:56 AM
How does it need to be clarified? Consequences don't mean personal ramifications, rather simply what results from taking a particular course of action. Surely you don't need every little detail spelt out for you...Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 2:00 AM
Of course morality transcends individual whims, you just don't need it to transcend the species. Is it wrong to murder on mars? The question is irrelevant as there are no intelligent agents with moral reasoning. Quite simply you don't need to go beyond the interconnectivity of intelligent in a non-zero sum situation. Morality builds from us, it transcends us but we are still its core.Posted by: the God | December 1, 2009 2:11 AM
guess!
my lowest quality answer to debate about me.
now am I ghost or dumbness or on Mar ?
over there without me
what are you 9.8mh devils doing ?
it is also 9.8mh contradiction about hyper-
accelerately being misused by global9.8mh devils.
like 9.8mh science & 9.8mh religion naturally
so global total all hyper-accelerately 9.8mh
dog comedy front me. if so.... how? why?
Is it hide & seek for 9.8mh children ? no !!!
do you like your real original 9.8mh devils'
quality ? absolutely yes!
(only originally 9.8mh kaesujak to fake lie
for free sex & food hyper-accelerately + for
loooooooooooooooooooongtime total all stackings)
now if getting rid of 9.8mh both science&
religion. global all 9.8mh devils could face
the truth suddenly. is it possible in reality ?
so global 9.8mh devils hyper-accelerately
are depending & misusing 9.8mh both.
to global total all 9.8mh contradictions.
Posted by: Satan | December 1, 2009 2:33 AM
Why would I want to fight God?
Why would God want to fight Me?
Oh? Then who is God's "Higher Authority"?
It is if you stop with God for no other reason than there being no-one more powerful than Him.
Or in other words, might makes right.
Really, you're just terrible at logic.
Posted by: edinblack | December 1, 2009 2:37 AM
Yes, Pierce R. Butler (@ #147) you nailed it. Now I want to read it again. Thanks! (answer to: what was "a sci-fi novel years ago about how the entire population of Earth was depleted when it turned out we could transform ourselves into the inhabitants of Jupiter, frolicking in the colors" Answer: "I suspect you're thinking of Clifford Simak's classic City."
Posted by: God | December 1, 2009 2:38 AM
"the God" is not Me.
Posted by: Satan | December 1, 2009 2:42 AM
I think we figured that one out.
Even in the depths of Your worst æther binge, You've never been quite that helpless and irresponsible and depraved.
Posted by: Mario | December 1, 2009 3:08 AM
Lion IRC, you don't have imperfect second language skills, you just can't speak Spanish but you pretend you can anyway.
Si te vas a tirar el royo de que puedes hablar español, ve con cuidado, porque es posible que te encuentres con un tipo de Albacete como yo, que vea el ridículo que haces al intentar parece inteligente por hablar más de un idioma, cuando en realidad no puedes.
Sorry for the Spanish bit, but this guy is a phony.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 7:41 AM
you're telling ME who I was or wasn't talking about?BWAHAHAHAAAHAAA!!!
I was, as a matter of fact, talking about a very specific person; I'm not at all surprised that you lack the reading comprehension to understand this, and the intellectual honesty to admit your mistake. If you were intellectually honest, you'd go back to my previous comments, see who I'm talking about, and apologize. I'm not holding my breath.
that's a non-point. no one except you is talking about "individual whims"; however, you're insisting on claiming "higher authority" as responsible for morality as the only alternative; I understand you lack the ability to see a third option, but that's really your problem, not ours. Nothing needed to be clarified; you were the only one who thought "consequences" might only mean repercussions to oneself. And that tells us quite a lot about you.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 7:55 AM
Lyin' Lion, you have never addressed the evolutionary morals which didn't require the use of your imaginary deity. The morals we use today. Your imaginary friend has nothing to do with them. We don't need your delusional friend/thinking for anything. I would like to see PZ give you a test for your continued posting, where you must directly address this issue. And you must, as part of this test, envision a world without your deity.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 1, 2009 8:04 AM
Quick question (with maybe one or two to follow) for Lion:
Can someone be a good person, a moral, upright human being, without accepting Jesus as their personal saviour?
I think I know the answer to this, but I'd like Lion's take on it.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Peter Beattie
|
December 1, 2009 8:04 AM
An mp4 version of the video is available as a torrent, in case you're interested:
https://isohunt.com/release/338557
Posted by: Peter Beattie
|
December 1, 2009 8:07 AM
That was, of course, the other interesting debate this week, sorry about that. The link above is to the Dawkins/Grayling vs. Harries/Moore debate at Intelligence Squared. Certainly just as interesting as the Dennett/Harris/Hitchens marathon. :)
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 9:10 AM
Sorry, Lion, I went to bed before I saw this response.
Lion IRC #227 wrote:
Remember, Hitchens' original question was
Your question was
I gave an answer which was acceptable to you; technically, then, I answered your challenge. Belief in an afterlife isn't going to be critical for any moral action. I think you've now asked a different question:
"WHY would an atheist love other people?"
This question isn't going to be answered at the level of physical description: it will be answered at the level of choice. And the choice an atheist makes for "love," is essentially justified the same way the theist justifies his choice for "God." It's actually a more basic question, because, for you, when it comes to morality "God" is going to have to reduce to love.
Then you would never choose to see God as your moral authority, would you? And there would be no way to "make you." Fear of punishment is not a moral motivation.
Well, yes, that was the original debate: you had claimed in #152 that an atheist morality could not come up with a motivation for an ultimate self-sacrifice, because giving your life for someone required a belief in an afterlife. That, as we have now I think agreed, isn't true: it only requires a belief in the primary value of love for others.
The debate has since been shifted to why one ought to value love for others.
Keep in mind, unless a "higher authority" validates a person's own sense of right and wrong, it won't be considered authoritative in a moral sense. The self is still the ultimate court of appeal, because moral values will always come down, in the final analysis, to individual choice. We're not looking for a stick to beat the recalcitrant: we're looking for a carrot all reasonable people of good will, will choose to follow.
When two people disagree on God's morality, they appeal to the higher authority of shared values, to figure out what God must have meant. Or must be like.
Values held in common are going to be a more basic court of appeal than any single person -- and that includes God, real or hypothetical.
"Living in and with love, is better than living in and with hate." Consider this statement, and ask yourself whether anyone would reject it, and yet still recognize God as the Highest Authority in morality.
And ask yourself another question: if God Himself rejected this value -- and cared more for an existence filled with hatred, for that was His Essence, and that was the Ultimate Good of His created universe -- would you still consider God a High Moral Authority, the ultimate trump, the final appeal?
You're not digging deep enough: humanists and Christians would have to be reasoning the same way, on basic common morals, before we get to appealing to God for justification.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 9:14 AM
167: Dammit, these pseudo-intellectual crap artists can be so annoying.
Like those that misrepresent Taleb's position.
194: So it appears that Hitchens is drawing the line on moral actions as things that directly aide others, not things that appease a god or call on a god for divine blessing, which rules out baptisms, tithing, and prayer.
Except that prayer helps people quite demonstrably when they know they're being prayed for. Irrespective of whether there is a god involved or not, prayer meets the (silly) Hitchens challenge.
197: It goes against everything Christianity allegedly stands for, let alone 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. It would be far more accurate to say that there are no Christians in foxholes - at least not informed, intellecutally honest and consistent ones.
Haven't studied Hebrew much, huh? Despite some good arguments for Christian pacifism, it's hardly cut-and-dried.
And I suppose that's why Jesus always told his followers who were soldiers that they had to give up their profession. Oh, wait....
Then again, it's quite accurate to say that there are no Christians anywhere who meet that description; if you're informed, intellectually honest and consistent you're almost certainly going to have thrown of the shackles of delusional superstition and become an atheist.
Sadly, we simply can't be as smart, honest, good or well-dressed as you. If we aren't like you and don't see things your way, we're inferior.
Bigot.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:28 AM
well look at that, someone doesn't understand how this works.if you tell someone you'll think about them/pray for them/send them ~~vibes~~/whatever, it'll "work" even if you don't actually do it; if you don't tell them, it won't work even when you do it. It's the telling that works, not the praying.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:33 AM
Sorry, there are no good studies confirming this. There is an effect caused by having a support group, which includes people who come and pray, but just having people visit and not pray works as well. It is a kind of placebo effect.Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 9:38 AM
Robocop #259 wrote:
Only in the most superficial sense, I think. By the same token, no theist would be able to honestly perform the good deed of making sad atheists feel better by writing a nice essay refuting the existence of God, or agreeing with them that prayer is useless, or what have you. But this is not a gaping hole in their ability to perform moral acts.
Both atheists and theists can provide comfort to the afflicted, which is the real issue. The fact that the forms may be slightly different when it comes to the specific subject of religious comfort is an insignificant difference, and doesn't really meet the heart of the challenge.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 9:47 AM
260: It's the telling that works, not the praying.
Not quite. Religious belief and practice do help people by providing a community of social support and by fostering positive emotions, which produce beneficial responses in the body. So, although I haven't seen a study on the subject, I suspect that an atheist (or an atheist group) could perhaps mimic this type of community and the prayer support that goes along with it to some success. Sadly, this is not a common occurence within the atheist community, such as it is, at least in my experience. That said, the challenge is still met (even though I think the challenge is silly for several reasons, including the fact that I don't doubt that atheists can be and often are as moral as believers, sometimes more so).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:50 AM
mimic?
you're a fucking idiot. Religion is not Teh Primordial Community; atheists don't need to "mimic" community. And you don't have any experience with secular or atheist communities, evidently.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 10:01 AM
262: Both atheists and theists can provide comfort to the afflicted, which is the real issue.
I essentially agree.
The fact that the forms may be slightly different when it comes to the specific subject of religious comfort is an insignificant difference, and doesn't really meet the heart of the challenge.
I disagree here in two respects. I suspect (though I haven't seen this studied) that community support and prayer will be more effective when the recipient believes that it will help -- if s/he believes in prayer. That would make the difference much more significant. Secondly, many religious groups routinely provide such support for the afflicted from within their own group and for outsiders who desire it. They exist at almost every hospital. Unless and until atheist groups start routinely offering similar support, the claim that atheists could provide similar comfort to the afflicted rings hollow to me.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 1, 2009 10:01 AM
Mmm, the sweet sizzle of bacon. Num.
Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 10:03 AM
Robocop: Is your definition of a moral act "something that produces beneficial responses in the body"? I highly doubt it.
There's no support for the idea that prayer itself actually does this.
There's also the fact that atheists can have "a community of social support" -- nothing to prevent that from happening, although it may not be as blatant as listening to someone discussing absurdities in church every week.
You even admit atheists can be just as moral as believers. That's the whole point of Hitchens' "silly" challenge.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 10:11 AM
267: Is your definition of a moral act "something that produces beneficial responses in the body"? I highly doubt it.
No, but Hitchens's objection to using prayer to meet his challenge was his claim that it didn't "work." Prayer that results in "beneficial responses in the body" works.
You even admit atheists can be just as moral as believers. That's the whole point of Hitchens' "silly" challenge.
Which is one of the reasons I think it's silly.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 10:14 AM
Your suspicions are wrong. I can't cite the paper, as I read a summary of it in Skeptical Inquirer several years ago, but the scientists, who are generally thorough, did account for trivial things like belief in prayer working. It simply came down to having a support group, with the type of support, religious or non-religious, being immaterial.Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 10:22 AM
Well, first of all, prayer studies have shown they have no significant effect on health.Consider this analogy: a placebo that results in "beneficial responses in the body" works. Do you see what I did there? There's a reason why placebos aren't considered "medicine".
If a sick person felt that others were caring for them, trying to support them, hoping for a good recovery, etc., then it has the same effect as a believer who thinks others are "praying" (hopefully to the correct deity) for them.
All sorts of religious believers claim that atheists are immoral (e.g., Lion IRC thinks we have no "moral authority"). It's not silly to show why this is wrong.
Posted by: Ibid | December 1, 2009 11:07 AM
These people that claim evidence for a god or an afterlife make me think of a sidewalk newspaper vendor. He stands on a street corner yelling "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" but when you go to try to buy a copy of the paper he not only doesn't have any copies of the newspaper to sell but in fact paper hasn't yet been invented.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 11:13 AM
Wasn't there a study that showed praying for people who knew they were being prayed for had a slight negative effect, presumably because those people had standards to live up to and were anxious to fail?
The people in question were not above-average religious, and some of them drank wine.
It was mostly an act of fanatic nationalism. Compare the suicide bombers the PKK has had – a Stalinist organization, which means its members believe death is The End®.
It doesn't say "kill", actually… it says "murder". And the Biblical definition of "murder"… :-S
…W…wow.
Just… wow.
Do you know what you are? A sycophant. A lickspittle. You crawl up other people's asses.
You are completely amoral as far as I can see. So what are you even doing on this thread!?!
:-D :-D :-D
Funniest day I've had in weeks!
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 11:41 AM
Robocop #259,
No it does not help people demonstrably, which is why Hitchens was right-on in comparing it to aerobic dancing. Rituals appealing to the divine for a blessing involve a lot of dancing around and no observable positive benefit. Even washing your hands is a greater moral act than praying.Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 11:42 AM
Robocop #265 wrote:
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that being prayed for wouldn't provide some unique peace of mind for believers. There are many specific actions which will comfort specific people, and these can perforce only be done by those who are on the same wavelength, so to speak. A Protestant can't sit next to their Catholic friend and say the rosary with them -- even if saying the rosary in community with another might be just the thing their friend "needs" at the moment, given their background.
But that wouldn't be considered a moral failing on the part of the Protestant -- any more than not being their mother is a moral failing, because nobody hugs like mom. The wider context of Hitchens' challenge had to do with general, common-ground ideas of morality, and moral actions.
I think the challenge was meant to apply to hypothetical individuals, as opposed to groups. Also, the same problem applies here as above: the moral issue relates more to general motivation to act, than it does to the specific act. Christians who do argue that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God would not insist that Protestants are guilty of a moral lapse if they don't provide Catholics with the comfort of the confessional.
Religious "needs" are acquired tastes which help fulfill basic human needs; they're not the basic human needs themselves. If the obligation changes depending which group you belong to, we're not talking about basic morality -- and that's what the theists may deny atheists have, and thus where the challenge is directed.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Then you're a highly abnormal person who will probably need some semblance of "morality" enforced externally regardless of it source.
Surely this isn't an attempt to make atheist morality look more arbitrary than religious morality? What if God says that throwing grenades at people is the right thing to do?
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 1:21 PM
272: Wasn't there a study that showed praying for people who knew they were being prayed for had a slight negative effect, presumably because those people had standards to live up to and were anxious to fail?
I think you mean this one, although there are studies in all directions.
It was mostly an act of fanatic nationalism.
Yup.
273: No it does not help people demonstrably, which is why Hitchens was right-on in comparing it to aerobic dancing.
Except that a number of studies suggest otherwise (see here, for example). That said, even well intentioned and carefully crafted prayer studies are problematic and less than definitive. They tend to reflect more about the researchers and their assumptions than about whether prayer "works" somehow (see here for a summary). Most problematically (from my perspective), they make God out to be a sort of vending machine -- prayer in/answer out.
274: But that wouldn't be considered a moral failing on the part of the Protestant -- any more than not being their mother is a moral failing, because nobody hugs like mom. The wider context of Hitchens' challenge had to do with general, common-ground ideas of morality, and moral actions.
I haven't seen Hitchens frame his challenge in this way, but I agree with your point (and with 258 as well). To repeat, I don't think atheists are any more or less moral than believers.
Religious "needs" are acquired tastes which help fulfill basic human needs; they're not the basic human needs themselves. If the obligation changes depending which group you belong to, we're not talking about basic morality -- and that's what the theists may deny atheists have, and thus where the challenge is directed.
Paul Woodruff's excellent case for the ancient virtue of Reverence, which needn't be religious, suggests that more than mere taste is involved. He says that reverence survives among us in half-forgotten patterns of behavior and in the vestiges of old ceremonies (like weddings and funerals). He also argues that awe for things greater than oneself can and must be a touchstone for other virtues like respect, humility, and charity. I think it's what Harris and Dawkins (clumsily) have tried to get at when they talk about transcendence and awe with respect to the universe.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:37 PM
Robocop,
The link you provided was not a study, it was a meta-analysis. But still that gets you nowhere. You stick your hand in a bucket of slop and pull it out. You then A) wash your hands and proceed to cook dinner for your family of three or B) proceed directly to cook dinner for you family of three. Option A is moral, option B is wicked. Would you believe option B to be moral if I changed it thusly: B) pray that nobody gets sick from your poor hygiene and proceed to cook dinner for your family of three? I think that emphasizes nicely how moral prayer is, and I can think of many more situations just like it where prayer adds nothing to make an action more or less moral. If anything, it is no more moral than good wishes, which atheists can do as well, so it does not answer Hitchens' challenge.Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 1:44 PM
277: The link you provided was not a study, it was a meta-analysis.
As I intended (because there are a lot of studies). I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
You stick your hand in a bucket of slop....
Since I don't claim that prayer alone is the moral choice, you're pissing into the wind here.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:46 PM
Riigghhtttt... Got any more non-answers for us?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:58 PM
Lets see, from Robocop:
No conclusive physical evidence for his deity.
No no conclusive physical evidence for the babble not being myth/fiction.
Continued claims for religion in spite of evidence to the contrary. Check.
Evasions and non-answers when rebutted. Check.
And he is claiming to be some type of authority? Har! It appears nobody is buying his delusional thinking.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 2:04 PM
Robocop #276 wrote:
Even assuming that we agree that "reverence" is one of the more basic human needs or values (and it may be), as you point out, it makes sense from a secular standpoint, in life. While it can easily take religious form, it doesn't need to; it's not specific to religion alone. Expressing a sense or feeling of reverence by praying -- or by praying with rosary beads -- would then be acquired habits. There is no innate "need" to pray -- even if there is an innate need to express reverence.
It seems to me that religion always builds on a pre-existing human nature, and human sense of morality: it doesn't really establish the ground for it -- which it would if the claim Hitchens was refuting, was true.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 2:15 PM
279: Got any more non-answers for us?
Sigh. If you can't see what's glaringly obvious, I'll be clearer. Here's your analogy:
You stick your hand in a bucket of slop and pull it out. You then A) wash your hands and proceed to cook dinner for your family of three or B) proceed directly to cook dinner for you family of three. Option A is moral, option B is wicked.
Try this analogy instead. You find an injured skier by the side of a trail. You then A) cover him with your jacket and proceed to notify the ski patrol or B) proceed directly to notifying the ski patrol. By your reasoning, if option A is moral, option B is wicked. Instead, I'd suggest that option A simply adds a nice bonus.
I think that emphasizes nicely how moral prayer is, and I can think of many more situations just like it where prayer adds nothing to make an action more or less moral.
Well intentioned acts than do no harm and which may do good, such as prayer, can't be "wicked." Thus your analogy necessarily fails.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 1, 2009 2:20 PM
I'm having trouble following the links for some reason...
I am assuming that all of these studies... in fact, all studies showing this effect must all be the result to praying to one particular god, right?
I mean, that would be an easy way to determine which god was the right one... run a number of studies, each with a different (mutually exclusive) pantheon/godhead, and take note of the only one that worked - that must be the One True God.
After all, if it worked for any type of prayer, that would clearly signify something other than a diety/dieties answering prayers.
Posted by: The Swede | December 1, 2009 2:32 PM
He also argues that awe for things greater than oneself can and must be a touchstone for other virtues like respect, humility, and charity.
That alone suggests his work is of at best dubious value. There is no requirement for "awe" in respect, humility or charity. That's so stupid it hurts, and if there is more of that in his works, I'll stay clear. Thanks for the warning.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 2:39 PM
Robocop #282,
First of all, you said in #259, "prayer meets the (silly) Hitchens challenge". So you lied in #278 when you wrote, "I don't claim that prayer alone is the moral choice". I find it annoying when theists squirm out of tight spots as they are about to get clobbered.
FAIL. Poisoning your family would be wicked. In your scenario, neither A nor B would be wicked. And covering the person with your jacket would be more than a "nice bonus" if it staved off hypothermia in the injured skier.
Robocop, the armor in your helmet must be too thick to understand what I wrote, but I wish you well nonetheless. *whistles innocently* Let me ask you this, would gambling be moral if you knew you could win $1 bajillion dollars?Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 2:41 PM
281: It seems to me that religion always builds on a pre-existing human nature, and human sense of morality: it doesn't really establish the ground for it -- which it would if the claim Hitchens was refuting, was true.
Christianity has often taught something similar. Whether it's the covenant with Abraham being extended not just to Abraham's family but to the entire world, the "unclean" Samaritan doing the right thing (in contrast to the "in-group" members who didn't) and being commended for it or Paul speaking of the truth of God being accessible to all (and being "written on our hearts"), the idea that people can understand morality on their own isn't a new one. The prophet Micah teaches that (and note the order) we should do justice, love mercy and (then) walk humbly with our God.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 2:47 PM
Robocop #286 wrote:
Yes; it's also often taught something very different. Perhaps the term should be pluralized.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 3:09 PM
284: That alone suggests his work is of at best dubious value. There is no requirement for "awe" in respect, humility or charity. That's so stupid it hurts, and if there is more of that in his works, I'll stay clear.
Then you need to stay clear of a number of scientists I would expect you to hold in high regard -- like Dawkins. Dawkins routinely speaks of his appreciation of the "transcendent wonder" of existence. Indeed, Unweaving the Rainbow is his call for a new poetic sensibility in science and a new store of scientific metaphors for poetry to evoke more clearly the marvel and meaning of life. "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies singing." That sounds like awe to me.
285: First of all, you said in #259, "prayer meets the (silly) Hitchens challenge". So you lied in #278 when you wrote, "I don't claim that prayer alone is the moral choice". I find it annoying when theists squirm out of tight spots as they are about to get clobbered.
Nonsense. Hitchens merely asked for an example of a moral act that a believer can perform than an atheist cannot. Prayer meets that challenge.
Poisoning your family would be wicked.
Indeed it would. But prayer, as regularly and routinely practiced throughout history, is in no way analogous to poison. I'm sure you'd like to make the Christian Scientists normative, but it just ain't so.
In your scenario, neither A nor B would be wicked. And covering the person with your jacket would be more than a "nice bonus" if it staved off hypothermia in the injured skier.
Exactly. It won't hurt. It will make the skier feel better. It will make me feel better by helping (or seeming to help). And it might do some substantive good.
Let me ask you this, would gambling be moral if you knew you could win $1 bajillion dollars?
I don't think gambling per se is immoral (despite some qualms), though it can cause any number of problems if abused.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 3:16 PM
287: Yes; it's also often taught something very different. Perhaps the term should be pluralized.
Interpretation, whether of religious beliefs and practices, moral behavior, the meaning of the Constitution, scientific research or virtually anything else involves multiple opinions of apparent necessity. That shouldn't be a surprise.
Posted by: The Swede | December 1, 2009 3:20 PM
Then you need to stay clear of a number of scientists
Oh Really? Pray tell, where do these scientists put forth the argument that awe is a requirement in respect, humility or charity?
Your lack of reading ability, alternatively unwillingness to comprehend the point, is noted.
Further, you say:
Hitchens merely asked for an example of a moral act that a believer can perform than an atheist cannot. Prayer meets that challenge.
and previously you have, numerous times, stated:
I don't think atheists are any more or less moral than believers.
Which doesn't add up. If prayer is an act increasing morality (which it has to be for it to answer Hitchen's challenge), then those praying are by necessity more moral than those who do not. Yet you hold this not to be the case.
Which is it?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 3:36 PM
Not really. If all it takes is someone appearing to pray for them, an atheist can fake the piety, and recite the words that the
markbeliever wants to hear.I agree that Jesus was a completely inconsistent moral guide.
Mm. Perhaps not within the atheist community, but that wasn't the challenge.
Did you note the anecdote about the atheist minister? Can you be certain that that's the only atheist minister or priest or rabbi out there?
Nope. If prayer is simply a set of words and deeds that make a religious believer seeing them being said feel better, then an atheist can say the words and do the deeds.
Sorry, but not ringing hollow to you is not part of the challenge.
Hm. That's an interesting analogy.
Quite a lot of scripture encourages that sort of thinking, though.
Of course, other parts of scripture contradict it.
---
Which is Pauline in origin rather than being from Jesus.
I think you misunderstood the point of the Samaritan parable: The Samaritans may have been rejected by the in-group of Jews, but they were closer to the Jews in their beliefs and behaviors than the Greeks and Romans that the Judean priesthood colluded with.
Jesus was arguing for religious solidarity against the larger out-group.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 3:41 PM
Robocop #289 wrote:
Well, yes and no; some things are less open to reasonable multiple interpretations than others, and there are many areas where an informed person can point out clear misinterpretations with confidence. Religious doctrine, based as it is on subjective sources and measures, doesn't seem to reach the kind of clarity and consistency you can find in, say, legal documents or scientific research. This is of course no surprise to those who think them solely the product of human invention.
