…and this is a 
Harriet Baber is a philosopher, and I say that with the most sneeringly disparaging tone I can muster. I don't normally dislike philosophy, but there are a lot of philosophers I detest, and Baber exemplifies why. She has a remarkable article in The Guardian in which she says a series of astonishing things — which is often one of the good things philosophers do, surprising me with weird ideas that make me think. In this case, though, she makes some stupid pronouncements, doesn't explain why she thinks she's making a good argument, and then thoroughly undercuts her own credibility.
She starts by announcing that she's a Christian who arrived at that idea via Pascal's Wager. I know Pascal was a brilliant fellow, but his wager is bollocks — it's built on the premise of the unreliability of reason and the deficiencies of evidence, reducing our choices to desperate gambles, where we make decisions only on the basis of the desirability of outcomes — a strategy, by the way, that makes casinos rich and gamblers paupers. Accepting Pascal's Wager is admitting the defeat of reason, a very peculiar position for a philosopher.
But then Baber says something really bizarre, that actually does explain why she falls for the Wager. She declares that the truth is overrated.
People in any case overestimate the value of truth and underestimate the difficulty of arriving at it. There are a great many truths in which I have abolutely no interest - truths about the lifecycle of Ctenocephalides felis, (the common cat flea) or the extensive body of truths about the condition of my teeth that my dentist imposes on me. I see no reason why I should bother with these truths or make a point of believing them.
This is actually a consistent position with her appreciation of Pascal's Wager, but she's also sawing off the limb she's standing on. Why should I care what she says when she admits the truth is unimportant to her? The title of her article is "My faith is an informed choice" (I've chosen to retitle her article more accurately for this post) — what does "informed" mean when you've confessed that truth is irrelevant and information is not to be bothered with? And what kind of scholar dismisses curiosity about the world with such casual contempt?
Although she did get me wondering about one thing, which is a virtue of fools: I wonder how much misery and death has been caused by dental disease in human history? I suspect that it has been a significant player, but I don't have any sources of information on that — but there must be a forensic anthropologist or two out there who has some idea.
Oh, wait, sorry — curiosity, an interest in the evidence and the truth, and an expectation that truths about the condition of people's teeth actually matter assumes that the truth actually does matter. Forgive me.
(The gang at Ophelia Benson's place are also discussing this strange article.)
Comments
Posted by: Alverant
|
August 7, 2010 8:47 AM
What I hate most about Pascal's Wager is the arrogant assumption that it's either the christian religion that's correct or no religion whatsoever is correct. There's no allowances for some other religion being the right one. The second thing I hate is the assumption that God (if there was one) cares more about people going through the motions just to please him than people who are moral regardless of God's instructions or opinions. In other words a Buddhist who spreads peace and helps people is lower than a christian who goes to church every Sunday out of fear of hell.
And how anyone who has studied a variety of religions can "know" christianity is the right one is beyond me. It's obvious that most of their stories/ideas were copied from older faiths.
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 7, 2010 8:51 AM
Jumpin' Jeezus on a stick, Harriet Baber is a philosophy professor at the University of San Diego!
Is that a bible university?
They say, "The University of San Diego is becoming a nationally preeminent Catholic university known for educating students who are globally competent, ethical leaders working and serving in our complex and changing world."
But I say, as they made that stupid woman a philosophy professor, they cannot have any credibility.
Posted by: sirutka
|
August 7, 2010 8:56 AM
It's kind of funny that someone who professes to be a philosopher would have such a strong apathy towards wisdom, doesn't that totally miss the definition of her work? The great philosophers of the past may have gotten a lot (most?) of things wrong, but at least they were trying!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
August 7, 2010 8:58 AM
She doesn't think she should have the truths about her teeth imposed on her, or bother with them or believe them? Then why the hell did she go to the dentist in the first place???
Dentist: You have a cavity. It needs to be filled.
Harriet: Stop imposing your "truths" on me! I don't have to believe you?
*storms out in a huff*
What the hell?