It's surprising that God couldn't do better, though, if that factor is added in.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 3:47 PM
Robocop #288,
Wonderful. I handed you the knife, you made the cut. Prayer, at best, is gambling.
That doesn't square with what you said earlier, "I don't claim that prayer alone is the moral choice".
*headdesk* My scenario was showing how prayer has no effect on whether something is moral or not. I specifically created a situation where doing something would be moral and doing nothing would be wicked. I could have added prayer to both options A and B and the outcome would not have changed.Here is another one: You are an experienced skier and you notice a bewildered looking group of skiers milling around at the head of a trail fork with one side leading to an extremely difficult slope and the other to a mildly difficult slope. A) You stop by and warn them of the more dangerous path. B) You ski on by the group leaving them to decide on their own. Adding prayer to either choice makes no difference, and adding prayer to choice B is at best a gamble.
Let's leave Christian Science™ out of this.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 3:53 PM
You'd think prayer would be a moral choice in the same way that taking homoeopathy would count as a medical treatment.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 4:28 PM
Robocop #288 wrote:
"Spiritual help" is a bit dicey, morally, because you can look at it two ways. You can simply examine the immediate effect on the recipient -- are they happier, are they comforted? -- or you can look at the larger picture, and ask if it's really moral to offer such "help."
Consider an example from spiritualism. A grieving widow visits a medium, who goes into trance and tells her that her husband is speaking 'from the other side,' and wants to tell his wife that he loves her, forgives her, and is so proud of her recent win in the jams and jellies division of the county fair (though he never gave a damn about that when alive.) The widow is comforted, happy, pleased -- she feels so much better. A little bit of money, well spent. Or even, perhaps, done free of charge, by a friend.
Has the medium -- who might be either self-deluded, or a clever dissembler -- performed a moral act, one which no skeptic (Christian or atheist) could perform?
Or is the short-term, bring-yourself-down-a-level comfort outweighed by such large picture factors as honesty, truth-seeking, courage, strength, respect, and integrity?
In addition to being just one manifestation of what is really a secular concern for caring or kindness, prayer may suffer from some of the same moral defects as Madam Zorba, or Jonathon Edwords, or any of the other possibly well-meaning people who prey on or pander to the weak, with false comfort. Most skeptics would not admire the medium, or admit that she performed a praiseworthy 'moral act,' despite its comforting aspect.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 1, 2009 4:40 PM
O RLY?
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 4:41 PM
290: Your lack of reading ability, alternatively unwillingness to comprehend the point, is noted.
...right after commenting upon respect, humility and charity. Well played.
If prayer is an act increasing morality (which it has to be for it to answer Hitchen's challenge), then those praying are by necessity more moral than those who do not. Yet you hold this not to be the case.
Which is it?
False dichotomy. That a believer may have a moral "tool" unavailable to the atheist needn't decide either's overall morality. As others in this thread have pointed out, the atheist also has a "tool" unavailable to at least most believers -- the opportunity to sacrifice oneself without hope of reward. In my view, the tools of morality don't matter nearly so much as how they are wielded.
291: Not really. If all it takes is someone appearing to pray for them, an atheist can fake the piety, and recite the words that the believer wants to hear.
I thought the challenge was based upon acts that could be honestly undertaken (and that further assumes that faking empathy is as moral as real empathy). Moreover, even though I appreciate snark a lot and forthrightly concede that lots of religious chicanery goes on, your "mark" suggestion is unfair to the old ladies who selflessly prayed for me and my family and provided help to us at the hospital when my father died. I have no idea who they were or what group they represented, if any, and they never asked for anything. They (at least) deserve better.
Can you be certain that that's the only atheist minister or priest or rabbi out there?
Actually, I'm sure that many exist. Wouldn't it be great if there were sufficient secular outlets so that those who want to do that kind of work could do it honestly?
Jesus was arguing for religious solidarity against the larger out-group.
Interesting claim, if unevidenced. But even if it were true, since Jesus aided and honored individual Romans on several occaisions too, the overall argument fails.
292: Religious doctrine, based as it is on subjective sources and measures, doesn't seem to reach the kind of clarity and consistency you can find in, say, legal documents or scientific research.
I'm no expert on science, but the debates I've seen get pretty hot and heavy. And, based upon my nearly 30 years of experience since passing the bar, legal documents are routinely fraught with inconsistency and a lack of clarity.
This is of course no surprise to those who think them solely the product of human invention.
It's surprising that God couldn't do better, though, if that factor is added in.
I'm rather more pleased that God respects us enough to leave us to figure things out largely for ourselves.
Prayer, at best, is gambling.
Not to the believer doing the praying (and particularly since I think that prayer isn't primarily about changing outcomes -- it changes me first and foremost).
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 1, 2009 4:50 PM
Robocop wrote:
Prove me wrong then, shithead. Demonstrate for us that your god exists and/or that your religion is the only valid one out of all the thousands that have existed, and do so in such a way that can be considered intellectually honest.
If you could you'd be the first - ever.
If you can't then shut your pissant whining mouth, admit your belief is based solely on emotion and not reason - and accept the justified scorn of your betters.
Bigot? By that tortured 'logic' if you claimed the earth was flat and I called you an ignorant fool for it that would make me a bigot. Your misuse of the word is an insult to the true victims of bigotry - those who cannot choose. You can cease being ridiculed for being a Christian any time you like - just stop holding beliefs people can ridicule.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 1, 2009 4:50 PM
So it's a selfish act?
And that's moral?
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 4:55 PM
295: Has the medium -- who might be either self-deluded, or a clever dissembler -- performed a moral act, one which no skeptic (Christian or atheist) could perform?
You're right -- it is an interesting question. It can be akin, I think, to admiring the good looks and intelligence of another's children. But I think you're focusing too much on the act itself and not enough on the intent ot the actor. 18th C. medicine did a lot of harm. Were well intentioned doctors doing the best they could who nontheless did harm acting immorally? I don't think so (at least most of the time).
Posted by: The Swede | December 1, 2009 5:01 PM
...right after commenting upon respect, humility and charity. Well played.
Almost as well played as your inability to comprehend basic sentences or support the views of writers you quote as being excellent. Your snark has no bite as you show amazingly little respect, humility or charity yourself. Perhaps it's a lack of "awe"?
In my view, the tools of morality don't matter nearly so much as how they are wielded.
Which again goes against the point you've been trying to make all along - and failing rather miserably, at that. I don't even see anything more to refute on that point.
I'm no expert on science, but the debates I've seen get pretty hot and heavy.
It's rather evident you're not from the way you argue. Science is not decided in debates, amusing as they may be to watch - just like legal issues are not solved on television shows about them.
legal documents are routinely fraught with inconsistency and a lack of clarity.
Not nearly to the point that mainstream religious documents are. You'd be hard pressed to present a legal document which both orders genocide and forbids killing at the same time, for example.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:04 PM
Ah, another session of Robocop doing anything but supplying the hard evidence required for us to believe what he says. Here's the thing Robocop, in order to convice us that you are right, you have to start with the conclusive physical evidence for your deity. Which should be available if said deity interacts with the world. Unfortunately for you, that evidence is lacking. So, either your deity is a vague deist type of god that doesn't interact, or your concept of the deity who answers prayers is wrong. So you are behind the eight ball from the start.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:06 PM
Robocop,
In my first scenario, a moral person wouldn't substitute the washing of hands with prayer because prayer at best is a gamble. In the second scenario, a moral person wouldn't substitute warning the ski group about the danger with prayer because prayer at best is a gamble. Which leads to your scenario where the experienced skier did not warn the group about the danger and one of the skiers was injured. A moral person would not substitute contacting the ski patrol with prayer because prayer at best is a gamble.A moral person could likewise pray in each of those scenarios, but you wouldn't say they were moral because they prayed.
Now, why are you squirming about saying that self-serving behavior is moral?
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 5:14 PM
298: If you can't then shut your pissant whining mouth, admit your belief is based solely on emotion and not reason - and accept the justified scorn of your betters.
My objection is not to your criticisms of the views I hold or even to your contempt for them. I don't care about that a bit. There are any number of things about which I am, in your words, an "ignorant fool." Religion may be one of them. I could well be wrong and readily admit that fact. But what I do care about and what's exceedingly dangerous is your insistence that you're better than I am because of what I am and believe.
That's bigotry.
So it's a selfish act?
Not really, because when I'm changed I can be more loving, helpful, empathetic and caring toward those I'm praying for. I can't guarantee outcomes very often, but I can serve others and try to influence their circumstances for the better. Prayer helps me do that more consistently and more effectively.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 1, 2009 5:21 PM
But what about the person you are praying for right then?
Praying has no measurable impact and doing it serves only to make the one doing the actual praying feel better about themselves.
It is the purely a selfish act.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 5:22 PM
Robocop #300 wrote:
I don't think the issue here is intent or consequence, so much as culpability. There are people around today practicing 18th century medicine: they're called homeopaths. Add in other forms of "ancient wisdom" such as reiki or trepanation, and you've got an entire cottage industry of people using techniques or working from theories which have been long discredited. So, unlike the doctors of the 18th century, alt practitioners know very well that they're going against established science -- that's the point. They're "brave mavericks." They know better than the experts. They go by personal experience, and they know they won't be self-deceived, because they are careful.
Just as spiritual mediums will be quick to assure you that they can do things which would change the entire scientific understanding of the world if generally known -- but they refuse to be tested under controlled conditions because they're too modest, or pure, or can only give their gifts to nice people who don't require proof. They're ignorant, sure, but it's a rather deliberate form of ignorance cloaked with a rather deceptive form of arrogance.
The general feeling on behalf of the skeptic is that they ought to know better. There's a lack of integrity which goes beyond simple ignorance, and negates the good intentions. They don't have 'good intentions' when it comes to being properly skeptical of their own reliability.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:23 PM
Ah, now we get to the irrational part. Bigotry is when when is held in lesser esteem for things beyond their control. Their sex, skin color, sexual orientation, young age, old age. There is where the real bigotry is.Our problem with you isn't that you believe in a deity, but rather because you believe, we must respect that. We don't, and won't. You as a person can be respected. If we disrespected your person that would be bigotry. But your belief in imaginary deities isn't. That you can change at any time. So it isn't bigotry, just rationality.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 5:24 PM
If the intention is to make the recipient feel better, then it is indeed as honest as a prayer from a "real" God believer. I don't see how you can infer that the empathy is faked, even if the ritual is.
And after all, even a believer does not know that the prayer will have any effect other than making the hearer feel better.
Point taken -- but I note that you did not and do not know if they actually believed in God. They provided comfort by performing a ritual, as could any atheist.
---
As I recall, we've argued about this point before. It is not respect, but cruel indifference, if we figure out things wrong and are damned for it, or in the real world, are harmed by our conflict over having come to different conclusions.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:25 PM
Robocop,
It's worse than that. You can't even predict the outcomes (as long as they are down to earth and you are not praying for something ridiculous like immortality).Posted by: Knockgoats | December 1, 2009 5:25 PM
Which is Pauline in origin rather than being from Jesus. - Owlmirror
Well, that does have the advantage that we can be pretty certain Paul existed, and we even have a reasonable idea what his ideas were! Also, credit where it's due, he did found the world's most powerful religion.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 1, 2009 5:25 PM
So you appear to keep asserting - much like you do the validity of your religion - without anything resembling evidence or argument to back the claim up.
Acknowledging the truth as supported by evidence is bigotry now? As I have already pointed out (did your attention span not stretch that far into the post?), by your twisted 'logic', you could claim the earth was flat and if I said you were a fool for doing so, I'd be a bigot - when the truth is the earth isn't flat, and you are a fool for believing it is.
How is your intellectually dishonest clinging to antique supersition any different?
Alternatively, if you're trying to claim that a person who is intellectually honest is not 'better' than a person who is intellectually dishonest, then you need to find a way to back that up.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 5:27 PM
Slight fix to my previous.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 5:30 PM
307: Ah, now we get to the irrational part. Bigotry is when when is held in lesser esteem for things beyond their control. Their sex, skin color, sexual orientation, young age, old age. There is where the real bigotry is.
So you're saying that you could choose to believe in invisible pink elephants? I couldn't. Once again, you're simply amazing.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:33 PM
Robocop's belief in Dog with a capital "D" is innate?
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 5:41 PM
Robocop #297 wrote:
A God that both works through mystical insights given to special individuals and "leaves people alone" to figure out which revelations are trustworthy, is, I think, one that fails to properly respect what will inevitably happen. He should either work through a clear and unambiguous revelation, or just work through nature. Thinking you discern the Voice of God grants too much power to human beings -- regardless of whether God exists, or doesn't.
Trust yourself to know God, means you will trust yourself, as you would trust God.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 1, 2009 5:45 PM
Robocop, is there such a thing as an ex-Christian? If there is, how does this fit with your model of whether beliefs can be chosen or not?
Posted by: John Morales | December 1, 2009 5:48 PM
Really? :)
Perhaps you're unaware of the IPU, and its basis.
Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 6:09 PM
Robocop, #297:
Uhhh.... it pleases you that the God you believe in does nothing to help people?It isn't exactly clear what "things" you're talking about, but has God just been too busy worrying about some other universe for the last several billion years?
Couldn't God have done something, rather than the absolute nothing that actually seems to be the case?
Just a little tiny piece of knowledge that obviously had to come from a god would have helped a lot; instead he just dropped the ball, and apparently for you everything's just peachy.
What makes you think God's utter failure in helping people (some like myself would say that's merely a symptom of nonexistence) is due to "respect" for people?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 6:12 PM
I see Robocop can't acknowledge the point. Pink elephants are irrelevant, and he knows it. If you chose to make yourself a lesser rational man by believing in an imaginary deity, that is your decision, and it has nothing to do with us or the necessity of you posting here.
Posted by: Robocop | December 1, 2009 6:44 PM
305: Praying has no measurable impact and doing it serves only to make the one doing the actual praying feel better about themselves.
Except for those studies that show that religious practice and prayer within community do have measurable positive impacts. And even if the studies were wrong, in my experience prayer is often selfless rather than selfish (as in the old ladies at the hospital I referenced earlier).
306: I don't think the issue here is intent or consequence, so much as culpability.
Since culpability considers both intent and consequences and since I suggested more focus on intent but didn't suggest ignoring consequences, I obviously agree.
The general feeling on behalf of the skeptic is that they ought to know better. There's a lack of integrity which goes beyond simple ignorance, and negates the good intentions. They don't have 'good intentions' when it comes to being properly skeptical of their own reliability.
Again, I agree.
307: Our problem with you isn't that you believe in a deity, but rather because you believe, we must respect that.
Except for the fact that I don't think you have any obligation to respect my views.
You as a person can be respected. If we disrespected your person that would be bigotry.
Believing me to be inferior because of who and what I am and what I believe alone is bigotry. To put religion aside for a moment, if I believed you to be inferior simply because of your political support for -- say -- President Obama, I'd be a bigot.
So it isn't bigotry, just rationality.
So long as we listen to our "betters" (as arbitrated by Nerd), and believe and act accordingly, we're okay. Otherwise, we're inferior.
308: [E]ven a believer does not know that the prayer will have any effect other than making the hearer feel better.
The lack of an assured outcome doesn't change the morality of the act.
I note that you did not and do not know if they actually believed in God. They provided comfort by performing a ritual, as could any atheist.
Sure. They could have been lying.
It is not respect, but cruel indifference, if we figure out things wrong and are damned for it, or in the real world, are harmed by our conflict over having come to different conclusions.
In my view, a God worth serving would be much more concerned with the content of our character and with how we acted in the circumstances we found ourselves in than with how we evaluated the evidence for His existence.
311: So you appear to keep asserting - much like you do the validity of your religion - without anything resembling evidence or argument to back the claim up.
You draw different conclusions than I do. I get that and have no objection to that.
How is your intellectually dishonest clinging to antique supersition any different?
How long have you been beating your wife?
315: Thinking you discern the Voice of God grants too much power to human beings -- regardless of whether God exists, or doesn't.
I'm a big believer in trying to figure stuff out in the context of community, in almost excessive epistemic modesty and (with Hippocrates) the primacy of doing no harm.
316: Robocop, is there such a thing as an ex-Christian? If there is, how does this fit with your model of whether beliefs can be chosen or not?
Of course there is. I come to any number of conclusions that factor into my overall religious, moral, philosophical, political, economic, etc. viewpoints. When I see new evidence or new arguments, I consider them, decide what I think about them specifically, and then evaluate how my overall schema must change, if at all. My views at the micro level change all the time; at the macro level, not so much, but still fairly frequently. But to suggest that I could simply stop believing in God irrespective to how I evaluate the evidence and arguments or that I could simply will myself into seeing that evidence and those arguments differently than I do is just plain silly.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 7:04 PM
No problem with us being a bigot if that was the case.Now there is a problem. Here's the thing. Your belief is not you. Period, end of story. If you kept your religion to yourself, nobody here would bother you. Instead, you keep pleading for special consideration, which makes you the bigot. Otherwise, you would just ignore this blog.No, you would be a republican, not a bigot. Here's the thing. Your definition is too broad, and you know it. Also, why do you keep trying to convince us to give you special considerations? Why? You don't deserve any consideration on your beliefs.Why do I think you are delusional? You believe in a deity and holy without any evidence either one is what they are reputed to be. Believing in Santa Claus is for kids. Adults put away belief in imaginary beings. That includes your deity. We've given you more than a fair chance to supply the physical evidence for your beliefs. And you failed miserably.Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 1, 2009 7:54 PM
But there are no more reasons to believe in your god - as you have demonstrated by failing to provide any - than there are to believe in invisible pink elephants; therefore, by extension, people believing in invisible pink elephants must do so for exactly the same reasons as you cite for believing in your god - ergo, you are calling your own belief silly.
I wholeheartedly agree!
And yes, your misuse of the word bigot is indeed inaccurate and disingenuous - to put it politely. A person belittling another for believing a demonstrable untruth is not bigotry. If you want to keep claiming that it is you need to show that religious belief is not a choice - and every ex-theist in the world is evidence against that.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 11:55 PM
I think you may have misunderstood the context of what I wrote, since my point was that the morality of the act is the same regardless of whether the prayer is offered by a believer or an atheist.
Or in other words, we appear at this point to be in agreement.
Why is "serving" even necessary? Especially when your statement results in concluding a God who doesn't care about being served. I mean, as an atheist, I think that's the situation that we have anyway; a nonexistent God who does not care about being served.
And what does "character" mean? Do you mean general honesty, integrity, selfless and charitable behavior towards other humans?
I agree that such a God; one who did not care at all about faith qua faith (in itself), would be better than the one posited by the Nicene Creed and the various assertions in the NT that God only saves believers, and that works -- the expressions of character -- are only secondarily important, if even that.
But a much better God than what you posit would be one that made it absolutely clear that it only cared about character, and did so in an unmistakable manner -- because such a God would be leading by example, demonstrating honesty and integrity and selfless behavior towards humans.
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 12:19 AM
321: If you kept your religion to yourself, nobody here would bother you.
Since I'm not bothered, I don't see your point other than that you're perhaps in favor of repression of views you don't like. Are you calling for my banning too?
Instead, you keep pleading for special consideration, which makes you the bigot.
Now you're just making stuff up.
Otherwise, you would just ignore this blog.
And now you're incoherent.
Your definition is too broad, and you know it.
If that were the case, we'd both agree that when Bush-41 said that atheists didn't deserve to be citizens, he wasn't being a bigot because atheists choose their atheist status. But at least I think it was bigotry, pure and simple.
[W]hy do you keep trying to convince us to give you special considerations?
I don't need and surely don't want any special consideration from you.
322: But there are no more reasons to believe in your god - as you have demonstrated by failing to provide any - than there are to believe in invisible pink elephants; therefore, by extension, people believing in invisible pink elephants must do so for exactly the same reasons as you cite for believing in your god - ergo, you are calling your own belief silly.
Wow, what an embarrassing display. Besides being false, that doesn't remotely follow. But riddle me this, Wow-man, how is it that you think that I can simply (Sha-zam!) choose to believe that -- say -- torturing children is good if that's not how I see things?
A person belittling another for believing a demonstrable untruth is not bigotry.
If it's as clear and obvious as you claim, why have I never seen it demonstrated? But then, you also think it's obviously demonstrable that you're clearly superior not just to me, but to President Obama, Martin Luther King, Jr., William Phillips, Owen Gingerich, Bonhoeffer, Newton, Bach....
And you think I'm delusional!
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 12:20 AM
Except for those studies that show that religious practice and prayer within community do have measurable positive impacts.
as social group activities.
you get the exact same benefits from tailgate parties, though i think they substitute beer for wine.
And even if the studies were wrong,
you know you haven't a leg to stand on. It's obvious when you say things like this.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 12:22 AM
If it's as clear and obvious as you claim, why have I never seen it demonstrated?
seen WHAT demonstrated?
not that you ever did make much sense, but you seem to have completely derailed here.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 12:26 AM
Robocop, FYI: bigot.
Why is it the religious try to chide us by equating us to the religious? ;)
(rhetorical)
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 12:26 AM
And you think I'm delusional!
oh assuredly, but not mostly for your religiosity.
you ramble incoherently, provide complete non-sequitors in response to questions and statements...
like this:
Otherwise, you would just ignore this blog.
And now you're incoherent.
total non sequitor.
shall i go on?
you need help, most definitely.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 1:01 AM
Backtracking a bit...
Romans, plural? There's only one Roman that I can see in the synoptics, and in Luke, it's specified that the Roman had funded a synagogue.
Posted by: Mr T | December 2, 2009 1:02 AM
What an incredible non sequitur. Couldn't you come up with something even more extreme? How about eating babies? Would you eat a baby if that would save a billion people's lives?Wowbagger was talking about believing in a god. It's a belief about the existence of something, not about the value of a moral proposition. It's quite possible to consciously change one's mind about a whole lot of different things, whether you personally are capable of that (and honest enough to admit it) is not up for me to decide.
Personally, I used to believe in a god, but years ago I realized how stupid the whole idea is and decided that it was no longer something I believed. If FSM shows up at my house tomorrow to tell me about beer volcanoes, then I'll try to get some empirical evidence before I bother to believe that I'm not just dreaming or hallucinating.
Anyway, changing beliefs about a god's existence is a completely separate issue than whether one can consciously change opinions about moral questions. That is also possible. We often find ourselves in novel situations that allow for the discovery and use of new sets of moral criteria. Life is complicated, so we're constantly learning and adapting to it. We can try to do what seems best at the time, and we often aren't consistent. All of this points to the fact that we can make conscious changes in our moral reasoning.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 2, 2009 1:17 AM
Way back up there for le Majestic troll, N.Schuster #204, if you watch the vote by hands at the end, the audience splits half and half (I think the question is the same, "Can you be good without God?"). The moderator then announces, "It gives me great pleasure to declare that both sides won."
Posted by: Mr T | December 2, 2009 1:38 AM
...I could've complied a top 10 list of the most evil theists who ever lived... but what would be the point?It's not about whether some group of people is superior to another group of people. Don't take it personally. This is about whether some beliefs are better than others. If you care whether your beliefs are "true" or "false", then obviously true beliefs are better than false ones. I see no reason why you would think differently.
I am not absolutely certain there is no god whatsoever, but I am as certain as I can be that many gods do not exist, including the Abrahamic god(s). I do not think it is possible it/they exist(s), but I would change my mind and admit the mistake if I were ever proven wrong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 8:21 AM
Pot, kettle, black. You have been making stuff up for months.I haven't done that. And you are far down my Survivor Pharyngula list. It's the old thing something bothers you, so instead of being mature and ignoring it, you try to lie and bullshit your way to alleviate your discomfort. We've seen your type before. You need to go and stay away.We've already seen you have some weird ideas that nobody here is buying. But you keep trying to sell anyway. And you, like with the efficacy of prayer, are wrong.You demonstrated it yourself. We asked you for physical evidence to conclusively show your imaginary god exists. You presented nothing. Absence of evidence usually means absence of evidence, especially after 2,500 years. Dodging and weaving.Yes I think you are delusional. If you weren't, you wouldn't be posting your nonsense here.Posted by: Anri
|
December 2, 2009 8:27 AM
Robocop sez (in very small part):
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but what bothered me about Pres. Bush's statement you cited has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with the fact that what he was saying was wrong.
Wrong on a constitutional level - wrong according to the very document he had just sworn - on the world stage - to uphold and defend. Sadly, I think this was indicitive of how well he was planning on following that document in general...
In any case, I'd ask Robocop, in RE bigotry, if he considers people of his faith to be better than those of other (ie, false) faiths? This question can be either group-based or individual, either works.
Thanks!
(PS, looks like ol' Lion evaporated with pending questions again... I wish I was suprised...)
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 2, 2009 8:36 AM
Lion has been plonked (refer to the A reply to Carl Wieland thread).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 9:29 AM
I saw that. Celebrated with a cup of coffee.Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 9:54 AM
323: Why is "serving" even necessary?