Posted by: jack21222
|
August 7, 2010 8:59 AM
The great thing about a truth is they don't require belief. I don't understand her use of the word "belief" with regard to truths.
Of course, she might be using a different version of the word "truth" than I'm used to. I dated a philosophy grad student for a year. She used to claim there is a difference between "a truth" and something that was merely "true."
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
August 7, 2010 9:00 AM
Philosophy with a complete lack of truth? She must be related to Deepak. The sack is now opening for Harriet to enter...got your sticks?
Posted by: Robert MacDonald
|
August 7, 2010 9:04 AM
Here's a starter,
Systemic Diseases Caused by Oral Infection, Li et al., Clinical Microbiology Reviews, October 2000, p. 547-558, Vol. 13, No. 4.
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/547
Sorry if the reference format is off, not my field.
Posted by: Zeno
|
August 7, 2010 9:07 AM
Her teeth? She doesn't care about the truth about her teeth?
I know that brushing and flossing can be a nuisance, but wait till bleeding gums become a reality that will be difficult to deny. (Does she believe in false teeth?)
Posted by: John M
|
August 7, 2010 9:12 AM
The great thing about this post, PZ, is that a fine old anglo-saxon word - 'bollocks' - has made it into mainstream American journalism. Just don't even think about ruining the spelling with a terminal 'x'
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 7, 2010 9:13 AM
Zeno, you ask, "Does she believe in false teeth?"
What's the betting she believes in the tooth fairy? She believes in the bible bogey, which is much the same thing, only more jealous, malignant, etc.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 7, 2010 9:15 AM
I don't care about the truth of thermodynamics. I don't care about the truth of electricity. I don't care about the pesky truth of the various biological workings of my own body.
Nope. Not at all.
(Presses "submit" in her browser on her magic faith laptop, instructs the mystical heat-suckers in her air conditioner to turn the heat up a notch, gets in her Fred-Flintstone foot-powered car, and drives to the fairy doctor to have her yearly mammogram.)
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
August 7, 2010 9:17 AM
From the sounds of it, she believes in false teeth more than in real teeth.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
August 7, 2010 9:19 AM
The real question is where was the editor who should have read this, walked over to her desk (or called her on the phone), and said "What is wrong with you? Keep writing crap like this and you're fired."
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 7, 2010 9:21 AM
Now that I've considered this a moment, I think she's merely expressing the exact same sentiment all theists must hold to one extent or another.
It seems she's just trying to formalize it into a coherent philosophy, failing, and resorting to brewing a weak herbal tea with a mash of various ingredients that don't really fit together.
Apologists and accommodationists must realize how deadly this mind-cancer is, right? This denial of truth and facts and reality?
Right?
Posted by: E.V.
|
August 7, 2010 9:23 AM
The Gospel of Truthiness.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 7, 2010 9:29 AM
"I've reached the conclusion that truth must be overrated, because it is so difficult to arrive at. Also, because it is difficult, I have completely given up. There just doesn't seem to be any epistemology that helps us arrive at the truth at all. Nope. Not one single epistemology has ever been developed successfully into a tool to help us arrive at the truth."
Posted by: Zahnarzt
|
August 7, 2010 9:30 AM
Teeth are an illusion, false teeth doubly so.
PS- I detest when theists use the phrase "my truth" when referring to their beliefs. It is as attempt to weaken the word truth and strengthen the word belief.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
August 7, 2010 9:31 AM
And there is the perfect explanation of why religion, especially the xian version, is so insidious.
Coupled with her dismissal of truth as overestimated, read uncomfortable, and why evidence gathering apparently requires assiduous concentration beyond the ken of 'People', read lazy or uneducated or shallow or ignorant, or bigoted, or hate filled, or majority, and you have the drooling sycophantic hysterically functioning dupe for religious indoctrination.
That 'thought' process is precisely why religion dominates folks minds, it is not so much a 'thought' process more a subjective method of trying to smother abject fear of inevitable death and the utter ignorance of truth.
The woman is a pathetic moral coward...simple like so!