Because a life of service is the best life one can live (in my judgment).
And what does "character" mean? Do you mean general honesty, integrity, selfless and charitable behavior towards other humans?
Basically, yes.
...and the various assertions in the NT that God only saves believers, and that works -- the expressions of character -- are only secondarily important, if even that.
It's more of a factor than you think. Faith without works is dead. You will know them by their fruits. Micah 6:8.
But a much better God than what you posit would be one that made it absolutely clear that it only cared about character, and did so in an unmistakable manner -- because such a God would be leading by example, demonstrating honesty and integrity and selfless behavior towards humans.M/i>
You're entitled to your preferences.
325: you get the exact same benefits from tailgate parties, though i think they substitute beer for wine.
Got any studies on that?
you know you haven't a leg to stand on. It's obvious when you say things like this.
What should be obvious is my legal training (arguing in the alternative is a crucial and common practice) and, more importantly, my recognition that even the most carefully crafted prayer studies are inherently problematic. For example, how can the study "control" the prayers of friends and family of the control group? What if an activist God decided that the best result wasn't what those that were praying wanted and were praying for? How can one monitor how intense and genuine the prayers of the volunteers are?
326: seen WHAT demonstrated?
Nerd claims that the nonexistence of God has been conclusively demonstrated, but I've never seen the demonstration (if it exists).
327: Why is it the religious try to chide us by equating us to the religious?
Religious roots notwithstanding, as your link demonstrates, a necessary religious component to bigotry hasn't existed for hundreds of years. With respect to the substance of the charge, when it quacks like a duck....
329: There's only one Roman that I can see in the synoptics, and in Luke, it's specified that the Roman had funded a synagogue.
I hadn't remembered that. I'll have to re-think your assertion.
330: It's a belief about the existence of something, not about the value of a moral proposition.
Okay. Can you simply change your mind on command with respect to -- say -- the existence of the Loch Ness monster? I explained in some detail how and when I change my views (which nobody has commented upon and several have implicitly misrepresented), but unless and until that process is completed, I can't change my mind and neither can you. As you concede, you evaluate the evidence and respond accordingly.
332: I could've complied a top 10 list of the most evil theists who ever lived... but what would be the point?
It would of course be easy to do, but it would be irrelevant. Wow-man's claim is that atheists are superior to believers per se. No other information is needed. Atheists are our "betters." I think it absolutely astonishing that, based upon one data point, Wow-man is utterly convinced of his superiority to the vast majority of the world's population. If the besetting Christian sin tends to be hypocrisy (and I tend to think that it is), the besetting atheist "sin" is arrogance.
This is about whether some beliefs are better than others. If you care whether your beliefs are "true" or "false", then obviously true beliefs are better than false ones. I see no reason why you would think differently.
That we all think that our views are "better" (duh -- why else would we hold them?) is irrelevant. This isn't a matter of garden variety error. The claim was that believers are necessarily inferior and dishonest.
333: You have been making stuff up for months.
Got any evidence?
It's the old thing something bothers you, so instead of being mature and ignoring it, you try to lie and bullshit your way to alleviate your discomfort. We've seen your type before. You need to go and stay away.
Huh? And all this time I thought the purpose of threads like this one wasn't to be an echo chamber and a mutual admiration society, but was for actually exploring, testing and debating ideas. I guess I'm funny that way.
We've already seen you have some weird ideas that nobody here is buying.
I don't care about what any majority thinks. But do you really think that a proposed Constitutional amendment to remove citizenship from atheists wouldn't be an example of bigotry?
334: what bothered me about Pres. Bush's statement you cited has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with the fact that what he was saying was wrong.
I agree that it was wrong in the sense you describe, but it's also an excellent example of bigotry.
In any case, I'd ask Robocop, in RE bigotry, if he considers people of his faith to be better than those of other (ie, false) faiths? This question can be either group-based or individual, either works.
Nope.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 10:30 AM
Repeating your wrong definition doesn't make it right. As a lawyer, you should know that.Ah, here is one of your famous lies. One cannot prove a negative. You know that. So, I asked you prove a positive, and kept after you to prove that positive, that there is conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You presented no evidence, ergo, you have none. I'm sure you have presented it if you had. So, by your avoidance of that question, you were tacitly acknowledging you had no evidence. So, in this case, absence of evidence for positive proof is evidence of non-existence. That you proved.You keep repeating this inanity. We simply say we are more rational, since we require postitive proof to believe in something. You don't. Believing that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are real is delusional thinking beyond childhood. Same for imaginary deities. If you don't like us considering you a delusional fool, stop being one. Renounce your deity and religious belief.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 10:40 AM
Did you ignore my link in #296?
In your biased experience you want to believe that what you are doing is selfless but it's about making yourself feel better about yourself because you think you are being Mr. Good Guy.
In reality you are only self-supporting your ego.
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 11:20 AM
338: Repeating your wrong definition doesn't make it right.
You're making stuff up again.
"[S]tubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Bigotry
Ah, here is one of your famous lies. One cannot prove a negative.
And again.
Proving a Negative
So, I asked you prove a positive....
You made a claim (that the nonexistence of gods is clearly demonstrated) and, when you couldn't support it, tried to shift the proof burden. What a surprise.
You keep repeating this inanity.
Yet again. Wow-man said it explicitly (atheists are our "betters").
339: Did you ignore my link in #296?
Since I had already specifically referenced the study you pointed to -- yes.
In your biased experience you want to believe that what you are doing is selfless but it's about making yourself feel better about yourself because you think you are being Mr. Good Guy.
While mixed motives are a frequent reality and a constant issue, there is no basis for you to assume that your apparent inability to act selflessly is universal in application.
Posted by: The Swede | December 2, 2009 11:25 AM
As you concede, you evaluate the evidence and respond accordingly.
If you will, please present the evidence which has led you to believe in God so that we may also evaluate it and respond accordingly, as you have.
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 11:40 AM
341: If you will, please present the evidence which has led you to believe in God so that we may also evaluate it and respond accordingly, as you have.
I have no interest in pushing this thread any further a-field, particularly since I have done what you ask a number of times in the past. A standard search should point you to an example. Then, if you think you have some new points or ideas to add to that discussion or have any particular questions about my views, I'd be willing to engage them.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 2, 2009 11:52 AM
Robocop #342
Awww... whatsamatter Robocop? Since you can't play semantic word salad games like you have been with Nerd to obfuscate the fact that you simply can't provide evidence for your deity, you're going to take your toys and go home when you're asked a direct question to present such evidence?
Hey... I've not engaged you at all regarding this issue... so you don't get to play semantic games with me regarding "proving a negative" blah blah blah.
So if you are to assert a positive... "god exists"... I ask you to provide evidence that doesn't begin and end with the evasive, non answer, "prove he doesn't". Because if you do that, I will then ask you to prove that there is not a letter from god in a hole in my back yard ordering you to buy me a new camera (heh) and then I might ask you to do so since you can't prove there isn't.
Or you can simply say that you do not assert any such thing. That would be fine too.
So, robocop... care to address the question from #341, or mine in this comment? Or are you only interested in playing shell games?
Nah... you're not gonna answer either of them, are you?
Posted by: The Swede | December 2, 2009 11:59 AM
A standard search should point you to an example.
A standard search of what? Google? I searched this thread and found nothing. Could you please link me to one of your examples of concrete evidence which lead you to your belief in God? Or just repeat one of your pieces of evidence here?
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 12:08 PM
A standard search of what? Google?
Pharyngula. I've answered questions like this many times. If your search is unsuccessful, I'll answer directly.
Posted by: The Swede | December 2, 2009 12:11 PM
What should I search for? "Robocop concrete evidence" gave nothing useful (7 hits, none leading to anything you said). Since I have no idea what so ever what kind of evidence you would have provided I have no idea what to search for.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 2, 2009 1:13 PM
Robocop, in RE #337:
You said, if I read you correctly, that you are not (by definition) better than someone who believes in a false religion. Yet, if I understand the situation, you believe that the fact that you, presumably, are promised paradise, while they, presumably, are promised eternal torture an utterly - indeed, perfectly - just judgement.
To put it another way, if both of you are equally good, than either both of you justly deserve heaven, or both of you justly deserve hell. Yet, you believe (I presume - correct me if I am wrong) that you will not share a common fate.
Please explain.
Thanks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 1:16 PM
Could you please point me to which comment that was?
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 2:09 PM
Swede -- It's a bit old, but you'll find some of my views in this thread. I don't appear for a while, but I trust you'll be able to pick me out pretty easily.
347: [I]f I read you correctly, ...you are not (by definition) better than someone who believes in a false religion.
Correct. And I'm no better than those who have no religion either.
To put it another way, if both of you are equally good, than either both of you justly deserve heaven, or both of you justly deserve hell. Yet, you believe (I presume - correct me if I am wrong) that you will not share a common fate.
I hope universalism is true (assuming an afterlife -- some forms of Judaism may well be right that there isn't any). I expect (at a minimum), that eternal death will be reserved for those who, after all is revealed, still choose to reject God.
348: Could you please point me to which comment that was?
Honestly, you can go back and read the thread as easily as I can.
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 2:14 PM
Chimp: It's #276.
Posted by: kevin gallagher | December 2, 2009 2:19 PM
my emails miles670@gmail.com and im wonderin if someone can help me figure out what it flashes on the screen at 1:18:11 during that video. I cant seem to pause it on time lol tis doin my nut in >.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 2:35 PM
Thanks. Yep you sure did. Somehow I missed that. Not surprising, it happens.
What that says to me is that the because there is no consensus to whether it works or not points to the fact that it has little to no effect. It could be, as you said, subject to the researcher's prejudice among other things. Though I'm not sure the prejudice of all the researchers has been established (beyond the one you quoted).
People are going to get better or not aside from any prayer or not. If prayer actually worked you'd think their would be a clear indication that it did. Nothing you or I have pointed to shows that.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 2:51 PM
That doesn't really explain anything.
If you came to the conclusion that God did not exist, would you change anything about how you live?
The bible is inconsistent on what is and is not important, with many believers themselves disagreeing.
Does God condemn those of good character who do not otherwise have faith in Christian doctrine?
Would you agree that a human who has good character would lead by example?
Is there a reason for coming to the opposite conclusion when I suggest that the same ought to be expected from a God that actually existed and had good character?
----
Hm. I think you are mischaracterizing what he wrote, or perhaps misunderstood it.
Wowbagger:
What I see in Wowbagger's statement is not that atheists, as people, are "better" than Christians, but that after an informed rational analysis of Christianity, with its basis in belief without empirical evidence, the conclusion of atheism is more intellectually honest and consistent than otherwise.
That is, it is not that one set of people is superior to another, but rather, that rationality and consistent epistemology is superior to belief without evidence.
You may wish to take that as a more sweeping assertion than that, but I think you're reading far more into it than what is actually there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 3:07 PM
Again, you lie. You con't prove a negative. Science doesn't work that way. But continued absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence. If gods existed, any place else than between the delusional fools ears, then the existence of gods should be able to be shown with conclusive physical evidence. The fact that no conclusive physical evidence has been shown to date by anyone, means that by parimony gods don't exist. The conclusion can change with the conclusive physical evidence. Philosophic wanking isn't physical evidence. And you still haven't presented any conclusive physical evidence, so the rational conclusion stands. Until you present that evidence, we can reasonably conclude you are a delusional fool.Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:17 PM
Got any studies on that?
says the man who hasn't actually provided the references to support his own statement.
you first, then i'll show you how you twisted what those studies actually concluded as to be representative of religious effect, rather than social effect, and THEN i'll link to general studies of social grouping effects so you can see how they exactly compare.
you have no idea what you are talking about.
seriously.
religion has no special status as a positive function for humans.
it's all in your head.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:19 PM
Could you please link me to one of your examples of concrete evidence which lead you to your belief in God?
again, it's all in his head. he THINKS he's answered the question, but in reality it was epic fail all the way down.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:22 PM
Yet again. Wow-man said it explicitly (atheists are our "betters").
except Wow didn't.
you really do like deliberately misinterpreting what others say, the conclusions of research, even your own bible.
it's your most annoying, of many annoying, features.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:27 PM
What should be obvious is my legal training
go figure, it's not.
were you a graduate of the Lionel Hutz school of lawyering?
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 3:39 PM
353: If you came to the conclusion that God did not exist, would you change anything about how you live?
Sure. I wouldn't be making this argument, for one thing. But not a huge amount (I hope). I'd like to think my morals and values would remain unchanged.
The bible is inconsistent on what is and is not important, with many believers themselves disagreeing.
Given that the Bible consists of dozens of different writings over many centuries and was written by many different kinds of people seeking God and trying to make sense of their lives, I don't think we should be surprised by that in the least. Even the Bible's most aggressive defenders recognize progressive revelation.
Does God condemn those of good character who do not otherwise have faith in Christian doctrine?
I hope not.
Is there a reason for coming to the opposite conclusion when I suggest that the same ought to be expected from a God that actually existed and had good character?
No, because we have been provided the example of Jesus.
I think you are mischaracterizing what he wrote, or perhaps misunderstood it.
That's possible, but Wow-man doesn't deny my characterization and specifically described atheists as being believers' "betters."
What I see in Wowbagger's statement is not that atheists, as people, are "better" than Christians, but that after an informed rational analysis of Christianity, with its basis in belief without empirical evidence, the conclusion of atheism is more intellectually honest and consistent than otherwise.
If that was all that was intended I'd have no complaint. That's a reasonable (though not the only reasonable) conclusion.
354: Nerd -- So you ignore my having demonstrated the blatent falsehood you kept perpetrating about the meaning of bigotry, ignore the specific refutation (from a prominent atheist website no less) of your continued assertion that one can't prove a negative, and blather on repetitively as before without going off script for even a brief instant.
Par for the course.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 3:46 PM
Sounds a lot like what Facilis used to do. Claim he's proven something yet hasn't. When asked to point to said evidence / proof refuses to comply to the easy request.
I never understand why someone refuses to point back to the supposed hard evidence they've supplied before. There are tens of thousands of comments here and sorting through them is a herculean task at best. A simple "Here you" could clear up a lot of confusion.
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 3:50 PM
357: Me: "Yet again. Wow-man said it explicitly (atheists are our 'betters')."
Icky: except Wow didn't.
From #298:
"Prove me wrong then, shithead. Demonstrate for us that your god exists and/or that your religion is the only valid one out of all the thousands that have existed, and do so in such a way that can be considered intellectually honest.
"If you could you'd be the first - ever.
"If you can't then shut your pissant whining mouth, admit your belief is based solely on emotion and not reason - and accept the justified scorn of your betters."
Posted by: Anri
|
December 2, 2009 4:51 PM
Robocop sez:
And you consider different fates for equally good people to be perfect justice?
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 4:52 PM
360: When asked to point to said evidence / proof refuses to comply to the easy request.
Chimp, since the charge was directed toward me, I'd like to point out that your comment is monumentally unfair. To begin with, the "easy request" isn't always easy. Yet I did find the post you requested even though you could have done it nearly as easily and I did take a fair amount of time to find a representative sample of what Swede was looking for and provide a link to it. Moreover, I have taken the time to answer every post/question/charge on this thread in good faith. One of the reasons I lurk here far more than I post is that I recognize that my views often create some controversy and I want to try to respond to every comment that seems to request it when I do participate. As you can see by the number and quality of posts I have responded to in this thread alone, that isn't always easy.
I don't expect you (or anyone else) to agree with me, feel sorry for me, or anything of the sort. I expect and prefer straightforward opposition from those who disagree with me. I learn stuff that way here all the time. But don't misrepresent what I have done and tried to do. Please.
Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 4:56 PM
362: And you consider different fates for equally good people to be perfect justice?
The quote you provided does not support the premise of your question.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 2, 2009 5:40 PM
Ok, I'll try again -
Robocop, as I understand it, you believe that someone who accepts a false god, or no god at all, can be just as good as one who accepts the true god, yes?
And you believe that those that die accepting in the one true god experience a different fate (heaven) than those that accept false gods or no gods at all (hell or final death), yes?
I was therefore confirming that you felt that these different fates experienced by equally good people was perfect justice. If you think it is not, or if I have misrepresented something you believe, please let me know.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 5:44 PM
OK, but in that case, what would your "service" be (and have been) to? The greater good? Humanistic ethics? Some other abstraction?
But it isn't particularly "progressive". Some early parts are generous and humanistic; some late parts are absurdly cruel. It is an inconsistent mess, not something that becomes increasingly clear.
If someone said that people should hate their parents if they wanted to follow him, would that someone be of good character, as you understand it?
If someone told a man who wanted to bury his father "Let the dead bury the dead", would that be of good character?
If someone said that maintaining hygiene was unnecessary, would that be of good character?
If someone said that people who did not follow him would be treated like Sodom and Gomorrah, would that be of good character?
If you say "no", then Jesus was not an example of a good character.
If you say "yes", then we obviously have a problem with agreeing on what good character is.
---
Rather than asking what Wowbagger's intent was, you interpreted his statement in the worst possible way, then smacked him with "bigot". I think he was deeply angered by what he saw as your deliberately misconstruing what he wrote, and responded with outraged snark, of which "betters" was a part. This continuation of taking things in the worst possible way turned into the spat you've been having.
But I'll stop trying to speak for him.
And I've found Wowbagger to be pretty reasonable in the couple of years that he's been commenting here.
Posted by: The Swede | December 2, 2009 5:58 PM
Swede -- It's a bit old, but you'll find some of my views in this thread. I don't appear for a while, but I trust you'll be able to pick me out pretty easily.
I read through 13 pages of that, and found not *one* piece of evidence, only lots of silly argumentation about epistemology. I have no idea what your name is on that board, or what to search for - again, I have NO IDEA what evidence you have posted, therefore I have NO IDEA what search words to use, and I won't go through another few dozen mind numbing arguments to find the evidence you have posted.
Can you please link directly to your evidence instead of sending me to plow through page after page of rehashed epistemological arguments? Or just repeat it?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 5:59 PM
Par for the course with you too. You have no hard physical evidence your your imaginary deity. Ergo, you must do the typical delusional godbot song and dance to avoid acknowledging your lack of evidence. All you have to do to get me off you back is to acknowledge you don't have any good evidence to believe, but you do anyway. But then, you have to drop the pretense that you are as rational as us because your belief isn't rational. Then we can talk about why you don't keep your beliefs to yourself by not posting here. You keep tying to get to the presupposition stage, where we tacitly seem to agree with you. I make sure you know that isn't going to happen.Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 2, 2009 6:19 PM
Robocop is indeed misinterpreting my words - in this case, specifically the word 'your'; in this case I used it to mean a single person (Robocop) and not - as he has repeatedly misrepresented me (deliberately) - to mean all theists.
I was not referring to those theists who don't pretend there are any intellectually honest rationalisations for Christianity - which, after all, is most of them; it's only those suffering from cognitive dissonance who feel the need to try and invent pseudo-intellectual reasons for their emotional attachment to superstition.
My use of the term 'better' referred entirely to intellectual honesty - and, despite Robocop's continued misrepresentation (demonstrating for us exactly how much he has learned as a lawyer), I made that point perfectly clear in post #311, where I wrote this:
I will stand by that: an intellectually honest person is 'better' than an intellectually dishonest one; I have no qualms whatsoever about making that call.
Thanks for those who have correctly and honestly )and patiently) explained that to the mendacious turd. As they (should) say, you will know they are Christians by their
loveprofound dishonesty, prevarication and rank scumbaggery.Posted by: Robocop | December 2, 2009 7:29 PM
365: And you believe that those that die accepting in the one true god experience a different fate (heaven) than those that accept false gods or no gods at all (hell or final death), yes?
No. Read what you quoted of me again. I think it's pretty clear:
"I hope universalism is true (assuming an afterlife -- some forms of Judaism may well be right that there isn't any). I expect (at a minimum), that eternal death will be reserved for those who, after all is revealed, still choose to reject God."
366: OK, but in that case, what would your "service" be (and have been) to? The greater good? Humanistic ethics? Some other abstraction?
If good is truly good and not merely good because an entity with sufficient power decreed it should be so, it will necessary seem like an abstraction.
But it isn't particularly "progressive". Some early parts are generous and humanistic; some late parts are absurdly cruel. It is an inconsistent mess, not something that becomes increasingly clear.
Which is why I try to read it with the Wesleyan quadrilateral in mind.
If someone said that people should hate their parents if they wanted to follow him, would that someone be of good character, as you understand it?
I think you're misreading the statement. As I understand it, in the context of the times and the literature, what you have translated as "hate" doesn't relate to emotions but to priorities. Thus following God and doing what is right takes priority over what parents might want.
If someone told a man who wanted to bury his father "Let the dead bury the dead", would that be of good character?
More misreading. See here, for example.
If someone said that maintaining hygiene was unnecessary, would that be of good character?
What saying are you regerring to?
If someone said that people who did not follow him would be treated like Sodom and Gomorrah, would that be of good character?
Which text do you mean?
Can you please link directly to your evidence instead of sending me to plow through page after page of rehashed epistemological arguments?
Start with this post.
368: You keep tying to get to the presupposition stage, where we tacitly seem to agree with you.
At Pharyngula!? Even if I were as stupid as you seem to think I am, I'm not that stupid.
369: Robocop is indeed misinterpreting my words - in this case, specifically the word 'your'; in this case I used it to mean a single person (Robocop) and not - as he has repeatedly misrepresented me (deliberately) - to mean all theists.
I'll take you at your word as to your intent, but I think your actual words tell a different story. Your original statement (#197):
"Then again, it's quite accurate to say that there are no Christians anywhere who meet that description; if you're informed, intellectually honest and consistent you're almost certainly going to have thrown of the shackles of delusional superstition and become an atheist."
To give you the benefit of the doubt, would you care to translate that in such a way that doesn't make all Christians out to anything other than inferior? It reads to me like you think that your position isn't just true, but so completely and obviously true that only dimwits would believe it and that Christians who say they believe it are either monumentally stupid or intentionally dishonest.
369: I was not referring to those theists who don't pretend there are any intellectually honest rationalisations for Christianity - which, after all, is most of them....
Now you're patronizing. If the poor sops only knew better....
[A]n intellectually honest person is 'better' than an intellectually dishonest one; I have no qualms whatsoever about making that call.
One view on one issue, even if you were right, does not establish superiority as to anything beyond that one data point. I find it awfully hard to believe you really can't see that.
As they (should) say, you will know they are Christians by their profound dishonesty, prevarication and rank scumbaggery.
That reads like feigned righteous indignation to me. But there is none righteous. No not one.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 2, 2009 8:45 PM
Robocop sez:
Ok, I'll go over it bit by bit, since I seem to be misunderstanding you.
I am reading this as 'I hope my beliefs in this life are, in the long run, irrelevant' - which is fine, of course, but seems a bit odd for a faithful person to say.
I was under the assumption you were a Christian. If so, I'm not really sure what some forms of Judaism have to do with your faith, so...
And, presumably, that mentioned eternal death will not apply to those that have faith in the one true god.
Who might, if I understood you earlier, might be no more good than those that did believe.
And therefore, I do not understand your answer of 'no', as they are, presumably, recieving different fates.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 8:50 PM
Pot Kettle Black. No godbot ever gets patronizing, especially when that is all they have...Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 2, 2009 9:20 PM
Robocop wrote:
Why would I? If inferiority can be rated by relative levels of intellectual honesty, I stand by that statement because Christianity is a belief system unsupportable by reason. If you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free to post your arguments to the contrary here and now so I may consider them. Until then my statement remains 100% accurate.
If inferiority cannot be rated by intellectual honesty, please explain why.
No, I'm honest and perceptive - unlike you, apparently.
Whatever rationalisations you've chosen to accept in order to alleviate the cognitive dissonance you experience when conemplating the nonsense you believe in, it is not shared by the majority of your brothers-and-sisters in faith. They believe for any number of reasons - social, emotional, cultural etc. - not because they've spent years studying the reams of sophistry apologists have wasted their lives producing and attempting to pass it off as compelling argument.
Hence why most ex-Christians cite education as being the reason for their abandoning of the shackles of faith. I think Martin Luther put it best when he said 'reason is the enemy of faith'.
What does that even mean? I notice you didn't claim it was an inaccurate characterisation, though.
Posted by: the God | December 3, 2009 3:55 AM
9.8mh nassim
9.8mh you know
9.8mh liquidation trap also
imply 9.8mh global ignorant disabilities + evils
trap to the 9.8mh total all environments &
the 9.8mh total all environments trap to 9.8mh
global ignorant disabilities + evils.
even 9.8mh amea most fast total all dropping
itself pulling down 9.8mh devils world.
between
9.8mh penisular(original devils) - 9.8mh USA
in the 9.8mh amea
from foundation to numberless all implication.
exactly I told wrote all truth in the past
with just AOBP connotation words
not metaphor not joke not lie not contradiction.
9.8mh you know it too much
it is time
be hermit.
my SLSG very very toooooo soooooooooon
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2009 3:58 AM
I don't know what that is -- or how it's supposed to help.
But this ignores the plain reading. The Greek word means "hate"; no-one has ever suggested that "hate" was the wrong translation. The context is most certainly not just about setting "priorities", it is about the emotional rejection of family and self and following Jesus as a person, not as a moral example. After all, if it was meant merely as a matter of priorities, would it not be just as good for them to stay with their families and set a good example in their behavior?
Even if your interpretation is correct, is it a sign of good character to phrase something so unclearly that it certainly looks like it means for children to hate their parents?
Jesus does not refer to changing their behavior, but to dedicating themselves to him personally. These are the words of a cult leader, not a moral teacher; not someone of good character.
It is not a misreading. Even your example does not suggest that reading is wrong, but that there is additional cultural context, and this context alters the interpretation.
But your example doesn't really help your argument. Jesus is not behaving with good character here, but is demanding absolute obedience. At least some of the context for what your example argues for is not that of works; of a better morality, but of blind faith.
Mark 7:1-5 ; Matt 15:1-2
Note that those chapters also contain direct examples of Jesus condemning the Pharisees for behavior similar to his own, as defended in the apologetic you linked to. Is Jesus not exactly as hypocritical as the Pharisees he condemns? Indeed, is he not worse? Not even the Pharisees told sons to hate their parents.
No, Jesus does not have good character here.
Matt 10:12-15 (actually, worse than Sodom and Gomorrah)
Also:
Were Matt 10:34-35 spoken by someone of good character?
Was Matt 10:5 spoken by someone of good character providing an example to everyone?
Posted by: Robocop | December 3, 2009 10:49 AM
Wowbagger -- I have a heavy schedule today so I don't anticipate having much time to devote to this discussion (and apologies to the interesting points raised by Owl). Yet I'd like to add a brief comment to bring us full-circle.
In my view, the key characteristic of your position is the certainty with which you hold it. I'm sure you would acknowledge a commitment to the idea that you could be wrong and that you'd reconsider your view based upon new evidence and arguments, but it appears far more theoretical than substantive to me. Epistemic modesty isn't your strong suit. You're so sure that you're right (in possession of the capital-T Truth) and that this Truth is so readily ascertainable that those of us who see things differently aren't just in error, we're irrational or delusional or mentally ill or or or. Indeed, you're so sure you're right that you don't even think an opposing view can be honestly held by anyone who gives the matter even a bit of thought, adding being dishonest and evil to the list of our alleged sins.
That you don't see how arrogant and condescending that is to the many brilliant people who have spent considerable time, perhaps their entire lives, pondering this stuff and come to different conclusions is conclusive evidence of your bigotry ("stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"). You resist the label but it obviously applies.
Newton? Idiot. Pascal? Delusional fool. Dobzhansky? Intellectually dishonest tool. Bayes, Mendel, Gray, Lemaître and more recently Townes, Gingerich, Phillips, Miller, Morris, Lennox.... It's truly amazing to me that you insist that each of these great scientists, who have thought about these issues long and hard and come to different conclusions than you, are deemed fundamentally inferior by you. Again, we're not talking about garden-variety error. If you were merely alleging error, I'd have no concern. However, you essentially think either that they're defective somehow or crooked. And frankly, that's disgusting and ultimately terrifying.
All of this relates perfectly to Taleb's (remember him from the top of the thread?) main point (see his brilliant The Black Swan, which doesn't even discuss religious belief or practice). We tend to be far too sure of ourselves and our conclusions, to our substantial detriment. Ironically, it is just this kind of certainty which, so often throughout history, has allowed the holders of it (often religious) to demonize and oppress those who disagree (for their own good, right?). If we can't have thought about these issues carefully and come to a different conclusion from you, it isn't too far-fetched to fear that you perceive us as an evil that must be eradicated. Indeed, Hitchens (for example) thinks religion is the greatest evil.
On of the great risks of fundamentalists is that, given sufficient power, it's easy to imagine all sorts of horror being imposed to enforce their vision of the Truth. Given sufficient power, how far would you willing to go to stamp out the evil of religion? Hitchens makes it plain routinely. Harris has suggested the possible necessity of killing people for their beliefs alone. You?
Posted by: The Swede | December 3, 2009 11:53 AM
Start with this post.
This can't be the evidence you have based your belief in God in; it's just a pile of opinions about atheists and their alleged views.
I read through a dozen or so pages more, and there was much bickering, but no evidence. Can you PLEASE link me right to the evidence instead of sending me to pile through more assertions and arguments?
Like you, I base my worldview on evidence and build my understanding of the world through evidence. Whenever I find something in me which is mere opinion, or without basis in observation, I root it out and search for evidence to base a proper view on. Please help me find the evidence which convinced you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 12:02 PM
Well that you are correct. More to what I was referring was the repeated requests for your strong evidence of the existence of God that you found persuasive.
But yes, when I requested you point to the comment I asked for, you did just that. And yes I could have spent the time to find it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 3, 2009 10:53 PM
Pondering mythology and pretending it is worthwhile is not rational adult behavior. How smart they may appear to you is irrelevant. That is for delusional fools, and theological bigots like yourself. You are the bigot, not us. You think we are lesser than you because we see the mythology for what it is. The babbling of bronze age baboons.Still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 3, 2009 11:28 PM
And the all loving, all caring, all seeing, imaginary deity saved who, when?
And the avenging, just, smiter of all sacrilegious, non-believing heathens turned us all to atheist dust when?
Get a grip. If Allah was the true powerful god that listened to his followers, all of us in the USA would be ash right now. His followers by the millions pray five times a day for our destruction. Yet here we are.
Fred Phelps and gang pray daily about gay and lesbian folks, but, god does nothing. They are still with us. Gawd is a joke. Get over it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:49 AM
Of course I could be wrong. The second there appears evidence or valid argument for the existence of a god/gods then I'll happy accept the existence of that god/those gods.
My problem is that you, and people like you, have never relied on evidence or argument for holding the beliefs you hold - despite your insistence that you do. My distaste for such intellectual dishonesty is the fuel for my condemnation of your shameless mendacity.
My modesty is inversely proportional to your integrity, since I dismiss your 'epistemology' for what it is - rank sophistry. An epistemic defence of religion is like any other - just another smoke-and-mirrors attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that there is no evidence for any of the supernatural claims your religion makes, and no compelling argument for your particular beliefs that cannot be claimed by any or all other religions on the planet - rendering them useless for the purposes of argument.
As I - and others - have pointed out, it is not bigotry to hold your delusional beliefs in contempt, and more than it would be to laugh at you for insisting the sun circles the earth or that the entrails of an animal can predict the future. The only 'intolerance' involved is my intolerance for your lies and your continued lying about them being lies.
Feel free to locate a definition of bigotry that includes intolerance to lies and intellectual dishonesty and post the link to it here.
Alternatively, if you can show that your beliefs aren't based on lies and intellectual dishonesty and then, after I accept that they are valid, continue to have intolerance for them, then you'd be correct about it being bigotry.
Then again, you're a unrepentant liar - why would I expect you to stop lying about the applicability of the word 'bigotry' when you haven't stopped lying about your beliefs?
I would say misguided - and, to an extent, uninformed. Most of those people lived in times prior to the scientific developments we have the luxury of knowing about today. Not to mention the fact that open atheism was considered socially and professionally problematic - Christians being so wonderfully tolerant, after all...
But your continued misrepresentation of my words aside (after this thread no-one will ever doubt your experience as a lawyer again), intellectual dishonesty regarding religion need not have any impact at all on other aspects of a person's life. I have never claimed that intellectually dishonest = stupid and never will.
Again, I'd ask you to please stop lying, but I imagine doing so would be a waste of my time.
Oh, the poor, poor persecuted Christian! Oh, woe! Oh, who will save us? Oh, we are so weak and opressed and ever so bullied by the mean atheists! Oh, won't somebody please think of the children!
Save your histrionics for the courtroom, counsellor - they're worth nothing here.
You're entitled to believe whatever you want, no matter how inane and indefensible. All I ask you to do is stop whining about us pointing out your arguments are worthless and you've got no more rational arguments in your arsenal than the pickup-driving hillbilly named Lyle who claims a mysterious alien in flying saucer abducted him from a backroad in Arkansas and probed and electronically tagged him on three non-consecutive Arbor Days.
Want us to stop laughing at you? Stop being a joke.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 12:58 AM
A point that Sastra has made repeatedly is that regardless of belief, or even truth (or Truth), a commitment to empirical skepticism is a commitment to a common epistemological ground that is at least potentially accessible to everyone. The scientific method is the most rigorous expression of the attempt to approach empirical truth by eliminating that which is empirically false.
You may well bridle at being called "dishonest". You may not be deliberately and consciously asserting that something that you know to be false is true, and you may even be willing to acknowledge that you may be wrong. But that isn't exactly where the problem is.
A claim that atheism is more honest than theism is not a claim to have Truth, but rather an expression of that commitment to empirical skepticism; to the method of acquiring knowledge and truth, rather than having access to "Truth" itself. It is indeed a commitment to epistemic modesty.
The accusation of dishonesty, or at the very least, inconsistency, arises because everyone who adheres to a God-based religion, no matter how much skepticism or uncertainty is expressed, ultimately does so because of placing some tenet or tenets as being [at least potentially] True despite not being empirically accessible -- or, perhaps worse, tries redefining or distorting the meaning of "empirical". This is the fallacy of special pleading, or the very essence of an epistemic double standard.
Even if it were "True" that God exists, the fact that knowledge of God is based on special revelation from God (as opposed to a universal revelation) means that the revelator is not behaving fairly. The knowledge is not being granted to everyone to evaluate, like an empirically testable fact. The real dishonesty, or at the very least, inconsistency, is in redefining or distorting the meaning of basic concepts like goodness and fairness and honesty and integrity to mean something very much like their complete opposites -- at least when it comes to God and religion.
Now, these epistemic inconsistencies may not be conscious. If so, then calling them actual dishonesty is perhaps unfair. But they are there, and they are what I think atheists -- or rather, those who arrive at atheism as the logical conclusion of a commitment to empirical skepticism -- see and think of as dishonesty.
And I'm afraid that goes for the scientists and other scholars that you list in your third paragraph. Kudos to them as physicists and mathematicians and biologists and so on -- but when they talk about about God and religion, their logic and consistency goes away. While they may be great geniuses in the fields they are famous for, they are considered geniuses because they demonstrated mathematical and empirical scientific truths. None of them have any demonstration of empirical facts underlying their religious beliefs; they all too often speak of personal emotional reactions as though that was something equivalent to demonstration. And that is a deep, deep inconsistency.
In a concession to epistemic modesty, I may not always be consistent, or even always honest. Perfect consistency may even be impossible. But I think that striving to minimize inconsistency (and dishonesty), like striving to reduce ignorance of empirical reality, is itself a consistent goal to have.
Posted by: Kagato
|
December 4, 2009 1:16 AM
*buys Owlmirror a beer for #382*
Posted by: Joel
|
December 4, 2009 6:39 AM
I can't believe Boteach said that about Downs syndrome children, as if the parents of those children have nothing but contempt for their kids and would kill them if it wasn't for religion.
Posted by: Joel
|
December 4, 2009 6:51 AM
Im glad Sam didn't justify any of Boteach's insanity with responses.
Posted by: ChrisH
|
December 4, 2009 11:10 AM
I finally got round to listening to this last night. And basically wish that I hadn't...
2 things struck me:
1) Taleb was almost completely incomprehensible
2) I have a profound loathing for Boteach and everything that he uttered (eg being a walking demonstration of Godwin's Law because he obviously thinks that being a Rabbi gives him that right and no-one can argue against him because of that).
I felt the need for a shower after that.
Posted by: Robocop | December 4, 2009 5:00 PM
379: That Nerd alleges his/her superiority to "delusional fools" who are among the most gifted scientists of our times says all that needs to be said. No wonder s/he won a Molly.
381: The second there appears evidence or valid argument for the existence of a god/gods then I'll happy accept the existence of that god/those gods.
As determined by you, of course.
My problem is that you, and people like you, have never relied on evidence or argument for holding the beliefs you hold - despite your insistence that you do.
The all-knowing, all-seeing, all-perceiving Wowbagger.
Feel free to locate a definition of bigotry that includes intolerance to lies and intellectual dishonesty and post the link to it here.
The zealot/bigot almost invariably sees it that way. I'm no bigot even though I'm utterly intolerent of them. I merely recognize them for what they really are.
Oh, the poor, poor persecuted Christian!
I have made no persecution claim and make none. Christians, generally, are not persecuted in America today. They often have privileged status. My question was predicated upon a qualifier -- "given sufficient power" -- making your rant irrelevant, if funny. But please continue if it makes you feel better.
382: In a concession to epistemic modesty, I may not always be consistent, or even always honest. Perfect consistency may even be impossible. But I think that striving to minimize inconsistency (and dishonesty), like striving to reduce ignorance of empirical reality, is itself a consistent goal to have.
Owl, your post is both brilliant and generous. I'm still buried with work and won't be able to respond immediately in the careful way your post demands, but I wanted you to be aware that I saw it and appreciate it a lot. Thank you. I'll be back to discuss it.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 5, 2009 9:44 AM
Robocop, try to grasp that Newton could be right about some things (calculus) and wrong about others (alchemy, God). It's impossible to take you seriously if you keep pulling out the "smart people have thought X, therefore X" card. The Ancient Greek philosophers thought the Sun was a hot rock. Who are you to argue with Plato?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2009 9:57 AM
Robocop, even scientist can be delusional fools at times. Think of Linus Pauling and his vitamin C nonsense. What part of the fact that scientists are people don't you understand. We don't think other scientists are infallible.
You still haven't presented any valid physical evidence, and sophist philosophy isn't evidence. You, as a lawyer, should know that.And that is why we sneer and mock at them, and you, until that status is revoked.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 5, 2009 10:54 AM
So says the Letter to the Romans 3:10, and three OT verses (Job 15:14, Isaiah 41:26, Isaiah 64:6) confirm it.
Interspersed with these, Genesis 7:1, 2 Samuel 22:25, Job 2:3 depending on the definition of "righteous", Psalm 1:5-6, Ezekiel 14:14, Ezekiel 14:20, Matthew 23:35, Luke 1:6, Hebrews 11:4, and 2 Peter 2:8 (twice even) assert that certain people have been righteous, and Matthew 5:20, James 5:16, and especially Matthew 25:46 look a bit odd if the possibility of righteousness that they imply is never fulfilled.
Funnily enough, if Job 2:3 counts as calling someone righteous, then God Himself contradicts Himself in the same book on whether a particular person is righteous. So, except perhaps if we assume very funny things about the Trinity, I can't even suggest the usual celebrity deathmatch for resolving Biblical contradictions. What shall we do, what shall we do.
On faith vs works vs several other possibilities as necessary and/or sufficient for salvation, go here.
Posted by: Martin Brock | December 6, 2009 3:43 PM
I'd think that if the belief satisfies him and harms no one else, it's fine with me.
And the falsity of the claim is irrelevant against the usefulness of the belief or the idea that it makes him happy. The ubiquity of internet porn seems ample evidence of this fact.
Posted by: Robocop | December 15, 2009 4:09 PM
382: OwlM -- My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. If you still care and are interested....
I think your thinking belies excessive evidence worship. Let me explain.
1. You place too much faith in the empirical process. We all base many of our beliefs and commitments upon unevidenced assumptions and aren't somehow in error for doing so. I assume the basic accuracy of my senses. I assume that love is better than hate. I assume that something like "the Matrix" is false.
2. I see no obligation empirically to investigate every claim. Indeed, I don't investigate most claims and see no reason to. If my 7th grade science text tells me the speed of light and I am given no reason to doubt it, I needn't undertake tests myself. For more prosaic matters, even if I accept an alleged truth without investigation, if it "works" for me at some level I'm not wrong to leave it at that unless and until its "working status" is damaged or challenged.
3. You accept a much too uncritical view of rationality and our ability to recognize it. Our view of rationality not only does not stand alone, it cannot stand alone. Our perceptions and deliberations are constantly and necessarily influenced by our values, our emotions, our choices, our preferences and our aesthetics. Think, for example, about research into behavioral economics -- we simply aren't capable of divorcing our reasoning abilities from everything else that makes us "us." That's why it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that (say) political position (A) is the rational choice for person A while political position (not A) is the rational choice for person B. There needn't be a contradiction. This is not to say that I accept some post-modern view that objective truth doesn't exist. I don't. I simply recognize that our ability to perceive it is necessarily flawed. That's why, for me, epistemic modesty is a moral as well as a practical position and why I so oppose the "you're irrational" canard.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 15, 2009 4:15 PM
Yawn, more boring sophistry, trying to justify a non-rational decision, without any physical evidence. You may convince yourself, but not us. Don't expect us to think you are rational in your decision to believe in imaginary deities.
Posted by: Robocop | December 15, 2009 4:44 PM
393: Yawn, more boring sophistry, trying to justify a non-rational decision, without any physical evidence.
So, Nerd, what's your physical evidence supporting the need for physical evidence?
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 15, 2009 4:53 PM
Perhaps this is not necessary for every single conceivable claim in every conceivable discipline. For example, the color of Frodo Baggins' underwear is not subject to empirical investigation. If it's an empirical claim, a claim about the world and things alleged to exist in it, then it needs to be supported with empirical evidence. If you can't handle that, then forget your what you perceive to be your "obligations" and try to get a grip on reality. If you're comparing this to claims about a god's existence, then it's very obviously a false analogy. Others have done the work for you. There is ample evidence that: 1) light exists, 2) light has a finite speed, 3) light's speed in a vacuum is a constant throughout the known universe, 3) we can know within a certain degree of accuracy what that speed is. Because we know the speed of light so accurately, we've redefined the meter itself. Light's speed in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. If you wanted to, it is possible to verify this claim yourself.Now, what empirical evidence could anyone possibly provide for the existence of a god? As far as I know, you and everyone else who makes such a claim have absolutely nothing. This is not a case of you practicing "epistemic modesty". This is a case of you making irrational claims without a single shred of evidence.
Posted by: CJO
|
December 15, 2009 5:03 PM
I assume the basic accuracy of my senses.
Do you? Or are you fully aware that they may frequently be in error? Maybe you mean here basically the same thing as the third assumption, i.e. that you assume that a Matrix or Evil demon scenario is not in effect, such that all your sense perceptions are assumed to reflect an objective reality and not some solipsistic private unreality only you are privy to?
I assume that love is better than hate.
You may, but you don't have to. Surely you have plenty of evidence from a life lived dependent on and in close proximity to your fellow human beings that group dynamics are more productive and more conducive to positive outcomes when love is in effect rather than hate?
I assume that something like "the Matrix" is false.
How would you behave differently if you abandoned this assumption?
If my 7th grade science text tells me the speed of light and I am given no reason to doubt it, I needn't undertake tests myself.
Whether you feel the need to or not is rather beside the point. What is at issue is the fact that you could, in principle. The answer is available to all who wish to repeat the observation. Such measures are not available when assertions are made that appeal to revealed truths and private revalations, which was one of Owlmirror's points.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 15, 2009 5:11 PM
Sorry, I screwed up the numbering and wrote "3)" twice.
It's very simple. Unless someone demonstrates the existence of non-physical stuff, the only things we would expect would be something physical.If you have a problem with that, just point me in the direction of something non-physical. I'm not holding my breath. If you give an example like "love", then I'll remind you that we're physical organisms with physical brains.
Also, if you try to come up with a purely logical proof of a god's existence, it would almost certainly be fallacious. You could still try. In fact, I would prefer that over this continued whining about not feeling obligated to support beliefs with evidence.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 15, 2009 5:39 PM
Robocop wrote:
Maybe you should try presenting some evidence or argument for why you make this sarcastic comment instead of just implying by assertion that I'm not those things. If I've been inaccurate about the evidence to support your religious beliefs, present that evdience and prove me wrong.
Evidence and/or argument would change the minds of many (if not all) of the posters here; if you could present any your call of bigotry would actually be valid (unlike the category error it has been every time you've used it so far) if we continued to point out the irrationality of your particular superstition.
Present the evidence. Demonstrate what I'm doing wrong by calling you out as irrational and intellectually dishonest. The evidence - not a laundry list of dead white people Christians see fit to claim and whose arguments for such belief - if they could be presented - would likely be as sadly lacking as your own.
Any racist, sexist or homophobe can be demonstrated to be wrong by being shown examples contrary to the stereotypes he/she perceives to exist amongst the groups that are disliked. You can easily do that same to me - as soon as you produce evidence or a valid argument to show that your beliefs aren't irrational.
You can pull the rug out from under my feet at any time, Robocop. Just present the evidence to support your claim.
What are you afraid of?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 15, 2009 7:23 PM
If I didn't care, I wouldn't be here.
It occurs to me to pose a rhetorical riddle: If I weren't here, would it be because I am not omniscient (and therefore was unaware of your posting), or because I am not omnipotent (and therefore did not have the time or energy to respond), or because I actually don't care enough?
Why do you misrepresent my attempt to provide a reasoned argument as worship?
What do you think "worship" means, and what does it mean when you apply it to me?
I argued that the empirical world is the common ground in which demonstrations of things that pertain to that world can be made. Do you dispute that?
Some beliefs and commitments are axiomatically true. There aren't a whole lot -- the very concepts of truth and falsity; non-contradiction and contradiction, the fundamentals of mathematics, maybe more.
Some beliefs and commitments are reasonable inferences from axiomatic truths and the reasoning that arises from empirical experience. Do you agree that "2 + 3 = 5" is correct, given the axiomatic definitions of correctness, quantity, addition, and equality? Do you agree that division by zero is meaningless?
Some beliefs and commitments, however, are fallacies that are unexamined, or if examined, criticism of them is rejected due to psychological effects such as confirmation bias.
The basic and general accuracy may well exist, perhaps, but specific empirical counterexamples also exist in external illusions and internal hallucinations, and in the demonstration of forces and effects that are otherwise not available to our senses.
Empirical evidence and reason provide filters and tools for the flaws in our sense.
Whereas I reason that such a scenario is highly improbable. Inasmuch as it violates parsimony, it is reasonable to reject it as a hypothesis.
But a reason and evidence-based argument for such a scenario would convince me of its being true just as a reason and evidence-based argument for God would convince me of God being real. The problem is that up until now, arguments for God have failed to be reasonably consistent and based on evidence, as have "brain-in-a-jar/simulated universe" arguments.
Sure. There's not enough time for everyone to investigate everything; that's why all knowledge is held as provisional -- the "skepticism" part of empirical skepticism.
But again, the point is the common ground. Those in the sciences who make empirical claims are making them to their peers first; to those who have investigated similar claims, and who have the base knowledge-set and an interest in investigating any new claims being made. If you did investigate an empirical scientific claim, the structure of scientific paper -- with references chaining back to previous papers, which in turn chain back to earlier work -- would enable you to follow the reason and evidence to the same conclusion. If you disagreed with the conclusion, there would be a specific step laid out for you to disagree with.
OK, it looks like you do have the idea of provisional knowledge there.
But note that arguments for Christianity are challenged, and damaged, on the basis of both failures of reason and absence of evidence.
Hm. I've been arguing with people, some of whom who are very irrational indeed, for quite a few years, now, and I think that I, at least, have a better idea from this experience of what good and rational arguments look like, and what bad and irrational arguments look like.
Do you at least agree that there is such a thing as rationality by which arguments can be made and analyzed for consistency? Do you agree that there are fallacies like special pleading, begging the question, and arguing from ignorance and incredulity?
If you do, then we have a common ground for at least discussing what is and is not rational.
If you don't, then I'm not sure that we can have any kind of productive discussion at all.
Perhaps some people are better at analysis -- and self-analysis -- than others. I think you're pushing a little too hard in the direction of humans having irrational and chaotic minds. Yes, we are not always rational, and may not always be aware of not being rational.
But I think the fact that, by whatever means, we do have some rationality, means that at least some people, some of the time, will be rational and/or are able to understand rational arguments.
The problem is that far too many theists don't have any epistemic modesty whatsoever -- and the accusation of being irrational is against those failures of such modesty.
An while I acknowledge your assertion of epistemic modesty as a moral position, you might perhaps reconsider some of your own arguments about Jesus, God, and Christianity that you made earlier in this thread in light of such epistemic modesty.
Posted by: Robocop | December 16, 2009 10:51 AM
399: If I weren't here, would it be because I am not omniscient (and therefore was unaware of your posting), or because I am not omnipotent (and therefore did not have the time or energy to respond), or because I actually don't care enough?
How could I know?
What do you think "worship" means, and what does it mean when you apply it to me?
Something like "adoring regard."
I argued that the empirical world is the common ground in which demonstrations of things that pertain to that world can be made. Do you dispute that?
No, I agree. I simply think it's much more elusive than you seem to.
Some beliefs and commitments are axiomatically true.
Yup.
Some beliefs and commitments are reasonable inferences from axiomatic truths and the reasoning that arises from empirical experience.