She obviously has so little philosophical confidence she has reverted to the type of person she classifies as 'People'.
As for Pascal's wager, that has traditionally always provided shaky and tatty camouflage for the craven of heart and the fraudulent claims of desparate con merchants.
She is a prime exemplar incarnate.
Pascal's tawdry wager was debunked centuries ago, but of course she does not want to bother with truth.
Not impressive and a perfect example of a crass embarrassment to humanity.
A very shameful and juvenile pronouncement from a so called philosopher.
Seemingly the standards of intelligence required for this discipline have not just slipped they have crashed and burned.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 7, 2010 9:31 AM
I was for a moment tempted to do the "you can't judge all philosophers by just one idiot yadda yadda" thing, but faced with Baber's grotesque anti-intellectualism I'm too demoralised to go down that route. It's times like these that I think that there ought to be a licensing system for philosophers.
Wading through her article was like trying to inhale pepper-flavoured candy floss (i.e., insubstantial, fuzzy and intensely irritating). I'm kind of used to Cif Belief providing a platform for some of the most banal, woolly-minded "thinkers" capable of using a word-processor (although sometimes I suspect that many articles are transcribed from originals hand-written in green ink), but this is one of the worst. One line that jumped out at me was:
"But if I believe in God and a blissful afterlife contemplating him, then even if I am wrong I will not be disappointed."
I've often thought that anyone who actually looks forward to an afterlife revolving around the Beatific Vision is either too dumb to realise what it is they're wishing for (the metaphysical equivalent of an eternal morphine high) or hates life so much that so dehumanising a fate seems their least worst option. Or possibly they're so far gone in their authoritarian mind-set that the idea of sitting and adoring the Sky Bully for an eternity really is their idea of paradise.
I'll be charitable and assume that Baber is just dumb.
A religious one, perhaps? One wonders if Baber (who teaches at the University of San Diego) tries to instill the same level of intellectual curiosity and rigour in her students as she exhibits in this article. [shudders at the prospect]
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 7, 2010 9:34 AM
Carlie, she doesn't have a desk anywhere near the editor's. She's a 'philosophy professor' at a bible college in the USA.
Posted by: Standard Curve
|
August 7, 2010 9:36 AM
Smile for the camera Harriet. On second thought... don't smile.
Posted by: Matthew Gill
|
August 7, 2010 9:37 AM
Is it even possible to argue with someone like that? She obviously doesn't believe in rational thought in any meaningful way.
Posted by: Foggg
|
August 7, 2010 9:38 AM
Why it's an invitation to believe not a single idea she wrote is true.
Perhaps she's a Cretan barber.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
August 7, 2010 9:44 AM
Opinion editors will publish anything these days.
You don't even have to try to make sense.
But since Ms Baber brought up the subject of "truth", it shits me that the media (including internet-only outlets) so often consider truth to be optional.
I think it's partly lack of critical thinking, partly slavish adherence to the wrong-headed notion of "balance" in reporting, and partly people being too lazy to give a shit.
It's what leads to things like anti-vaccine liars being given airtime to repeat their lies every time there's a ruling made against them.
There was a good quote in series five of The Wire: "A lie isn't a side of the story, it's just a lie."
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
August 7, 2010 9:47 AM
But this particular piece was in The Guardian - someone there had to approve it for publication, and quite possibly solicit her for it beforehand (and pay her for it after).
Posted by: Robert Birch
|
August 7, 2010 9:48 AM
“I see no reason why I should bother with these truths or make a point of believing them.”
I’m no philosopher, but a logical extension of this statement seems to be that a truth only exists if you choose to believe it. So now in addition to Pascal’s “I think therefore I am” we have “I believe therefore it’s true.” A perfect rational for every creationist, acupuncturist, and homeopath.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys
|
August 7, 2010 9:50 AM
She did write a paper ""The Ethics of Dwarf-Tossing" in International Journal of Applied Ethics Fall 1989".
I'm not sure if this improves her standing in my eyes or not.