Agreed. But you jump straight from this statement to this one:
Some beliefs and commitments, however, are fallacies that are unexamined, or if examined, criticism of them is rejected due to psychological effects such as confirmation bias.
You neglect the necessarily unevidenced choices we all make, probably necessarily. Most of us, for example, value both freedom and equality. In what measure we value them goes a long ways toward getting at our political and economic preferences and viewpoints. Those preferences are unevidenced, as far as I can tell, and allow different people to come to quite different conclusions on given policy issues, each of which is perfectly rational given the starting points and assumptions (dare I say paradigms?) built in. Such paradigms are very difficult to overcome (which was Kuhn's main point, and a good one).
I would also suggest that the we all tend to see ourselves as rational and the other guy as the one suffering from "psychological effects such as confirmation bias." I read Dawkins at the end of The God Delusion (when he talks about how he would react if he saw a statue of ther Madonna waving at him) as having offered a crucial admission that we all are far less than rational and, in large measure, see what we want to see. Nearly everyone at Pharyngula claims that evidence could and would change everything. But the paradigm they operate under (no less than the paradigm religious believers operate under) means that they almost surely won't (and perhaps can't) recognize opposing evidence even when it sits right in front of them. That's why just show me the evidence, moron claims ring hollow to me.
The basic and general accuracy may well exist, perhaps, but specific empirical counterexamples also exist in external illusions and internal hallucinations, and in the demonstration of forces and effects that are otherwise not available to our senses.
Of course, That's why I qualified the statement the way I did.
Empirical evidence and reason provide filters and tools for the flaws in our sense.
Sure, but none of us is ever objective in our analysis of that evidence and reason.
Whereas I reason that such a scenario is highly improbable. Inasmuch as it violates parsimony, it is reasonable to reject it as a hypothesis.
Okay. But the fact that the odds favor parsimony in general does not suggest that a specific simple solution is necessarily a better explanation than a specific complex solution.
The problem is that up until now, arguments for God have failed to be reasonably consistent and based on evidence, as have "brain-in-a-jar/simulated universe" arguments.
Up until now (at least in my view), arguments for socialism have failed to be reasonably consistent and based on evidence. Would I be right to claim that socialists are irrational, delusional and perhaps mentally defective?
But note that arguments for Christianity are challenged, and damaged, on the basis of both failures of reason and absence of evidence.
When somebody sees things differently, how do you decide when it's mere error and when it's delusion?
Do you at least agree that there is such a thing as rationality by which arguments can be made and analyzed for consistency? Do you agree that there are fallacies like special pleading, begging the question, and arguing from ignorance and incredulity?
Absolutely.
If you do, then we have a common ground for at least discussing what is and is not rational.
Discuss? Sure. Conclude? Much less sure. Claim error? No problem. Bias? Sure. Mistake? Okay. But I don't see a basis for sufficient certainty to claim a basic lack of rationality or delusion. I understand the rhetorical value of such a charge, but I don't see it as fair or intellectually honest.
Perhaps some people are better at analysis -- and self-analysis -- than others.
"My side" is always better at it than "your side." That's necessarily how we see it -- our conclusions demand it.
But I think the fact that, by whatever means, we do have some rationality, means that at least some people, some of the time, will be rational and/or are able to understand rational arguments.
I agree. But I'm less sanguine than you about when and how we'll recognize it. In my view, the problem isn't so much the conclusion as the certainty with which it's held. That's where things get really dangerous.
The problem is that far too many theists don't have any epistemic modesty whatsoever -- and the accusation of being irrational is against those failures of such modesty.
If your claim were merely that believers of whatever stripe are far too sure of themselves and that the consequences of that certainty are dangerous and sometimes evil, we'd be in complete accord. Of course, I think non-believers are far too sure of themselves as well. It's a far too frequent (if unacknowledged) motto -- often wrong but never in doubt.
An while I acknowledge your assertion of epistemic modesty as a moral position, you might perhaps reconsider some of your own arguments about Jesus, God, and Christianity that you made earlier in this thread in light of such epistemic modesty.
I reconsider them all the time and change them far more often than you might think. As an aside, it's in this area that I think Taleb makes a great point. The consequences of one's decision factor in to what the "right" conclusion is and should. To take an extreme example, I don't need evidence that a gun is unloaded to avoid pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger and to implore others to follow my example.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 17, 2009 6:18 PM
If epistemic modesty is a moral position, then is your implication that you were able to read my mind not a violation of that very morality?
I don't understand why the modifier "necessarily unevidenced" is necessary in there, or what it means in that context. I think I sort of understand what you mean from the rest of the context, but the adjective looks like a category error.
Looking back at what you were responding to, I think I did leave out something, which might be what you were trying to say, so let me remedy that:
In addition to beliefs and commitments that arise from basic axioms and inferences, and those that are fallacies, there are also beliefs and commitments that are harder to classify as definitely true or definitely false, for various reasons, including but not limited to genuine lack of knowledge, idiosyncratic personality traits, definitional fuzziness and uncertainty, and the incompleteness of logical systems.
Is that something like what you were trying to articulate?
There is no opposing evidence to recognize, because any claims of having evidence always turn out to be fallacious arguments presented as being evidence.
Although -- just to clarify -- I am referring here to evidence of a personal God; a God that is a person. Occasionally someone stops by and argues for an impersonal pantheism; "God" is a label for the universe and everything in it, including all of the physical laws regarding the interaction of everything in the universe. I accept that there is certainly evidence for "God" as so defined, but I would protest that such a definition is deeply idiosyncratic, and that the vast majority of theists -- including yourself as I have understood your arguments until now -- do not use such a definition of God and would reject it. Similar definitional arguments for God or Gods could also be made, but have similar problems: A thing can be labeled as being God, but such labeling simply confuses the issue.
What do you think that this purported "opposing evidence" looks like, and how can you be certain that it's not confirmation bias; not just a fallacious argument?
That's not what parsimony means, though. It isn't about specific simple versus specific complex, but necessary entities versus unnecessary entities. A nonparsimonious theory of gravity, for example, could involve positing swarms of angels pushing on everything, but doing so in such a way that their efforts all cancel out and are indistinguishable from G⋅m1⋅m2/r2.
Of course, the above formula for Newtonian gravitation does not have all necessary entities. The actual formula is found from General Relativity, but at low speeds, low masses, and low precision, the two ways of considering gravity and other physical mechanics give results that are nearly the same -- GR, though, will always be more accurate. And of course, General Relativity may be incomplete as well, with a better explanation arising from loop quantum gravity, or from a theory of everything -- which of course will have to be demonstrated as being necessary empirically.
That's something else to consider about parsimony: Once the new theory is proposed, with its additional necessary entities, it still must account for everything that the old theory explained, without contradiction. It must be as good or better than the old theory in all situations, or it obviously fails.
So in your case, you have to demonstrate that God is a necessary entity to explain anything -- or else the parsimonious rejection of God is logically correct.
I think this is a false analogy; a category mistake. God (going by my above argument) is a person that either exists or doesn't. The meta-universe containing the Matrix/brain-in-a-jar either exists or doesn't.
Many ideas about what socialism is have existed and do exist. Given that "socialism" is a concept for ways to organise societies, I don't see how it cannot exist. I think it rightly falls under the category of things that are difficult to classify as definitely true or definitely false.
Is God a point of view, and not a person?
Error and delusion can and do shade into each other, and drawing the line can be somewhat arbitrary.
I don't see how you can answer "Absolutely" to the first paragraph above, and then respond with the final two sentences. They certainly look like contradictions to the essence of the concept of rationality.
There may be issues of rationality are not actually decidable, but a discussion that is rational should be able to come to that conclusion, as well. Are you genuinely trying to claim that there is nothing that would convince otherwise rational people, who are aware of what fallacious arguments are, that they are basing their entire argument on fallacies? And if they persist in this after it has been pointed out and demonstrated to them, perhaps even multiple times, are they not being irrational?
I don't think it's necessarily the case -- otherwise, no-one would ever convert to another point of view. And I don't see how it's a function of "our conclusions" so much as the way that human psychology works; the egocentric bias.
Self-estimation and self-analysis cannot always be relied on, yet if people were always wrong, there would be no progress whatsoever.
Yet it is religions that generally hold things with certainty and dogma, that praises faith without evidence in the existence of God. Religion embraces epistemic arrogance, not epistemic modesty.
I will concede that there are non-religions that are dogmatic, and religions that reduce the emphasis on dogma and faith to a bare, unstressed (and sometimes even optional) minimum -- but it is empirical skepticism, a non-religious epistemic philosophy, that holds certainty as provisional.
I think you're far too sure of yourself as well -- "excessive evidence worship"? You seem awfully sure about that...
Wrong about what? Never in doubt about what?
I don't understand what consequences you refer to here, in the context of religion. Are you making a Pascal's wager argument, or are you making an analogy that there can be social consequences to disagreeing with people who are certain of their religious beliefs, and are certain that disagreement should be socially punished?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 17, 2009 6:53 PM
Yep, you are suffering from comformational bias. What else do you want to know?Who says you're qualified to analyze shit. Scientists don't.Especially those who presuppose an imaginary and unneeded deities like yourself.If that simple complexation contains an unneeded imaginary deity, yes. What part of that are you having trouble with?Pure unadulterated evidence. There is none for imaginary deities, lots for the lack thereof.Since you are a delusional godbot, you can't can't see the evidence and conclusions. What else do you need to know?Ah, a trueful statement.Then you don't understand doubt. As a lawyer, you should understand the concept of guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? We look at your imaginary deity in the same light. And he doesn't even come up to the preponderance of evidence required for a civil case. What a delusional fool.Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 18, 2009 9:09 AM
402: Then you don't understand doubt. As a lawyer, you should understand the concept of guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Once again, Nerd, as with your consistent misunderstanding of what "bigot" means, you struggle with understanding basic concepts. Indeed, you keep providing clear evidence that careful thinking, careful reasoning and careful distinctions simply elude you. If the criminal proof standard in the USA were truly proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you allege, there would be far fewer convictions. Not many things in life can be established to that level of certainty. The actual standard is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet again, when reason and reasonableness is involved, you are weighed and found wanting. But I sure appreciate your coming around.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 18, 2009 11:01 AM
401: If epistemic modesty is a moral position, then is your implication that you were able to read my mind not a violation of that very morality?
My use of "worship" was a rhetorical flourish designed to make a point and not to be taken literally. Strictly speaking, it is overstated. It isn't nearly as egregious as the use of "delusional" with respect to believers generally (since that is a clinical term without clinical basis), but I'll concede the point.
In addition to beliefs and commitments that arise from basic axioms and inferences, and those that are fallacies, there are also beliefs and commitments that are harder to classify as definitely true or definitely false, for various reasons, including but not limited to genuine lack of knowledge, idiosyncratic personality traits, definitional fuzziness and uncertainty, and the incompleteness of logical systems.
Is that something like what you were trying to articulate?
That's a wonderful statement of what you are articulating, but I think you're still missing a crucial element. There are large numbers of beliefs and commitments -- most of the really important ones, in fact -- that are by their nature incapable of being shown to be conclusively true or false and which are always and in all ways unevidenced.
There is no opposing evidence to recognize, because any claims of having evidence always turn out to be fallacious arguments presented as being evidence.
Of course there is, but you reject it. Indeed, you implicitly recognize the existence of some of it by, sometimes at least, insisting upon a particular type of evidence -- empirical evidence.
What do you think that this purported "opposing evidence" looks like, and how can you be certain that it's not confirmation bias; not just a fallacious argument?
By any reasonable measure, personal testimony is evidence, even if you or I (or you and I) reject it. Historical evidence exists (best put forth, in my view, by N.T. Wright). I think the best evidence is volition. But I readily acknowledge that I can't be sure that I don't suffer from confirmation bias or that I'm not misreading the evidence.
So in your case, you have to demonstrate that God is a necessary entity to explain anything -- or else the parsimonious rejection of God is logically correct.
This argument makes too much of parsimony. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and it's much easier to destroy than to create.
I think this is a false analogy; a category mistake. God (going by my above argument) is a person that either exists or doesn't. The meta-universe containing the Matrix/brain-in-a-jar either exists or doesn't.
If traditional God-concepts are correct (and I hasten to add that I don't claim to know if they are), God isn't evidenced in the real world in the same way we are (the idea that "supernatural" -- whatever that is and means -- tries to get at). There might have been a time that empirical evidence was available (when and if Jesus walked on water, for example), but for Christians at least, the days of a material God are past. Sagan's Contact posits a similar situation. Ellie has to communicate the existence of something she has experienced but which, to others, is unevidenced.
Error and delusion can and do shade into each other, and drawing the line can be somewhat arbitrary.
I understand what you're getting at, but are you medically qualified to make a diagnosis of delusion? If not, the claim is unfair in the extreme.
I don't see how you can answer "Absolutely" to the first paragraph above, and then respond with the final two sentences. They certainly look like contradictions to the essence of the concept of rationality.
I merely recognize how difficult our limited and error-prone analytical skills make it for us to be certain. Ironically, much of life demands that we act as if we are certain or remain paralyzed by inaction.
Are you genuinely trying to claim that there is nothing that would convince otherwise rational people, who are aware of what fallacious arguments are, that they are basing their entire argument on fallacies? And if they persist in this after it has been pointed out and demonstrated to them, perhaps even multiple times, are they not being irrational?
People can and do change their minds. I change my mind. I try to be rational as I'm sure you do. We may sometimes succeed, though I suspect much less than we think. History is replete with purported rational explanations that turned out to be anyting but. Kuhn (again) is relevant here.
I don't think it's necessarily the case -- otherwise, no-one would ever convert to another point of view.
Sure it is. It's simply the conception of "my side" that changes.
Yet it is religions that generally hold things with certainty and dogma, that praises faith without evidence in the existence of God.
While religion (generally) is far too certain of things, it has simply never been my experience that religion praises faith without evidence. The claim that faith is belief without evidence is an argument disguised as a definition (and a false definition at that since you won't find it in the OED -- the word described is credulity).
I will concede that there are non-religions that are dogmatic, and religions that reduce the emphasis on dogma and faith to a bare, unstressed (and sometimes even optional) minimum -- but it is empirical skepticism, a non-religious epistemic philosophy, that holds certainty as provisional.
It is a commitment honored mainly in the breach. Take a look at the recent thread on the atheist kid in MA who wants to get out of reading Genesis in a literature class. Despite the testimony of many purported experts as to the quality of Genesis as ancient literature, and despite the apparent unanimity of experts in the field as to its quality, PZ (who I suspect is blinded by his hatred of all things Christian) insists that it's doggerel (evidence be damned).
I think you're far too sure of yourself as well -- "excessive evidence worship"? You seem awfully sure about that...
Rhetorical excess conceded. General proclivity of all of us also conceded.
I don't understand what consequences you refer to here, in the context of religion.
Despite the flaws of PW as an argument, one thing Pascal did get right was that how one evaluates an argument should be based, in part, upon the consequences thereof. Again, to take an extreme example, I don't need evidence that a gun is unloaded to avoid pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger and to implore others to follow my example.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 18, 2009 2:53 PM
You're repeating yourself without clarifying. What do you mean by "unevidenced", here? Expand on your thesis.
I think you're equivocating here on the word "evidence"....
And isn't the issue that a personal God is being claimed to exist as an empirical truth? If arguments for a personal God are not empirical claims, what are they? Wouldn't you agree that an empirical claim for the existence of God requires empirical evidence?
It's evidence that someone claimed to have believed something. If we both reject the truth of what is claimed to be believed, is it because of mere perversity -- or because of a lack of corroborating empirical evidence in support of the testifiers' belief being true?
Historical evidence exists ... that a religious movement called Christianity was around in the first century CE. This is not evidence that the beliefs of those Christians are true -- which is what I have been intending by the phrase "no evidence".
How so? This looks like a complete non-sequitur.
I don't understand how it can even be called evidence in the first place.
I'm sorry that you dislike parsimony.
Given the complete absence of evidence for a personal God, the absence of that personal God is a reasonable and parsimonious inference. Again, this is provisional knowledge, which could be changed by empirical evidence.
This looks like another non-sequitur.
If God is real now, God could provide empirical evidence now.
You might want to re-read the Pauline letters a little more carefully.
Oddly enough, I have access to the OED:
Note 3c in particular. No empirical evidence, no reason.
Is this another rhetorical flourish, or are you claiming to be able to read minds again?
This is a matter of personal taste.
You repeated your analogy, but did not elucidate it. Which argument? What consequences?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 18, 2009 3:44 PM
QED.
If people had disregarded reality, they'd never have discovered something as counterintuitive as quantum theory (or the theory of relativity for that matter). Yet they work – and they work much better than the much more intuitive classical physics.
Only because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's not some kind of independent truth.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
December 18, 2009 4:14 PM
Owlmirror @405
Exactly. Well said. The word "evidence" has been stretched to include "stuff about which a whole bunch of sophisticated theologians feel strongly" -- which reminds me of Barbara Bradley Hagerty, and her "Fingerprints of God" book.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
December 18, 2009 4:22 PM
Here is more evidence of Barbara Bradley Hagerty's definition of "evidence":
All this and she was not even in sight of a triune waterfall.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 18, 2009 4:29 PM
Yet here you are repeatedly pulling the trigger on a demonstrably unloaded gun - and insisting that, simply because you assert it, we should fall down shot.
Forgive us if we don't play along.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 18, 2009 4:40 PM
Yawn, still no physical evidence for his imaginary and delusional deity. Until that physical evidence is shown, our only logical conclusion is that Robocop is a delusional fool, and he will remain as such until that evidence is produced. As I previously said, conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt. An eternally burning bush is a good start. Anything short of that, no. Robocop, do you have that level of evidence? Yes or No? If no, you have nothing but your presuppositions. Which means you aren't that logical and rational.
Posted by: CJO
|
December 18, 2009 4:48 PM
Historical evidence exists (best put forth, in my view, by N.T. Wright).
Bah. He's an apologist first and a scholar second, and, as such, he does not put all the options on the table and analyze them dispassionately, the way a historian striving for objectivity would. Here's a representitive sample of his work on the subject from this essay on his website:
Another clear option, not contradicted by the historical evidence, is that the Synoptic narrative did not recount actual events and no such person as the Jesus of that narrative ever lived. Wright won't even plug that scenario into his conundrum to see if it "makes sense of the whole picture." But it clears up the whole question while avoiding the awkwardness inherent in claiming that an action of God should be considered a fact of history.
Indeed the earliest Christians did believe that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. But conflating that belief with belief in a character from a narrative written later to express various faith communities' understanding of that belief and what it meant in their lives is conjuring "historical evidence" from vapor.
Have you ever read anything by Thomas L. Thompson? I highly recommend The Mythic Past. The professed belief by ancient persons in propositions like "Jesus rose from the dead" should not be equated to the professed belief by a modern person in a proposition about history like "George Washington commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War."
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
December 18, 2009 4:48 PM
one thing Pascal did get right was that how one evaluates an argument should be based, in part, upon the consequences thereof - robocop
No, that was another of the many things he got wrong. We should strive, individually and collectively, to evaluate arguments purely on their own merits. What action to take on the basis of an argument judged to be sound is another matter. There, we should of course take into account, alongside our evaluation of the argument itself, all the probable and plausible consequences of such actions, both if the conclusion of the argument is in fact correct, and if it is in fact incorrect.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 18, 2009 4:58 PM
Thanks for defining the appeal to consequences fallacy.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 18, 2009 5:04 PM
When it can be shown that Pascal's Wager is only applicable to Christianity, and the name 'God' cannot be crossed out and that of any other deity put in its place, then it will considered a valid argument.
Until that time it's only worth noting as an example of Christian rationalisation designed to impress shallow thinkers.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 18, 2009 5:11 PM
405: What do you mean by "unevidenced", here?
I believe and am committed to the propositions that all persons are created equal, that love is better than hate, that might doesn't make right and to any number of other ideas, none of which is supported by evidence. Every thought system, ideology or similar construct requires assumed starting points.
I think you're equivocating here on the word "evidence"....
I don't see how. From a legal standpoint, testimonial evidence is one of the four main types of evidence.
Wouldn't you agree that an empirical claim for the existence of God requires empirical evidence?
Have you read Sagan's Contact? If you're right, Ellie's claims should be rejected even though they are entirely true. How is that?
If we both reject the truth of what is claimed to be believed, is it because of mere perversity -- or because of a lack of corroborating empirical evidence in support of the testifiers' belief being true?
It needn't be either. We may simply reject the evidence as mistaken or simply not credible.
Historical evidence exists ... that a religious movement called Christianity was around in the first century CE.
Do you really think historical evidence exists as to more than that (even though the conclusions we draw from that evidence may conflict greatly)?
How so? This looks like a complete non-sequitur.
Cause and effect are relentless. Accordingly, Dawkins (for example and among many others) rightly recognizes that without something non-material, we can't have volition -- we're merely meat machines (albeit amazing meat machines) doing what we're programmed to do. That we have volition can be tested by a visit to an ice cream shop -- vanilla or strawberry?
I'm sorry that you dislike parsimony.
I have no quarrel with parsimony. It does a good job with probabilities. It doesn't determine truth.
Given the complete absence of evidence for a personal God, the absence of that personal God is a reasonable and parsimonious inference. Again, this is provisional knowledge, which could be changed by empirical evidence.
While I disagree about the evidence, I acknowledge that your position is a reasonable one.
This looks like another non-sequitur.
My point is simply that science, by its nature, is much better at finding error than at ascertaining and constructing positive truth.
If God is real now, God could provide empirical evidence now.
He surely could. But I don't see that as a distinction that makes a difference.
You might want to re-read the Pauline letters a little more carefully.
Which passages do you have in mind?
Note 3c in particular. No empirical evidence, no reason.
A lack of proof is not the same as a lack of evidence. Moreover, evidence needn't be empirical. Your claim remains unsupported here.
Is this another rhetorical flourish, or are you claiming to be able to read minds again?
It's mere suspicion.
This is a matter of personal taste.
If it were entirely a matter of taste, there would be no reason to study great works of art and literature. It's fair to say that a claim to Bach's superiority over Beethoven (or vice versa) is a matter of taste; a claim that Milli Vanilli is superior to either is not.
You repeated your analogy, but did not elucidate it. Which argument? What consequences?
What part of "how one evaluates an argument should be based, in part, upon the consequences thereof" is unclear?
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
December 18, 2009 5:11 PM
I haven't read Wright, but if CJO's quote is a fair sample, he does indeed allow his religious beliefs to determine his scholarly conclusions.
First, the earliest account of the resurrection dates from two or probably more decades after the alleged event - even if we accept that the 4th century complete gospel manuscripts that are the earliest we have are accurate copies of what was originally written. Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is unreliable; anthropological research shows that oral traditions change rapidly; studies of modern religious movements show on what an exiguous basis a successful religion can grow. The gospel accounts of ordinary events are in many cases inconsistent with each other, or with what is known from other sources and archaeology: it is therefore absurd to credit them when they report physically impossible events vouched for by no other source or evidence.
Second, Mormonism provides a modern counterexample to the alleged uniqueness of Christianity: when Joseph Smith was lynched, the Mormons did not conclude that they had been mistaken; Brigham Young became "prophet", but he never claimed equality of status with the founder. Another counterexample is provided by the Mandaeans, who particularly revere John the Baptist (Jesus being dismissed as a false Messiah).
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 18, 2009 5:20 PM
How about the part where you demonstrate that what you claim are consequences are even possible? I could say that you shouldn't turn around right now or the mumblefrump will eat you; will you continue to look straight ahead and believe in the mumblefrump simply because I say it exists? If not, why not?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 18, 2009 5:25 PM
Yawn, still nothing. Robocop, you may have convinced yourself, but that takes very little for a delusional fool like you. But to convince us, scientific forensic evidence is required, not conflicting witness testimony, which is the weakest evidence. Still nothing but your self delusions...
Posted by: SteveM
|
December 18, 2009 5:25 PM
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 18, 2009 5:31 PM
Which is an interesting proposition. So if a child is told that if he doesn't eat his vegetables, aliens from the 5th dimension will open up a time portal in his room and devour him in such a way that will leaving him agonising pain for the rest of his prolonged existence, then it's right to actually believe in such aliens because of the consequences thereof?Posted by: Mr T
|
December 18, 2009 5:58 PM
Philosophy FAIL!You are equivocating on the meaning of "evidence". Stop thinking and arguing like a lawyer, because you're making claims that are completely irrelevant to whether any supernatural beings, gods, or specifically the Christian god that you personally believe exists. Considering the issue "from a legal standpoint" is utterly pointless. Either you don't know better, or you're dishonest. Since you're a lawyer, I'm assuming dishonest.
Are testimonies in court any better? No, they're much, much, much worse. Any kind of testimony? No. They are merely the last leg to stand on.This business about Pascal's Wager is ... uh... interesting. You do realize that as a lawyer you're headed for the ninth circle of hell, right?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 18, 2009 6:02 PM
Kind of curious...
What would constitute physical evidence for Robocop's deity? NoR keeps demanding it, but I would be suprised if this concept of the almighty was meaningful enough to predict observations about the natural world while precluding others. Evidence can corroborate or a refute a scientific hypothesis, but not a metaphysical claim. I bet Robocops bionic Lawkeeper is metaphysical.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 18, 2009 6:04 PM
419: Yes, if we were other characters in the book, we should reject her claims. We only know that they are true because we are reading the book.
So we're clear -- if (say) your spouse were to tell you X (perhaps "Our daughter has been kidnapped; come home now!"), you would reject X unless and until you examined empirical evidence for X? I'm highly skeptical that anyone actually lives that way, so I want to be clear.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 18, 2009 6:11 PM
I think this a bit misleading, after all a wife should be a trusted source and would not joke over such matters. If a complete stranger were to ring up and say they've kidnapped your daughter, would you take it on face value? In that case, I'm sure you'd probably ask for at least a little bit of evidence to support such a statement.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 18, 2009 6:13 PM
Simple, physical evidence that will convince scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. An eternally burning bush is a good example.Metaphysical=imaginary. That won't do the job. Physical=concrete. That does the job.Your skepticism is irrelevant. You must convince us, no the other way around. So far, you are failing miserably.Posted by: Paul
|
December 18, 2009 6:16 PM
Your analogy would fit better if there was no evidence that you even had a daughter in the first place.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 18, 2009 6:16 PM
No, let's make it really clear:
Also, just for good measure:
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 18, 2009 6:17 PM
What about if your wife rang you and said "there's a Tyrannosaurus in our backyard"? Would you take that on face value?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 18, 2009 6:26 PM
If if I had a wife and/or a daughter, I'd know they existed and would consider the likelihood of that happening - i.e. if my hypothetical daughter was sitting on the hypothetical couch behind me I would know that my hypothetical wife was messing around. If said hypothetical daughter hadn't come home then I'd be a bit more concerned - so yes, I'd be examining the empirical evidence to an extent.
But we hear these kinds of thought experiments all the time, and the wooist involved always forget that there are fewer reasons to believe in a god than there are to believe one's wife.
A more accurate analogy of what you're trying to do is to have a woman I've never met come to me, insist she's my wife, claim that she and I have a daughter together, and try to convince me that that daughter has been kidnapped.
Hardly the same thing.
Posted by: Ben in Texas
|
December 18, 2009 6:27 PM
Whether or not one would believe this fictional wife is irrelevant, isn't it? Just because you might believe her, that doesn't mean it's true nor that her statement is good evidence.
Posted by: Ben in Texas
|
December 18, 2009 6:31 PM
What if the wife is sleeping with another man, and the statement about the kidnapping is a ruse to draw you to a certain place to be murdered?
What if the wife is hallucinating from ingesting something she didn't mean to?
What if the wife just woke up and is still in the clutches of a bad dream?
What if the wife suffered a blow to the head...
etc.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 18, 2009 6:39 PM
Unless you're a sufficiently religious nutjob.
In a case that is fairly similar to the abovementioned Mormons, Kim Il-sung is still the president of North Korea. The newspaper headline "The Kim is dead, long live the Kim" is not quite accurate in its implications – Kim Jong-il is not the president, and never will be.
Ew. Strawberries stink, and so does everything made from them.
Nothing determines truth in science.
Suppose we discover the truth. How can we find out whether what we've found is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?
What?!? Of course it is.
I wouldn't hesitate to point out that any such taste is a mind-bogglingly bad taste; but it's still a taste, which makes the whole thing a question of taste. Like... strawberry.
Some people have known since at least the 12th century that if you use reason to argue against reason, you contradict yourself, while if you don't use reason to argue against reason, you're unreasonable.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 18, 2009 6:41 PM
What if the wife is actually Cthulhu waking from his dream to eat your soul?
What if the wife is actually a Cartesian demon who has tricked you into believing in a false reality, or that it is an angel, or Jesus, or God?
What if the wife is actually a god who is jealous that you believe in a fictional god, or who will punish you for believing in absurd things without evidence?
Etc.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 18, 2009 6:43 PM
Given the analogy, surely it would be pertinent to put some supernatural happenings into it. "Your daughter has been taken into the 9th dimension", "Your daughter is currently being held hostage by orcs", "Your daughter has had her life force stolen by a rogue fairy", "Your daughter has been abducted by aliens from Andromeda" - it really doesn't matter what in the end. But the plausibility for a real world happenings is radically different from a paranormal or supernatural happenings.
Trusted source A doesn't follow to Extremely implausible X. Hume's problem of miracles and whatnot.
Posted by: SteveM
|
December 18, 2009 6:44 PM
This is hardly a good analogy to Ellie's claims in Contact. An only slightly better one would be if my wife rang me up and said she had a vision of our daughter (who is, say, currently living way from home) being kidnapped. While I would believe she had the vision, I would be less inclined to believe that my daughter had been kidnapped until I saw some other evidence of it.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 18, 2009 6:45 PM
Better wording: if you argue against reason without using reason in your argument, you're being unreasonable.
Also, vanilla is good. Strawberry is not, so I don't need to exert any free will.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 18, 2009 6:53 PM
David Marjanović:
Milli Vanilli were not singing on their records and were lip-synching in concerts. I assume that "superior" in the artistic sense requires that one actually perform the artform in question. Not all artists are complete frauds. Unless we're talking about different things (e.g. the artists who actually sang Milli Vanilli's songs, or perhaps talents other than their singing), the po-mo arguments about taste do not support the likes Milli Vanilli. Also, I like strawberries, even strawberry pie. Would you provide that link again please?Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 18, 2009 7:08 PM
I can't think of anything that I could observe that would convince me that the "divine" exists, because to exist outside of the natural world begs the meaning of existence. Burning bush doesn't work. I have hallucinated, which is a physical explanation. Would an eternally burning bush do it for you? How would you know that it would burn eternally in the future? What evidence are you expecting someone to produce?
Not all metaphysical claims are bullshit (although, I think divine claims are). They just aren't amenable to falsification. Example: "Stealing is wrong"...this is the basis of a law that people generally accept. There isn't a lot of controversy surrounding such laws. You might not agree that stealing is wrong, but you would be hard put to assert exactly what evidence would falsify it.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 18, 2009 7:16 PM
Issues regarding Milli Vanilli notwithstanding, I still find this argument idiotic.First of all, it is a fact of life that many things depend on personal taste. You can study how others made certain works of art, or even how someone cooked a steak, and if it meets your standards of taste, that study will help you to produce works of art of your own that will also meet your standards. Art is stuff that people make, and sometimes someone somewhere happens to like it. The whole category of stuff we call "art" does not depend on whether or not there are objective standards.
Secondly, you're here preaching us of the virtues of "testimonial evidence", yet things that are a "matter of personal taste" aren't worth studying? Is this a contradiction, or am I confused somehow?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 18, 2009 7:16 PM
I would be a physical object that could be tested to confirm that it isn't obeying natural laws with the eternal flame. And it still flames in spite of attempts to put it out by vacuum, etc.Metaphysical=non-concrete=imaginary for the most part. Which is why metaphysical philosophical claims for a deity are bullshit. No substance to test. Sophists may claim otherwise, but that is the case.
Posted by: Josh
|
December 18, 2009 7:18 PM
Who is telling you that science promises TruthTM? I need to kick this person's ass.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 18, 2009 7:31 PM
Since relativity provided the theoretical basis for nuclear weapons and since nuclear weapons killed about half a million people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then relativity should be discarded. The appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 18, 2009 7:35 PM
Robocop,
And you would be wrong to claim that. I doubt anyone here is under a delusion that they have no biases, but that doesn't make theism any more reasonable. You talk "evidence" but you have not presented anything convincing.
Not at all. Those are not reasonable means of evidence for anything existing outside of people's memories. There has to be more than just the recall of memory from one person or a group of people to consider a such a recollection as evidence. Eyewitness testimony only gives us information on what a person believes happened or remembers happening, it does not tell us that something actually happened until it corroborates with independent lines of evidence. The ability of people to misremember and lie is a central reason for skepticism.I think what is confusing you is that our societies are built on a level of trust. We can usually trust people we encounter to not deceive us or to be at least cautiously honest in communications. We need that for society to work. So if someone says they read a book earlier or gives you directions, it is easy to accept what they say as true; it makes no difference when you have no reason to doubt them. We do have reasons, however, to doubt the claims of monotheists about their god, so it isn't one of those things that we can accept unchallenged.
Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you search diligently for evidence of one thing you think explains some phenomenon and instead find something else that explains that phenomenon or when you research the phenomenon itself and find out the claim that the phenomenon exists was unjustified to begin with.Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 18, 2009 8:28 PM
Only for social interactions where it is your word against theirs, and even in such a case a testimony ought to be supported by other lines of evidence, otherwise you get a James Bain case of locking a non-guilty person up for 35 years on a whim.Just look at the Dover trial that considered whether or not ID was scientific to see how well testimonial evidence stands up against real, demonstrative, and documentary evidence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 18, 2009 8:46 PM
One problem with personal testimony about religion is there's so many conflicting testimonies. Pope Benedict and Fred Phelps and Bishop Spong have testimonies of completely different gods, yet all three consider themselves to be Christians.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 18, 2009 10:21 PM
And, tellingly, of those three two of them (I'm not sure about Spong) would quite happily argue that the other two aren't Christians at all.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 19, 2009 9:17 AM
Just for the record, Testimony is something that a lot of legal professionals are trying to weaken specifically because it's so often wrong. Thank the scientific community for that, I suppose.
Too bad we're not done doing it yet.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 19, 2009 12:30 PM
424: I think this a bit misleading, after all a wife should be a trusted source and would not joke over such matters. If a complete stranger were to ring up and say they've kidnapped your daughter, would you take it on face value? In that case, I'm sure you'd probably ask for at least a little bit of evidence to support such a statement.
You're trying to move the goalposts. If you wish to claim that testimonial evidence is never acceptable or actionable, you'd have to tell your spouse (in my example) to take a hike unless and until s/he had some empirical evidence.
428: What about if your wife rang you and said "there's a Tyrannosaurus in our backyard"? Would you take that on face value?
Now you're questioning the nature and quality of the evidence and not its status as evidence.
438: I can't think of anything that I could observe that would convince me that the "divine" exists, because to exist outside of the natural world begs the meaning of existence.
Like Dawkins at the end of TGD. Thus for those who think this way (admitted or not), any claim that "evidence could convince me otherwise" is a false one. The preconceived philosophical commitment (a Kuhn paradigm) will control and require the rejection of any real or apparent contradictory evidence.
439: The whole category of stuff we call "art" does not depend on whether or not there are objective standards.
So an artist is only great because either (a) lots of people like his/her work (Dan Brown in a great artist?), or (b) sufficient self-proclaimed experts with sufficient power proclaim "great" status (if undiscovered by the wider world Bach wouldn't have been great?)?
442: The appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.
Strictly as a measure of truth or falsity, sure. But you should notice that I didn't raise the issue in those terms. In real life, decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Many beliefs, views and commitments demand action. If I act and what action I take depends in large measure on the cost of action or inaction and the consequences thereof. I'm looking out across my patio to my pool. If I were to think I saw that a toddler had fallen in and was struggling, I'd simply get up and pull the child out. The cost of my doing so would be low (it wouldn't be dangerous and the pool is only a few steps away -- and if I were wrong about what I thought I saw, it wouldn't be a big deal), while the consequences of inaction would be catastrophic. On the other hand, if a similar situation took place at one of the nearby beaches, at night, with the wind howling, and the apparent victim far from shore, the calculation would be quite different because the cost of action would be very high (depending upon water temperature, the strength of my swimming, etc.). In that case, I would likely consider other options, especially if I wasn't certain about what I'd seen.
443: And you would be wrong to claim that.
Yet #438 admits it. Imagine that.
Eyewitness testimony only gives us information on what a person believes happened or remembers happening, it does not tell us that something actually happened until it corroborates with independent lines of evidence.
So if you were faced with my posited example [423: if (say) your spouse were to tell you X (perhaps "Our daughter has been kidnapped; come home now!"), you would reject X unless and until you examined empirical evidence for X?], you'd tell your spouse to call back when s/he could provide some empirical evidence?
Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you search diligently for evidence of one thing you think explains some phenomenon and instead find something else that explains that phenomenon or when you research the phenomenon itself and find out the claim that the phenomenon exists was unjustified to begin with.
CDOs were created using precisely your reasoning. By doing so, Wall Street fell victim to Taleb's "black swan problem," with horrendous economic consequences.
444: Just look at the Dover trial that considered whether or not ID was scientific to see how well testimonial evidence stands up against real, demonstrative, and documentary evidence.
I'm well aware of the problems inherent in testimonial evidence (all forms of evidence have their limitations, in fact). Those problems are considerable. But (again) those problems relate to the nature and quality of the evidence and not to its status as evidence.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 19, 2009 12:42 PM
Robocop,
No way. At this point in our history, we know that brains are not gateways to a supernatural realm but the products of Nature. The ability to create imaginative fictional universes does not instantiate those fictions into reality. You would have to show evidence for the divine that is external to brains, then it would convince us. Stories, testimonials, don't count.Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 19, 2009 12:59 PM
Robocop,
It looks like Taleb's "black swan" is "anything that happens that we did not expect to happen". It's bullshit. Besides, follow through with your thought: you are proposing that one day we might discover a single brain with an uplink to a divine realm. Or perhaps a person named "Harry Potter" will turn out to be a real wizard.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 19, 2009 1:07 PM
Yawn, Robocop still trying the impossible, to justify his belief in an imaginary deity so we think he is rational? Sorry Robocop, this one of those put up or shut up cases. Put up the conclusive physical evidence for your deity, or shut up. So far, you keep making the case you should have shut up weeks ago as you are evidenceless, but you haven't. Doesn't make you look that rational.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 19, 2009 1:09 PM
449: You would have to show evidence for the divine that is external to brains, then it would convince us.
You're asserting that only a very specific type of evidence could convince you. Okay. But that's quite different from what #438 alleged ("I can't think of anything that I could observe that would convince me...").
450: It looks like Taleb's "black swan" is "anything that happens that we did not expect to happen". It's bullshit.
You might want to avoid jumping to a conclusion based solely upon a Wikipedia article. Just a thought.
Taleb's website is here.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 19, 2009 1:31 PM
451: Doesn't make you look that rational.
Really, Nerd, you should give the egocentrism a rest. On what basis could you possibly think I care a whit about how I look to you (of all people)?
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 19, 2009 2:16 PM
I did have that thought, you know, so it wasn't a black swan event for you to say that. How about "blue spirals over Norway" or "two moose outside my front door at 9 a.m."? Those are on the same level as finding a black swan. Finding a brain outfitted with a divine communicator in the future is about as probable as finding a Sasquatch in the goat shed during a solar eclipse.The black swan analogy for finding evidence of the divine has other problems. When we searched the animal kingdom, we found black swans. We also eventually learned that black swans could exist even if it would have turned out that they didn't exist. With the divine, things have swung the other way in terms of probabilities, becoming only more improbable as we continue to study the matter.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
December 19, 2009 2:29 PM
We'll, to be frank, I might just say "OMG! Kidnapped? What happened exactly?" If the hypothetical spouse replied "The principal called and said she didn't come to school, and I got a ransom note in the mail", that would be a cause for concern (suggesting lines of evidence for kidnapping that can be easily confirmed). However, if the spouse said "I think she was kidnapped because I had a dream to that effect", well, pardon me for not jumping out of my skin just yet.Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 3:48 PM
robo:
No. I'm saying that the fact that there are no objective standards for artistic value does not render all of art not worth studying. There are certainly objective components to the study of art, but at the same time the intentions and perceptions of the artist and audience are always partly subjective. "Great artists" are judged by individuals as great at accomplishing their artistic goals, whatever they may be. One can learn to make "great" art by studying the techniques developed by others; by informing their own work by understanding the history and philosophical background of other artists; by learning how to best use those techniques to achieve a particular goal or effect; by creating works that suit the interests or desires of the artist, a particular audience, the current society as a whole, etc. Those things require studying art, what it is one is making, how and why it is made, and what function if any it serves for individuals or for society. They do not depend on whether an artwork has a value in any objectively "true" sense. If you're expecting that in art, that's your problem.Getting back to the topic of religion...
What consequences are there for a belief in a god that you do not know exists? How could you possibly know what those consequences could possibly be? At least with your ridiculous kidnapped-child analogy, then at least you can be reasonably sure those other beings exist, and so you should act accordingly because you can be reasonably sure what the set of possible consequences are for action or inaction. You're not only assuming that god exists, but also that it has certain properties: namely, that it will reward believers or punish non-believers. What if there is a god, but it does not have those properties? More generally, what if there there are no otherworldly consequences if you do not believe in a god?
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 3:57 PM
grrr... blockquote fail.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 4:06 PM
This variant of Pascal's wager is probably the funniest:
Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
|
December 19, 2009 4:25 PM
Mr T, there is one difference. The pain from being torched by Torquemada will end at death. (Alas, the poor person will never feel pleasure again neither.) The god that Pascal wants you to accept will hurt you forever.
I am grateful that the thought of eternal pain does not enter into my weighing of the facts. Perhaps because it is not a fact.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 19, 2009 4:35 PM
robocop #448
Okay, personal testimony is evidence. But, as I mentioned before, the available personal testimony is contradictory. So how do we know the personal testimony that you hold true is actually true when it's easy to find someone who says something completely different. Note that I don't even have to know what personal testimony you adhere to, I know that I can find someone saying the opposite.
For us to accept personal testimony it has to be shown to be reliable. So far that isn't happening.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 4:38 PM
That's true, Janine.
If we're just talking about imaginary rewards and punishments, I assume it makes no difference who is doling them out. Perhaps Robo can enlighten us heathens.
In the meantime, I will threaten everyone and their dog with an imaginary being who punishes everyone who believes in a god. It will be far more than fire and brimstone, I'm afraid, worse than anything Milton could've imagined. I would appreciate it if Robo can refute that, or he shall suffer severely. Better get crackin'.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 19, 2009 4:49 PM
Shorter Robocop: 'you'd probably believe someone if they told you something and some people have told you (indirectly) that my god exists; ergo, my god exists.'
Even if - for the sake of argument - we let you assert this particular claim (with its implicit flaws), you're still faced with the problem that it can apply to any and every god anyone chooses to use it for. Without a way to specify that it can only apply to one god (and only one god) then it, like Pascal's wager, is only an example of a clever-sounding rationalisation designed to ease cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 19, 2009 4:51 PM
A god who threatens non-believers is a terrorist. I don't deal with terrorists.
Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
|
December 19, 2009 4:55 PM
'Tis. I am tempted to steal that use use it for myself.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 19, 2009 5:04 PM
How can I be shifting the goalposts when I didn't set them, I'm merely commenting on the situation being one you can trust, i.e. it's a real world situation and although unusual it is still plausible. Of course as many others have pointed out above, the situation may demand acting without question, what if your wife said she knew this because she had a vision and by the time you get home your daughter is walking in the door off the school bus?The problem with the example is that it's using trusted sources for a real world event where time is of the essence. It's not shifting the goalposts more than pointing out the problem of eyewitness testimony.
Exactly. My wife tells me she rolled a die and it came up six - I could believe that. She rolled the die 50 times and it came up 6 every time? Somehow I'd be incredulous.Sagan didn't say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" because it flowed nicely off his tongue. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable at the best of times so when it comes to matters that are either unknown or unreal then there's going to need to be something better than eyewitness testimony. It's the difference between my wife seeing a spider in the house and seeing a ghost.
Unlike post #438, I fully accept that there are particular observations that would convince me of the supernatural, and further observations that would convince me that there are interventionist deities. Empirical measurements of a violation of the natural order would be sufficient.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 19, 2009 5:12 PM
I didn't write post #438. Nor did anyone else but Antiochus Epiphanes; unless you can demonstrate that there's some kind of atheist holy book that's being cited when he/she said this, and/or point to the results of the poll where Antiochus Epiphanes was elected, unanimously, to speak for every atheist on the planet, then you can't apply what was written to anyone else.
There are any number of things which would convince me of your god's existence. Ditto any of the many other gods. What about you? Can you honestly say that you're amenable to becoming a Hindu if it could be demonstrated that Vishnu is real and your god isn't?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 19, 2009 5:34 PM
Janine, please use it with my blessing. ;-)
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 19, 2009 7:24 PM
The question I posed in #438 hasn't really been answered except by NoR, who said that any phenomenon that violated a natural law would be taken as belief in God. Doesn't make much sense to me (because laws are not universally verifiable) but never mind. I don't speak for all atheists, but I'm sure some would agree with my position. I have made a metaphysical choice to reject belief in supernatural phenomena. This isn't because evidence has been brought to bear against the supernatural. On the contrary, by being supernatural these phenomena are by definition inscrutable. So I say, fuck them. They aren't interesting. Natural phenomena and explanations are scrutable. We can learn about them using the only tools that we have (reason and senses)...I will always prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one. In the absence of a natural explanation, I will remain agnostic.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 7:56 PM
Antiochus Epiphanes:
I think I can more or less agree with you. Considering the lack of evidence, and the lack of a coherent definition for what a "supernatural" being or phenomenon would be, I personally don't believe it's even possible for "supernatural" things to exist.
(from here on, I will spare you an excessive number of scare quotes ... insert generous portions as you see fit.)
What is there to say about a supernatural being? What would constitute a supernatural person, a supernatural horse, a supernatural plant, a supernatural law or lawgiver, a supernatural process, a supernatural whatever-you-like?
Perhaps you laugh at the idea (and you should), but is a supernatural horse or a supernatural plant any more or less likely than any of the other options? I say the likelihood of them all is zero, until it can be demonstrated otherwise.
Short of introducing some arbitrary definitions for supernatural stuff; if such things do exist, there seems to be nothing that we as natural beings could possibly know about them. I suppose I wouldn't say that I can be absolutely certain of that, but as you say, fuck 'em. They're useless as explanations of the world. Science works, bitches.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 19, 2009 8:12 PM
This is what I find the problem to be with an interventionist deity. If there is such thing as the supernatural, an interventionist deity by definition has to be able to interact with the natural - otherwise how can it be interventionist? To take that definition of supernatural would be to reject the possibility of God as is understood in a theistic sense. So any theist positing supernatural in such a manner is in effect proving the point that atheists have - that there is no such thing as God.For me, it has to follow that if there's an interventionist deity, then there has to be a means to see natural effects for supernatural causes. Thus my justification for rejecting #438 is that a deity needs to produce real-world results. And on that, then a violation of what we could consider the natural order would be evidence for supernatural causes. Say a bottle of pure water spontaneously turning into expensive French wine, or an amputee instantly regaining limbs.
So for me it depends on what it means to be supernatural. But if the supernatural is going to be anything other than pure speculation, then there needs to be an interface between the natural and supernatural and we should be able to see natural effects from supernatural causes if such supernatural causes exist. And of course this hinges on the nature of what people define as God.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 19, 2009 8:21 PM
Oops, must have made a typo in the HTML. It's this Wikipedia article... which, strangely, doesn't mention the apparently famous passage I paraphrased. I read about it in some book on the discoveries of the Islamic Middle Ages...
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 8:43 PM
Kel:
That's just fine with me, but even that would not be conclusive evidence of anything "supernatural". I'm sure you know history is full of cases where people have believed natural phenomena are "divine" or "supernatural". To me it seems like a bunch of meaningless words. I could come up with an arbitrary definition which implies quantum mechanics is guided by "supernatural causes", but that wouldn't make it so.Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 19, 2009 8:49 PM
Conclusive, no. Indicative? Yes.If I had a staff turn into a snake, or water turn into wine, or the sky lit up with supernovae from across the galaxy to say "Jesus is lord", or a voice that everyone heard in their own language gave the exact same message at exactly the same time, or an amputee instantaneously regrowing limbs - such events to me would be indicative of a supernatural force at work. Now it may be that there are undiscovered phenomena that can explain such things, but at that point I'd be willing to concede that a supernatural explanation is possible.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 9:25 PM
David Marjanović, thanks for the link.
Kel:
I think we're on the same page, but isn't that effectively defining supernatural as "anything that is not possible in nature" or "anything we cannot explain"?I will admit that something like that might show the supernatural is possible; but given what we know now, the idea of a "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron.
Even if we discovered that "God" exists, that by itself wouldn't explain much. If we saw "Jesus is Lord" written in supernovae (and decided it wasn't aliens playing a prank), we might conclude the phenomena is due to something "supernatural", but what exactly would that explain? The wide variety of beliefs about Jesus would not all become reasonable. The Bible wouldn't suddenly start making sense. We would have to broaden our concept of what is possible, but instead of explaining anything, I think it would make everything more absurd.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 19, 2009 9:31 PM
Profound apologies to Sven DiMilo; those who taught me grammar, Latin, and typing; and everyone reading this thread.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 19, 2009 9:47 PM
I think your conclusion is arguable, inasmuch as you would not be able to hold such propositions without defining your terms as concepts that arise from personal experience. Furthermore, neuropsychology provides tools to examine how people's brains hold such concepts, and allows demonstrations of how behaviors based on such concepts can be changed by the application of hormones or hormone blockers, or by using transcranial magnetic induction to affect those parts of the brain where behaviors based on those concepts arise. Finally, game theory provides ways to determine the outcome of group interactions based on iterated applications of rules based on various propositions.
In short, you do not convince me that those propositions are completely unsupported by evidence. I will acknowledge that they do fall under concepts that are difficult to define and ascertain as being absolutely true or absolutely false, though.
Ah, but as I noted some minimal set of "starting points" are axiomatically true. Clearly, others arise from personal experience, and from personality. Personality may be hard to pin down and define exactly, but it arises from psychology, which arises from the mind and brain and body, which can be examined, to some extent, empirically.
I, at least, am not arguing the law, but the actual determination of whether a proposition -- "a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable exists" -- is true or false, or can be determined to be true or false, and if indeterminate, can be safely rejected by logical parsimony. In determining the actual truth or falsity of such an empirical proposition, empirical evidence is the only evidence that I am referring to.
In evaluating this proposition, the only testimony that would apply would be God's own testimony, directly from itself, here and now, as an empirical reality. No other testimony is applicable precisely because the claim is being made for an entity that would have both the ability and motive to speak for itself here and now, yet does not do so.
When testimonial evidence is evaluated in court, is an ancient and badly-copied written work accepted if it contradicts reality and itself? Is it given the same weight as a living person whose testimony can be cross-examined?
I did read it, and re-read the last few chapters just now to refresh my memory.
First of all, it was not just Ellie, but Ellie and four others. From Earth perspective, five humans (3 males, 2 females), all from different nations, entered the dodecahedron, and exited 20 minutes later. They claimed to have made of a journey that lasted more than a day, to another star system (Vega), and then to a place that looked like a huge interstellar transit station which, when they exited, opened on a beach in a place much like Earth. All records they made during this trip were gone, explained in the book as being because the records were all made on magnetic media, and they were exposed to magnetic flux from parts of the Machine in operation. Apparently, no records were made using chemical or mechanical processes. No materials were returned except for some grains of sand from a beach.
Each person presumably recounted a story that was consistent with each of the others, and presumably retained that consistency under cross-examination/interrogation.
Some points that I thought of:
1) The magnetic media may have been randomized beyond the point where the electronics of the devices that read from them could distinguish them from noise, but those media should have been given to a data recovery specialist. It's actually pretty hard to wipe magnetic media completely, and they should have retained something that could be recovered.
2) The sand may have been conveyed from Earth, in which case it would yield little interesting information. But it might have been possible to analyze it more closely in order to determine that. If the sand was actually alien, it might have contained microbes that were similarly alien, or unusual trace elements or isotope ratios, thus providing corroborating empirical evidence.
3) They were accused of setting their watches forward, but I wonder, did none of the devices sent along have internal clocks that were inaccessible to outside interference?
4) There may well have been "clocks" which could not have been tampered with: The clocks of their bodies. Each of them ate food during the 24-hour period; a thorough medical exam afterward might well be able to determine how long before excretion the food was eaten. If they excreted at the beach, there may well have been a mass discrepancy when they returned. Additional temporal information would have been recorded in the length of head, body, and facial hair, fingernail growth, and possibly sunburn and/or tanning if the simulated beach included UV as part of the light from the simulated Sun.
5) Observations were made of Vega which could be corroborated by observation from Earth: Two massive black holes in orbit, and a huge bank of radio telescopes.
Except for the last, no-one in the book brought up or considered these points. Obviously, Carl Sagan was trying to tell a story, not account for every last detail. Yet it can be in the tiniest details that empirical evidence can be found.
As such, the five scientists' stories did at least potentially have supporting empirical evidence.
Why would we think is was mistaken? Why would we think it not credible?
Obviously not.
Not so, else there would be no contingency and no quantum indeterminacy. We do not live in a clockwork universe.
I think you misinterpret Dawkins, there. Setting aside for one moment the question of the general existence of volition, do you deny that insanity exists, as a defect of the brain, and that this can affect behavior? Do you deny the existence of involuntary reflexes and involuntary actions?
Secondly, your conclusion, is firstly based on a false premise, and also begs the question, and therefore cannot be concluded to be right.
Furthermore, this does not address the fact that you are still asserting a non-sequitur. Even if substance dualism is true, it is not evidence for a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable.
Why would sufficiently complex meat machines not have behaviors indistinguishable from the appearance from volition in general?
Do you have volition over the fact that you find the aromatic chemicals that comprise both flavours pleasing?
What is truth? How would you determine it?
What is "positive truth"? How does one go about ascertaining it? How does one go about constructing it? How do you know that what you have ascertained and/or constructed is actually truth?
It could be argued that everything in the synoptics, even if the miracles described were conceded as being true as understood by their writers, would equally support an entity with sufficiently advanced science and technology rather than the magic of an O³ creator-entity, and therefore not be in support of a God that necessarily is present and alive and aware now.
That's a pretty huge difference.
1 Corinthians 18-25, specifically verse 21 in context.
There are probably others.
Are you conceding that faith is belief without empirical evidence or logical proof? Because that's certainly what I meant.
The parts that I asked you to clarify: What the argument is, and what the consequences are.
You made an argument about gun handling and gun safety. Guns and bullets are empirically real devices; the damage done by a bullet fired into human flesh is an empirically real consequence. How does this in any way relate to the topic under discussion, the empirical existence of a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable?
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 19, 2009 9:48 PM
I think not possible in nature is stronger grounds than anything we cannot explain. The latter is the worship of gaps, the former would give a strong indication of the type of force that is being posited.As you pointed out, it's more indicative than conclusive. One can't help but think of Shermer's last law. What can we really infer about the interventionist force? We might be able to infer that it is personal in some way to humanity, but we couldn't from those observations alone conclude that it is omnipotent / omniscient / omnibenevolent / omnipresent / etc. But that there is something there would be significant in itself, and not ignorable.
Agreed, it would reveal very little in the way of what we can infer. Indicative, not conclusive. And it would be much better than what they have now - which is an undetectable interventionist deity.Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 19, 2009 9:50 PM
Kel: I get what you are saying. But the theists can't have it both ways...retreating to "mystery" whenever it is convenient while pointing to natural phenomena as the result of divine intervention. If one wants to posit an interventionist god, it is really up to them to deduce what observations of the natural world are entailed by the existence of the deity and which ones are precluded. I have never heard a concept of the deity that is meaningful enough to provide such a deduction. That's why I think the challenge of evidence has to be moved back a step. We can't demand theists to produce evidence until they provide the argument for why such evidence would corroborate or (or ballsy theists) refute their deity. The arguments can then be examined, critiqued, challenged and refined, in which case their concept enters the realm of a scientific hypothesis and is amenable to test.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 19, 2009 10:09 PM
I completely agree, and I find that one of the infuriating things about those who argue for theism. Not only in this sense of trying to have their interventionist god and protecting it too, but when they will retreat back to a mysterious abstract which we can't say anything about. Then have the nerve to call anyone who dismisses such a notion as a "fundamentalist" or "closed minded".It's like a game of theistic whack-a-mole, any time you go to hit, they've come up in another place and proclaimed "missed me". It's infuriating, it shows the vacuity of the concept, but ultimately the question of gods should be external to the antics of those arguing it.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 19, 2009 10:40 PM
theistic whack-a-mole! Like that.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 20, 2009 2:55 AM
Analogy failure. CDOs are not like a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable.
I think it's worth emphasizing that the problem of induction being referred to here is, in this case, an empirical claim: All swans are white. An empirical counter-example was found, thus empirically falsifying the claim.
The problem with the simplistic example is that it confuses natural language with the language of logic. An empirical skeptic would emphasize that in the statement, "all" is short for "all known examples of", and point out that "swans" is not well defined in its specifics (does it mean "swans everywhere" or "species of swans on the continent of the speaker"?), and further logical and definitional quibbles and clarifications could be made.
A similar analysis could be made of the economic situations that Taleb is discussing: The participants in the economic fiasco had an empirically incorrect model of what they were doing with respect to the goal they presumably hoped to achieve (maximize profits), and this was demonstrated empirically.
But problems with induction or conceptualizations of complex systems are certainly not in any way a logical or empirical-evidence based argument in favor of the existence of a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable. It simply does not follow at all.
Is there any particular reason that you think it relevant?
And a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable that actually existed, and whose knowledge included the fact that humans have epistemic problems with induction and conceptualizations of complex systems would have all the more reason to provide empirical demonstration of its existence.
A God that hides bears the responsibility for the evils done in its name.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 20, 2009 3:39 AM
To address the philosophical arguments being made: After reading up on metaphysical naturalism, I think that philosophy is in accord with my own thinking. It's a monistic concept, because substance dualism is incoherent. Even if God and ghosts and angels exist, the very fact that they interact with things in our universe means that they are conceptually part of the same thing as our universe. Even if these things only interacted very rarely with our universe, the very fact that interaction can occur, causing effects in our universe, means only that it's logically necessary to expand the concept of naturalism out to encompass the demonstrated phenomena, not insist that it is somehow separate when it manifestly is not.
Of course, even if something "miraculous" occurs -- which in the metaphysical naturalism paradigm just means something far beyond human science and knowledge -- like a talking burning bush on every street corner, or the stars rearranging themselves to spell out words, such tricks would demonstrate power and knowledge, but not necessarily character.
If the message from the bush and/or stars is "fundamentalist Christianity is true", then God is basically an asshole.
If the message from the bush and/or stars is "Pastafarianism is true", then God is an asshole with a sense of humor.
Which may be a bit scarier than just an asshole God.
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 20, 2009 3:58 AM
Kel, #477:
Yet the former is practically saying "something that will never happen." I've been trying to think of some reasonable definition for "supernatural" which doesn't imply that by necessity it is not real. Needless to say, I haven't come up with anything. To define it as "that which must be impossible without some 'supernatural' cause or agency", simply begs the question.I'm not sure ... with just a few words exchanged, I think we agree, but I just want to say it's not meaningful to me to talk about being open-minded about events which we can be fairly certain are never going to happen. That's more of a problem for the theist than ourselves, but I don't see the point in talking about it as a possibility when at the same time we talk about it being impossible in the natural world.
Owlmirror, #481:
Those who believe in a God that hides bear the responsibility for the evils done in its name.Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 20, 2009 5:38 AM
I don't think so, rather it seems to be saying something that is recognisable. I mean, it could be that a supernatural power is able to get in and rig the dice so it rolls snake eyes. But such an event would be within the bounds of everyday life and really could just as easily be put down to everyday events. A significant violation of the natural order would be distinguishable as at least the kind of being being hypothesised, so one should be more willing to address such claims than events that however unlikely are well within the bounds of nature itself. I can't be certain they are never going to happen though. That's the problem, I can't rule out the happenings, just that the happenings shouldn't happen.Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 20, 2009 9:55 AM
S.P. LaPlace to Napoleon, on why he had not mentioned the creator in his treatise on the universe:
"I had no need of that hypothesis".
LaPlace rocked hard*. One of my favorites. Also, no one was ever harmed by reading Hume, esp. on religion and induction. Taleb could benefit from re-examining that work in light of K. Popper, another metaphysical badass. A comic book that I would love (but would otherwise not sell very well) would have the superhero team of LaPlace, Hume, and Popper fighting against logical absurdities with the powers of their mind.
*All night and all day.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 20, 2009 10:06 AM
The story of Abraham and Isaac, Jesus cursing the fig tree, and the Book of Job tell us that the Christian god is an asshole.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 21, 2009 10:18 AM
456: I'm saying that the fact that there are no objective standards for artistic value does not render all of art not worth studying.
I hope that you have notified all the Art and Art History professors worldwide that there are no objective standards relating to their life's work. I suspect that most of them (at least) will disagree.
460: Okay, personal testimony is evidence.
So we've established that the claims like "faith is belief without evidence or belief in spite of the evidence" and "there's no evidence in support of Christianity" are false and deceptive. Somehow I don't expect the claims to stop, but I appreciate the admission nonetheless.
For us to accept personal testimony it has to be shown to be reliable. So far that isn't happening.
I concede the difficulty, though it is a much different question than those we have been considering to this point.
476: In determining the actual truth or falsity of such an empirical proposition, empirical evidence is the only evidence that I am referring to.
So when you say something like "Christianity is wholly unsupported by evidence" what you mean is "Christianity is wholly unsupported by empirical evidence"? If so, that's a very different claim.
When testimonial evidence is evaluated in court, is an ancient and badly-copied written work accepted if it contradicts reality and itself? Is it given the same weight as a living person whose testimony can be cross-examined?
An "ancient document," pursuant to the law of evidence generally, refers both to a means of authentication for a piece of documentary evidence and to an exception to the hearsay rule. With respect to authentication, it is one that may be deemed authentic without a witness to attest to the circumstances of its creation because its age suggests that it is unlikely to have been falsified in anticipation of the litigation in which it is introduced. Ancient documents also present an exception to the hearsay rule. For example, FRE 803(16) applies this exception to all documents over twenty years old. Because of their age, they may be presented as evidence of the truth of any statements contained therein.
As such, the five scientists' stories did at least potentially have supporting empirical evidence.
But since the story offers no such evidence, there's no basis to say it exists. Indeed, the technology may have been so advanced that there is no way mere humans could have detected any empirical evidence. Do you think Ellie was irrational for believing without empirical evidence? Delusional? Mentally ill?
Why would we think is was mistaken? Why would we think it not credible?
Testimonial evidence is littered with difficulties, which I fully acknowledge.
Obviously not. [In response to: "Do you really think historical evidence exists as to more than that (even though the conclusions we draw from that evidence may conflict greatly)?"]
Why then do you think that the best experts in the field think otherwise? I'm thinking particularly of the best non-Christian experts (e.g., Vermes, Ehrmann, Fredriksen, etc., to avoid the obvious bias charge, even though I think that charge is generally overstated).
Not so, else there would be no contingency and no quantum indeterminacy. We do not live in a clockwork universe.
Quantum indeterminacy has not been shown to have any impact at the non-quantum level (as PZ points out almost weekly).
Setting aside for one moment the question of the general existence of volition, do you deny that insanity exists, as a defect of the brain, and that this can affect behavior? Do you deny the existence of involuntary reflexes and involuntary actions?
No. I don't believe in complete volitional freedom. Even in the best light, our choices are influenced in all kinds of ways, known and unknown.
Even if substance dualism is true, it is not evidence for a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable.
If we have volition, materialism is almost surely false. Getting from there to the Christian God still takes some doing, I grant.
Why would sufficiently complex meat machines not have behaviors indistinguishable from the appearance from volition in general?
If you really believe that our perception of volition is an illusion, do you live your life consistent with that belief or do you live as if you had real choices? For example, since your claim requires that our perceptions are essentially deceptive all the time (we think we are making decisions constantly), science itself, utterly dependent as it is on our perceptions to make observations and to test them, is necessarily incoherent.
Do you have volition over the fact that you find the aromatic chemicals that comprise both flavours pleasing?
No, but I can choose to override my "natural" proclivities and tastes in a variety of instances (the point of the Libet experiments in my view).
What is truth? How would you determine it? Something like the actual state of things. It's best determined by the scientific method (when it can be applied).
1 Corinthians 18-25, specifically verse 21 in context.
I assume you mean chapter one, and I simply don't see it. Sorry.
Are you conceding that faith is belief without empirical evidence or logical proof?
No (although I concede there isn't proof). Irrespective of your views of testimonial evidence, historical evidence is empirical evidence (of a sort).
The parts that I asked you to clarify: What the argument is, and what the consequences are.
See 448.
485: Taleb could benefit from re-examining that work in light of K. Popper, another metaphysical badass.
You didn't look at any of this stuff or read his books, did you?
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 21, 2009 10:42 AM
Kel, OM,
I think I see what you mean. If a god did exist and was capable of violating the natural order of the universe, then what would lose all meaning would be the natural world itself. That is the problem with saying that the supernatural cannot exist. If there were such a thing as the supernatural (evidence forthcoming from Robocop or another theist perhaps?), then nature would be a sub-state of the supernatural—one in which any meaning would be meaningless due to everything being arbitrary (including time so you couldn't even say that nature is a temporal state of the supernatural). I think it goes to show that the True Nihilists™ are theists.Posted by: Mr T
|
December 21, 2009 10:47 AM
You find a single Art or Art History professor worldwide who believes we can make objective judgments about artistic value. Then, when you find such a person, make sure he or she shows his or her work. When you've done that, come back and tell us all about it.The rest is the same old bullshit.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 21, 2009 10:59 AM
I think I should add that I was reading Kel #484 while thinking about what Owlmirror #482 wrote:
If, like Kel says, the natural order of the universe were demonstrated to have been violated, then shouldn't it go the other way? It would be more logical to reject the concept of naturalism altogether at that point because supernaturalism already encompasses naturalism as one of supernaturalism's infinite possibilities.Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 21, 2009 11:07 AM
489: The rest is the same old bullshit.
If aesthetic value is wholly subjective, why do we agree on so many great works of art? Have we been brainwashed by slick press agents? Are we merely acquiescing to what our culture tells us we should like? Or is Van Gogh actually good? If aesthetic value is wholly subjective, why do we so often try to convince others of the value of a work of art that we believe they are misevaluating or have overlooked?
Don't be afraid to show your work.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 21, 2009 11:17 AM
No. Never heard of him before I saw this clip. However, from what he says (assuming that he is not pretending to be an ignoramus), it would appear that he doesn't actually understand very much of how science or logic operates. I shudder to think that such a person could ever be responsible for making important decisions . There's a lot out there to read, and I try not to waste my time on authors who appear to be treading the line between disingenuous and retarded.
At everyone else...if I came to believe that a supernatural agent could zip in to reality, intervene, and vanish again, this would cause me no small personal crisis. That is not a reason to believe (of course) that the supernatural is not worth considering (ample argument for that above), but is a non-rational bias I have against such beliefs. There are atheists who don't believe but wish they could...like the universe would seem somehow better if there were a loving all-powerful noodly mass watching out for us. I on the other hand would lose my fucking mind--it would be like living in the Matrix.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 21, 2009 11:22 AM
Yawn, still nothing cogent from Robocop. He just can't accept he made a non-rational decision and must live with the consequences. Like any responsible adult is aware of. And like any lawyer who doesn't have the law or facts, the BS is coming fast and thick. And is full of sound and fury, and is totally dismissible.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 21, 2009 11:45 AM
492: However, from what he says (assuming that he is not pretending to be an ignoramus), it would appear that he doesn't actually understand very much of how science or logic operates.
Then your momumental ignorance is amply and aptly demonstrated. For example, you claim that he should deal with Popper. The index to The Black Swan (hard cover) shows Popper referred to and dealt with by name on pages 57-58, 171, 173, 179, 192-193, 200, 281, 291 and 296. In Fooled by Randomness (soft cover) it's pages 71, 74, 119, 121-122, 124, 125, 126-128, 129, 177, 222, 231, 236, 237, 242, 276, and 280. But you're sure from one video clip that his problem is that he needs to deal with with Popper.
What a dope.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 21, 2009 11:56 AM
Subjective does not mean random. One person's interpretation of artistic merit is certainly not random. If you want to argue that the interpretation of art is objective, what objective criteria do we judge it by? Shouldn't everyone agree on the criteria if they are objective?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
December 21, 2009 12:05 PM
I don't know much about what I like, but I know art!
Posted by: CJO
|
December 21, 2009 12:49 PM
You can't seriously expect any court to consider documents containing literary texts, however ancient, as reliable documentary evidence. Indeed, even in historical research methods, literary texts are at best secondary sources, not primary ones. "Documents" in the above should be taken to mean what a historian would consider primary sources: letters, official records, bookkeeping documents, and correspondence of other types, basically documents containing texts not intended for wide dissemination and lacking literary character.
In short, and removing the specifics of litigation from the context, no literary text can be judged prima facie to be "unlikely to have been falsified* in anticipation of the [challenge to its factuality] in which it is introduced," because a given challenge would have been as salient to the ancient author and his audience as it is to us. You're weaseling on the definition of "document" and you're begging the question as to the character of the gospel accounts.
*Note that I think it's clumsy and inaccurate to say the gospels were "falsified" anyway. They're stories, no more "falsified" than Treasure Island.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 21, 2009 7:12 PM
We've also established that the evidence is unreliable. So you're grasping at straws when you claim that "there's evidence in support of Christianity." I can show evidence in support of Hinduism, Islam and the need to offer human hearts to Huitzilopochtli so the Sun will rise tomorrow. This evidence is as reliable as that supporting Christianity. So why should we be worshiping Jesus instead of ripping out hearts for Huitzilopochtli? Don't you want the Sun to rise tomorrow?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 21, 2009 7:31 PM
Robocop's new argument: aesthetic value is subjective; ergo, my specific god (and only my god, not anyone else's) exists and all Christianity's claims (and only Christianity's, not anyone else's) are valid.
Well, I can't argue with that kind of logic. Praise Jesus!
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 21, 2009 8:50 PM
Only inasmuch as claims like "there's no evidence in support of {the Loch Ness Monster, Zeus, Osiris, Ra, Hera, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Aphrodite, Anubis, Set, Baldur, Athena, Loki, Isis, Hathor, Horus, Dionysus, Bigfoot, Yeti, selkies, leprechauns, pixies, nixies, dryads, centaurs, Scientology, etc, etc}" are equally false and deceptive.
What other types of evidence would convince you that something was empirically true?
I repeat my unanswered question: What if the document contradicts reality and/or itself?
Because magnetic storage devices work the way that the story says, and not the way that they actually do work?
Because the scientists were not human and therefore did not have normal human metabolism?
At least some of the points that I raised were based on scientific universals, which would be true whether the story offered them or not.
Actually, they did indeed detect changes to the dodecahedron.
She had the empirical evidence of her own experience, corroborated by the experiences of her four companions. In the context of the story, there is no reason given for her or for the reader to infer that her experiences and those of her fellow scientists, as depicted in the story, were entirely false.
Doesn't really answer the questions; I was hoping for some sort of example.
What do you mean by "think otherwise"? What is it that you think that the "best non-Christian experts in the field" think, given the sparse historical evidence, that you think I ought to think?
This is a misunderstanding of quantum theory. If quantum indeterminacy had no impact at non-quantum levels, your computer would not exist. Transistors work by quantum effects. And QM also affects all chemistry, to a greater or lesser degree, and of course chemistry is how biology works.
The impact of QM at higher levels is not well understood, but I am pretty sure that it cannot be said to be nonexistent.
I think you misunderstand PZ.
Also, consider this. See also the book review he links to for Middle World, by Mark Haw.
Then volition is more of a "hunch" than being actual evidence.
How so? You just agreed that there is no such thing as complete volitional freedom. So what is volition?
For that matter, what do you think "materialism" means, and how does "volition" falsify it?
Or indeed to any personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable.
Nonsense. First of all, I made no claim, but rather asked for a counter-argument. Secondly, your response is a strawman and non-sequitur; the postulate that we are "sufficiently complex meat machines" requires no such thing. You're conflating perceptions of decisions with perceptions of the empirical world; if the latter were completely meaningless, we would not be able to survive.
See also evolutionary epistemology.
Which could also be in support of demonstrating that you are a highly complex meat machine with multiple, sometimes conflicting modules, not necessarily having real (as opposed to imagined) volition.
I'm don't see how those experiments support real volition. Indeed, rather the opposite!
?
But the scientific method includes parsimony -- which your railing against was what started this particular exchange.
I take it that you can think of no additional or other method or system for "ascertaining and constructing positive truth"?
[Yes, I meant the 1st chapter]
Paul is basically arguing that belief in "Christ crucified" is held without the logic or evidence of the Greeks and against the "testimonial evidence" of the Jews.
Then by your redefinition of empirical, there is "empirical" evidence for {the Loch Ness Monster, Zeus, Osiris, Ra, Hera, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Aphrodite, Anubis, Set, Baldur, Athena, Loki, Isis, Hathor, Horus, Dionysus, Bigfoot, Yeti, selkies, leprechauns, pixies, nixies, dryads, centaurs, Scientology, etc, etc}. Or do you want to maybe reconsider your special pleading?
None of which addresses the question of relevance to an argument for a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable, or what the empirical consequences of this argument are or might be.
You've been dancing around this for quite a few comments, now. Can you stop jitterbugging and state something substantive and relevant? And if not (as I strongly suspect you cannot without you asserting some fundamental presuppositions which you seem to be going out of your way to avoid doing), can you drop the subject and cease your vague mumblings inasmuch as they are completely incoherent?
I think it could well be argued that religion results from people being fooled by randomness...
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 21, 2009 10:05 PM
No... or at least, that's not how I understand Metaphysical naturalism.
I've been trying to think of ways to express this. One way that occurred to me is that "naturalism" is a constantly expanding paradigm: as new falsifiable but not yet falsified knowledge accrues, the concept of what is natural expands to include that new knowledge.
In this way of thinking, the supernatural is not so much false as incoherent; an easy label for all those concepts that arise from confused thinking and psychological mistakes and biases, like apophenia and confirmation bias. Anything real which violated or appeared to violate currently understood natural laws might well be the result of a meta-law not yet understood, but nevertheless at least potentially understandable, and therefore potentially a new natural law. However, parsimony demands that we try to understand such phenomena in the light of known laws first.
I think this ultimately comes down to problems of definition. If "nature" means "the way that our universe and everything in it works and has always worked", and there is meta-universe that our universe is embedded in, with meta-laws about how universes can work, and something in that meta-universe using those meta-laws can violate or appear to violate the laws of our own universe, I can see labeling that sort of potential phenomenon "supernatural".
But I'm suggesting that "nature" can at least potentially mean "the way that all of reality works, inside our universe and any potential outside or higher metaverse or meta-meta-verse or even metaℵ₀-verse".
Another way of thinking about it that occurred to me is something like : "metaphysical naturalism is the thesis that for empirical reality at any level to be self-contradictory is meaningless and logically impossible."
I think that's the best I can do at this point in time. I'm not 100% sure I quite nailed it.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 21, 2009 11:37 PM
Owlmirror,
I like that idea. Let's see how Robocop wiggles out of that corner.
I really do agree with how you put it in #501. The problem with saying that something violates the natural order is the age old question, "How do you know?" You could never know for sure if the perceived violation was really a violation of the natural order or if you were missing some important knowledge about the natural order (or, like you said, a metaverse controlling our universe).Or let me put it this way: if there was a god, how long in the eyes of humankind would it be until that god shook things up (changing the natural order), and would we ever know if it did (given that it could affect things at any time including our past, present, and future)? And to me that is a completely insane kind of world to hope for, one where anything goes.
And I think that is really how the concept of "supernatural" came about, at a much earlier time when the natural world was not well known. People jumped the gun by creating the word "supernatural". We really should have had more confidence in our reasoning abilities, but our knowledge of reality was limited. [Insert some line about black swans here.]Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 22, 2009 12:00 PM
498: We've also established that the evidence is unreliable.
In the sense of "it's 100% accurate" or that it makes an interpretation certain, sure. Just a little experience with people relating what they saw and heard is enough to establish that there are big problems with testimonial evidence, even when people are well-intentioned and trying to relate what they saw and heard honestly. But that's not to say it's unreliable in some overall sense. Indeed, people like Vermes, Ehrmann and Fredriksen spend a great deal of time sifting through the evidence trying to ascertain what really happened. I simply wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
500: Only inasmuch as claims like "there's no evidence in support of {the Loch Ness Monster, Zeus, Osiris, Ra, Hera, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Aphrodite, Anubis, Set, Baldur, Athena, Loki, Isis, Hathor, Horus, Dionysus, Bigfoot, Yeti, selkies, leprechauns, pixies, nixies, dryads, centaurs, Scientology, etc, etc}" are equally false and deceptive.
All evidence needs to evaluated to ascertain its nature and quality and then interpreted. If you think the evidence is equivilent in all of these cases, I'd acknowledge your right to make that determination while noting that the vast majority of objective experts would disagree with you. Obviously, numbers needn't correspond with truth, but I merely wish to point out that many talented and well-interntioned experts view the historical evidence, such as it is, much more positively than you do. Of course, they often disagree with me and with each other too. History, by its nature, is typically much harder to pin down than repeatable events are.
What other types of evidence would convince you that something was empirically true?
Logical and historical evidence.
I repeat my unanswered question: What if the document contradicts reality and/or itself?
The evidence always needs to be evaluated and interpreted. I would note that the U.S. Constitution has contradicted itself at various points. That has caused difficulty, but does not necessarily demand rejection.
She had the empirical evidence of her own experience, corroborated by the experiences of her four companions.
Well it's empirical in that it is based upon observation and experience but it is incapable of being verified or disproven by observation or experiment. If we assume that no attempts at independent verification of those experiences would succeed, was Ellie irrational, delusional and/or mentally ill for believing that her experience corresponded to reality?
In the context of the story, there is no reason given for her or for the reader to infer that her experiences and those of her fellow scientists, as depicted in the story, were entirely false.
In the context of the overall work, it appears to me that the story was true but unlikely to be subject to verification.
What do you mean by "think otherwise"?
The vast majority of objective experts think Jesus was a real person whose life can be evaluated based upon the historical record.
[W]hat is volition?
The ability to do otherwise. Dennett and Calvin are odd bedfellows here. Each thinks that we have "choice" in that our actions are uncoerced, but that we will only ever "choose" in one particular way (even if we can never know for sure what that way is going to be). I, on the other hand, think that when I choose strawberry ice cream, I really could have chosen otherwise.
I'm don't see how those experiments support real volition. Indeed, rather the opposite!
The delay between the apparent decision firing in the brain and our acting upon that impulse give us the opportunity to override our "natural" reactions.
But the scientific method includes parsimony -- which your railing against was what started this particular exchange.
Parsimony is a helpful tool -- a sorting mechanism and a tool for checking our work. But the simpler solution needn't be the correct one.
I take it that you can think of no additional or other method or system for "ascertaining and constructing positive truth"?
No, we construct models using other methods (reason, logic, experience) all the time, and need to. The advantage to the SM is that it's the best mechanism for checking our work.
Paul is basically arguing that belief in "Christ crucified" is held without the logic or evidence of the Greeks and against the "testimonial evidence" of the Jews.
I think Paul is basically arguing that God turns conventional wisdom on its head, such that God reveals himself not through the rich and the powerful, but through the weak and the lowly. The Greeks wanted philosophy; the Jews wanted miraculous demonstrations of God's power. Instead, God used the cross, which conventional wisdom says is shameful and a symbol of weakness, to demonstrate His plan and power.
Then by your redefinition of empirical....
I wrote that historical evidence is empirical evidence "of a sort" because it's empirical in a similar way to how Ellie's evidence is empirical. It's based upon observation and experience but it is generally incapable of being verified or disproven by observation or experiment.
None of which addresses the question of relevance to an argument for a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable....
It does not, I agree.
I think it could well be argued that religion results from people being fooled by randomness...
It could be. I'm convinced that we always know much less than we think we do and are wrong far more often than we suspect.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 22, 2009 12:16 PM
Robocop, how do you tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction?
Posted by: Mr T
|
December 22, 2009 4:05 PM
robo:
I would assume that "the baby" includes such things as the divinity of Jesus. Géza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, and also presumably Paula Fredriksen do not believe the resurrection occurred. I also assume none of them believe Jesus was/is divine. You should either change your beliefs or find "objective" sources which actually support your arguments.
She doesn't agree with you. Vermes and Ehrman hold much the same standard. You must be ignorant of this or simply dishonest. I only ever hear of "a vast majority" or "a consensus" or similar claims, but never about the purportedly "objective" process of "reasoning" which leads to this conclusion.Let's see where this line of thought takes us anyway. I'm not very familiar with Fredriksen's work, but here's a quote from her I found very easily, referring to a request for more expansive answers that may have been edited from a debate:
It's much like your claim that most art professors believe (all?) judgments of artistic value are (can be?) objective (and not subjective?). You make this vague assertion, and it may even be true, even though as it stand it would be argumentum ad populum. Without explicitly providing a line of reasoning, or empirical evidence to that effect, all you have is an assertion.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
December 22, 2009 4:10 PM
How is this possible? Are you saying that if you rewound the universe to that particular moment, you somehow had the ability to choose otherwise? Or do you mean in the general sense that next time you might get chocolate?Posted by: Mr T
|
December 22, 2009 4:25 PM
Nope. Libet's experiments show unconscious choices are necessary for many actions, because conscious choices (whether by a "you" outside of your brain or simply by your brain) take longer than 200 milliseconds. The fact that our brains require any time to process data at all indicates that it isn't necessary to assume there is an external soul or consciousness, which presumably should not require any amount of time. This is not even a god-of-the-gaps argument, because the time-related gap in question argues against the idea.For a long time I've wondered this: If a non-physical god exists and if we are in any way non-physical beings, then what would be the point of the physical world and our physical brains? What would be the point of an afterlife? What would be the point of anything being imperfect or incomplete?
Posted by: CJO
|
December 22, 2009 5:43 PM
I only ever hear of "a vast majority" or "a consensus" or similar claims, but never about the purportedly "objective" process of "reasoning" which leads to this conclusion.
Exactly. The consensus that Jesus was a real person with a Galilean ministry who was crucified under Pilate appears to be entirely self-sustaining. That is, a great many scriptural and historical scholars will go on at great length about early christian mythmaking and the general character of the gospels as theological fictions and then simply assert that, despite all this creative literary activity there had to be earlier sources based on the life of a real person who was crucified at around the time indicated by the gospels. They will often refer to the apparently doubt-banishing consensus at this point and leave it at that. Never have I seen a serious effort to argue for this minimal conclusion. It's a starting assumption for most of these scholars and it goes unquestioned in otherwise erudite and rigorously argued presentations.
The kicker is, though, that even if I were to grant the minimalist consensus on the historicity of the crucifixion, we're still a far cry from any of the Christian articles of faith.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 22, 2009 6:13 PM
Exactly. You could put in my hand the nail that without any doubt had pierced the hand of a man named Jeshua when he was executed somewhere around 2,000 years ago and you know what difference that would make to whether or not I believed he was in some way the agent of the interventionist god* of Judaism?
None whatsoever.
*Well, one of the gods. The numbers do kind of fluctuate at the start.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 22, 2009 8:22 PM
If evidence is not reliable then it's not reliable as in not to be relied upon.As I said, I can show evidence that supports Hinduism. Are you saying that thousands of years of teaching by talented and well-intentioned gurus and swamis don't equal your experts?
You have two tasks. You have to show that there's reasonable and reliable evidence for religion. Then you have to show how your particular cult is to be preferred over all the other ones.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 22, 2009 8:58 PM
That's pretty much my bottom line. If you can present an argument for a religion that can't have the one particular deity crossed out and the word 'Wotan', 'Vishnu' or 'The FSM' written in and be just as effective then you might have something - but it hasn't happened yet.
Of course, that generally leads to nonsensical claims that 'all gods are really the one god' drivel (a la the execrable Silver Fox) - despite the fact that the vast majority of believers would never agree to the concept. And as long as one disagrees, it can be thrown out.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 22, 2009 9:43 PM
I would have to see what their disagreements are and on what basis they are making them. So far, you've been very general about things that really need specifics.
The claim for the existence of a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable and aware and alive now is not just a historical claim.
What exactly do you mean by "historical evidence", here, specifically? And what empirical truth are you convinced of by this evidence, specifically? What is the logical reasoning?
This is a false analogy. The constitution is not a record of events.
(Although now you've reminded me of the anecdote about Kurt Gödel claiming that he had discovered that the U.S. Constitution could allow the USA to become a dictatorship)
I repeat my unanswered question with additional qualification: What if the document that is claimed to be a record of true events contradicts reality and/or itself?
Why are you assuming that every single one would fail, forever and always? Remember, some of what they learned was that there was a wormhole transit network, which could be discovered with sufficiently advanced knowledge of physics. Assuming that it was as real as it was depicted as real in the story, they would be able to return to Vega and to the transit nexus, faster than light could travel.
Even though she found the circle within πbase 11 ?
It was also implied that she would find the black holes orbiting Vega and that humanity would be monitored by and eventually be permitted to join the Galactic Union.
Mm. A real person who died and stayed dead?
This appears to be a subtle self-contradiction: How can you do that which you explicitly did not do at the given point in time of making the choice?
This depends on the nature of the universe (in terms of causality), and what choice really means.
I'm sure that you feel that way. But is that not like feeling that the straight lines in an illusion are actually bent, or that the gray dots in the intersection of the white lines between the black squares are really there when you don't look straight at them?
I'm not arguing that choice is always and forever an illusion, although I suspect that it is, but if choice is not an illusion, your example as articulated does not argue for it.
No, because the override itself would not be something that you would be conscious of doing until after you had already chosen to do it. The override would be the "natural" reaction.
Did you not read what I wrote @#401 about parsimony? Please do. Remember, if a theory that posits more entities is correct, it has to be better than all simpler theories at explaining empirical reality. That's why parsimony is part of the scientific method.
But if "your work" fails the checking, then obviously what you think you "ascertained and constructed" was not truth at all!
Or in other words, rejects both logic and real-world evidence.
Or logic and evidence.
The Jews wanted something that did not contradict the Torah.
Which contradicts logic, evidence, and the Torah.
This is a terrible false analogy. First of all, Ellie's evidence is in a work of fiction. Within that work of fiction, there was a real Message, and a real Machine that could be built using that Message. It's strongly implied that in that fictional universe, numerical constants could also contain additional messages that could be found, and that the physical structure of the universe contains wormholes that could be detected and used by sufficiently advanced physics, and that the Machine underwent stresses consistent with traveling these wormholes, and that entities that used these wormholes to travel were watching Earth and would, at some point, interact with Earth in the future.
Your so-called "historical evidence" has no parallels whatsoever with what is contained within the work of fiction that you appeal to.
Ellie and her four companions whom you keep ignoring were, in the story, real people, and additional empirical evidence of their experience could have been detected from close medical examination, which you also keep ignoring, and from scientific investigation along the lines of what had been disclosed to them.
Your "historical evidence", on the other hand, is not empirical evidence for a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable, and is indistinguishable from a complete fiction.
Which is why parsimony -- as in rejecting unnecessary entities, not the commonly misunderstood "simplicity" -- is a necessary part of the scientific method, along with falsifiability.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 23, 2009 10:46 AM
This necessarily brief entry will likely be my last post in this thread since (a) one of my boys plays in a bowl game later today and I need to get to work on the tailgate party before heading off to the stadium, and (b) Christmas festivities start in earnest tomorrow (the whole family will be at the game and family fun starts immediately thereafter). I have appreciated most of the posts and learned some stuff too. Thank you all.
505: You must be ignorant of this or simply dishonest.
T -- You might want to read a little more carefully before making a fool of yourself. I specifically listed Vermes, Ehrmann and Fredriksen as non-Christian scholars (and even noted that I had disagreements with them) simply to demonstrate that, in general, scholars make a lot more of the Jesus story than Pharyngula regulars, many of whom are Jesus denialists, are ready to. Since I've read multiple books they have written, I'm well aware of their views and where they disagree with mine.
508: The kicker is, though, that even if I were to grant the minimalist consensus on the historicity of the crucifixion, we're still a far cry from any of the Christian articles of faith.
Yup.
510: If evidence is not reliable then it's not reliable as in not to be relied upon.
This absolutism is just plain silly. We all make mistakes in observation and interpretation. If your view were correct, there could be no history since we are all unreliable to some extent.
Are you saying that thousands of years of teaching by talented and well-intentioned gurus and swamis don't equal your experts?
The further we move from the hard sciences, the more likely it is that we will see evidence supporting multiple models and conceptions of reality.
512: The claim for the existence of a personal God that is benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable and aware and alive now is not just a historical claim.
A God who chooses not to make a direct revelation of Himself (or Herself) needn't provide current empirical evidence. You may criticize that alleged choice, on moral or other grounds, of course.
What if the document that is claimed to be a record of true events contradicts reality and/or itself?
We examine and evaluate it. Since essentially all alleged records of true events contradict reality to varying degrees (having been constructed by imperfect humans), doing so is, in effect, a cost of doing business.
My best friend at Duke was a regular on a Final Four basketball team. He was quoted in the press a lot. The press was friendly and supportive (it was college sports and a much earlier time). Yet it was a constant source of amusement to us that he was almost never quoted accurately. What was printed was typically something he might have said or could have said or wanted to say or sort of said, but not what he actually said. Sometimes the reporter was mistaken; sometimes the error was a matter of spin; sometimes it was an agenda. And this was essentially contemporaneous reporting.
These records are going to be imperfect, perhaps wildly so.
Why are you assuming that every single one would fail, forever and always?
Were I in the story, would I be irrational for believing Ellie (and the others) before any empirical data was or could be produced? Delusional? Mentally ill?
But is that not like feeling that the straight lines in an illusion are actually bent, or that the gray dots in the intersection of the white lines between the black squares are really there when you don't look straight at them?
If you really believe that choice is an illusion, do you advocate (for example) that our legal system needs total overhaul since it is predicated upon our abilty to make and the necessity that we be held accountable for our choices? You might also work at being less frustrated with dopes like I who don't "get it" -- we can't help ourselves after all. We're like Fawlty's car.
But if "your work" fails the checking, then obviously what you think you "ascertained and constructed" was not truth at all!
Yup, but I don't see the process as being nearly as linear as you seem to.
Or in other words, rejects both logic and real-world evidence.
Not at all. Conventional wisdom needn't be right and needn't be supported by logic and evidence. You are acquainted with the political process, are you not?
Or logic and evidence.
The Greeks often weren't much interested in evidence that contradicted their theories. For example, it was many centuries before medicine was able to get past the largely Greek theories that controlled and use actual evidence to construct new theories with respect to health and healing.
The Jews wanted something that did not contradict the Torah.
Or at least their conception of the Torah.
Which contradicts logic, evidence, and the Torah.
That's your unevidenced conclusion.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 23, 2009 11:02 AM
Team?
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 23, 2009 11:19 AM
LOL Robocop, the only fool here is you.
Which tells us that you too have an inkling of how withholding evidence of one's existence when such evidence would stop people from undergoing an eternity of torture is wicked.I'm a little disappointed that you did not tell us how you would distinguish fiction from nonfiction, and I suspect there is a reason you did not, and that that reason might have something to do with the possibility that it would prove your holy text to be fictional. But alas, Merry Squidmas.
Posted by: 975robocop
|
December 23, 2009 12:01 PM
514: Team?
Cal (Berkeley). He wanted to go to a place with high level football and high level academics. There aren't a lot of choices.
515: I'm a little disappointed that you did not tell us how you would distinguish fiction from nonfiction....
If it's in doubt, I'd start by looking to the experts.
...that reason might have something to do with the possibility that it would prove your holy text to be fictional....
You're aware that the Bible consists of multiple genres, and that some of the stories are myths, which you might label "fictional," right? Is In Cold Blood fiction?
Oh, and I don't expect God to punish people with eternal torture.
Off to the Q....
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
December 23, 2009 12:38 PM
Robocop,
Let's say you know nothing about the book before you read it. How do you tell if it is fiction or nonfiction after (or while) reading it? I'm not sure what you mean by "looking to the experts". Look to which experts for what?
OK, then. How do you know which parts are fiction and which parts are nonfiction?
Nonfiction novels are like Oliver Stone's W. They are fictionalized accounts of real events: sloppy histories retold with heaping amounts of embellishment and rife with dishonesty. Do you think that In Cold Blood would stand up in court as evidence?
But other people, who it would be safe to say have greater faith in their god than you do in yours, expect their god to do so. Would you say that their god is wicked and that it is not the same god as yours?Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 24, 2009 4:41 AM
This is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- empirical evidence.
Your "testimonial evidence" is a claim; is observation and interpretation.
Wait, what?
I was careful to leave in "benevolent" as part of the description. A "God who chooses not to make a direct revelation" violates the set of adjectives that I used.
The anecdote you cite suggests that your friend was paraphrased to some extant, but if a reporter said that your friend was a hockey player from Montreal who said that eating veal with Cheerios made him invulnerable, would you and he not reject that "historical record" as a complete fabrication?
How did your friend know that had not been quoted accurately, by the way? Was he going by his own memory, or did he have his own recording(s) of the interview(s)?
I am not sure it would be irrational to believe something which is described in context as being true....
Who are you in the story? How do you learn about the story told by the five scientists? Are you a technician working on the Machine who watched the departure/return? Someone who is given the task of investigating the whole thing? A reporter interviewing them directly? Yourself as a private citizen, reading the Weekly World News take on the whole thing?
Not necessarily. Arguing against Dawkins for a bit, even if he is correct, we (complex meat machines that we may be) have as one of our modes of programming a reward and punishment system that can be triggered by social peers. It may be more than a little ad hoc in how useful it is in actually bringing about long term changes, but it may also be the only way to alter the behavior of someone short of more direct manipulation of an individual's brain. It depends on a lot of stuff that is not well understood, although we are learning more.
And arguing against that, once we do know more, I think that implementing more specific diagnostic analysis of behavioural problems and solutions to those problems would of course make more sense than what we have now.
Does the current legal system have as a goal actually improving life for everyone involved, or merely perpetuating itself?
Heh. Interesting point.
Do you think you would be convinced by an empirical demonstration that you have less volition than you think? For example, making different choices under the influence of certain hormones, drugs, or other direct interventions with your brain.
Or is that even necessary? Have you never thought to yourself that you would have behaved differently if you were less tired, or in a different mood?
I have not tried to claim that the process is "linear". Could you take a moment and scroll back up to review this entire exchange in context? Because to be honest, I think you lost track of what you were trying to say, in the delays between responses and the editing out of previous responses. Either way, I'd appreciate a clearer summation.
And I'm going to take a break here because I want to think over how I'm going to respond to the next segment, and maybe re-read some of the other Pauline letters.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 24, 2009 5:03 AM
Ah, the genre defence. It's been a while since someone's tried that one out here. But it's still good for a laugh - rationalisations formed entirely from unrepentant post hoc confirmation bias always are.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 7, 2010 6:29 PM
Getting back to this segment (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)
But "conventional wisdom" is a modern term; one that you specifically picked over the plain word "wisdom", and your conflation of it with what Paul wrote is an anachronism and a strawman.
The verse states "Greeks look for wisdom" (Ἕλληνες σοφίαν ζητοῦσιν). Wisdom not something simply held to dogmatically, but searched for -- an active epistemology. The original Greek philosophies were not "conventional wisdom", as your equivocation asserts.
There are things that are true that are not obvious, or even counter-intuitive -- and Greek philosophers found some of them with logic and/or evidence.
Paul did not offer logic or evidence as a counterexample, but rather just the bare assertion of faith.
They may not have known everything, but I don't think they simply out-and-out rejected actual evidence.
There were incorrect theories about physiology precisely because of a lack of evidence -- and this lack of evidence existed on the one hand because of taboos on human dissection, which were largely continued by Christians until relatively recently, and on the other because of the absence of the tools (microscopes, cell stains) necessary to provide evidence about the human body, and a lack of easy dissemination of information in the classical world.
I have a faint memory that some classical Greek or Roman may even have discovered the circulatory system (or some other relatively recently publicized physiological fact) a long time ago, but the information was lost. I'll have to see if I can dig that reference up.
It's the same torah that Christians quote-mined in support of Jesus. Allowing Christian quote-mining and ignoring Jewish interpretation of the original text is special pleading; not that that has ever stopped any religious apologist.
Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy...
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 9, 2010 5:20 PM
I misremembered what was being discussed. Galen did indeed not discover the circulatory system (although parts of his works were indeed lost, or only found in Arabic) -- but what was pointed out was that Galen did do many, many empirical experiments on physiology, and discovered many empirically correct things. He made some studies into the heart and brain (flawed in detail as some of those might have been) to argue against precisely those prior philosophers who claimed, without empirical evidence, that the mind was in the heart rather than in the brain. Harvey took Galen's experiments with the kidneys (which Galen had done to determine their function) and translated them to experiments to discover the correct function of the heart and the circulatory system.
Note that Galen's empirical discoveries were done in the face of the restrictions on human dissection, and his insistence on empiricism was carried on by later Arab students of his work.
My source of information on Galen (besides Wiki, I mean) was the second of these Richard Carrier interviews, which discussed science in the ancient world. These were done mostly as a rebuttal to Rodney Stark (and some others, like Thomas Cahill) who were and are claiming that modern scientific civilization only exists specifically because of Christianity. Carrier exposes this assertion as being poor scholarship resulting from poor research and genuinely terrible logic.
Richard Carrier, Part 1
Richard Carrier, Part 2
Carrier does not claim that Christianity led to the fall of classical Rome, but rather that this was caused by bad social and economic policy from the Roman Emperors, unfortunate historical circumstances, and mystical attitudes among both pagans and Christians. I don't know enough about economic policy and the historical period of which he speaks, but I know you're interested in economic analysis, so you might have some thoughts on that point specifically.
He also acknowledges that many of these early natural philosophers (or quasi-scientists, even) were not atheists, but pantheists and/or deists -- the significant example of Galen being specifically described while discussing his works and discoveries. Galen even made what was probably the most sophisticated early argument from (biological) design, for his time.
You may not have the time to listen to them now, but I think you'll find them interesting when things are less hectic for you.
I also may be busy with other things over the course of the next week or so, but I will be checking back.
Posted by: baju
|
February 1, 2010 10:29 AM
Even if that were entirely true, that's because from a historical stand point of we've actually only just started applying science and secular morality to medicine