Posted by: Snikkers
|
August 7, 2010 9:52 AM
Imagining Baber lying in the dental chair, fingers in ears, "lalalalala. I can't hear you."
She teaches in the correct academic institution though. Isn't it better they all be collected in the same area?
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
August 7, 2010 9:55 AM
If truth is not that important to her, how can we be sure she is being honest about her opinions in that article ?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
August 7, 2010 10:00 AM
If she keeps going like that, the bacteria in her teeth will present her with an argumentum ad lapidem she won't be able to ignore.
Depending on how long she'll keep trying to ignore it, she might win a Darwin Award.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
August 7, 2010 10:04 AM
Here's Theramin and Qualia's take on Pascal's Wager ... Betting on infinity
(Harriet, don't miss the rebuttals)
Posted by: otrame
|
August 7, 2010 10:18 AM
Not a forensic anthropologist but I am an archaeologist and I can tell you that even in the days when sugar and simple starches were much less readily available dental disease was a common cause of death (and misery--think about a simple toothache with no painkillers, much less abscesses that cause septicemia or eat into your brain) once you had achieved adulthood in pre-agricultural cultures. In agricultural, pre-modern cultures it is a MAJOR cause of death in adults (because what we grow is largely simple starches, which rot teeth if you don't brush them a lot, or even if you do, if you don't see a dentist regularly). Some smart people can be incredibly ignorant and very, very stupid.
Reminds me of a passage in one of Heinlein's books:
"I never pay any attention to politics."
"You should. It's only slightly less important than your heartbeat."
"I never pay any attention to that either."
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkSutnAbHpj9Y9bEPX0IPnB0bogNyC9uNs
|
August 7, 2010 10:19 AM
At a pub quiz I attended the answer to the question "What is the most common disease amongst humans?" was dental (apologies for not providing a better provenance!). With the Babers of this world, there's no wonder.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnZyFfKb0qWYyoGaY7BIk8-6EJnV6twwSM
|
August 7, 2010 10:22 AM
Blimey, I'm disagreeing with PZ on something for the first time in my life! I think I'm going to need a lie down after this...
I'm not so sure her "the truth doesn't matter, only what you find comforting" position IS consistent with her appreciation of Pascal's Wager. Surely the whole point of Pascal's Wager, as it is usually defined, is that it DOES matter what is true about the possibility of an afterlife. The wager assumes (wrongly) that there are only two possibilities - either there is no such thing as an afterlife, or the standard christian story is true. Assuming this is the case, Pascal prescribes going with the christian version anyway because you can't lose. He doesn't say "pick whichever answer makes you feel good", and he certainly doesn't say "the truth doesn't matter". By his lights the wager is NOT a gamble.
Posted by: Pete Moulton
|
August 7, 2010 10:23 AM
I don't normally disagree with you, PZ, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. Harriet Baber is no philosopher. Oh, sure, she may have the degrees and the title; but if she has as little interest in truth as her inane little essay seems to indicate, then she's really nothing more than a mental masturbator.
Posted by: poke
|
August 7, 2010 10:24 AM
I get what she's saying about seeking satisfactory answers rather than Truth. But dentistry? Really? And wouldn't agnosticism be more consistent with that position than Pascal's Wager? And how does she know she picked the right religion? Why not Hinduism or Islam or the Bahá'í Faith?
Posted by: Takma'rierah
|
August 7, 2010 10:27 AM
Yes, I seem to recall that in my archaeology class I learned that you could tell when a society had developed agriculture by the sudden proliferation of rotting teeth.
Posted by: tristanheydt
|
August 7, 2010 10:29 AM
Truth is out of style.
Posted by: Pi Guy
|
August 7, 2010 10:32 AM
Not being concerned with the truth appears to be code for "Strive to be average. Less than average is even better."
The first Xians were Jews. But not just any old Jews. Jews were disliked for centuries and centuries by the time Jesus showed up (assuming that he did, which I don't) largely, I think, for their ability to succeed economically everywhere they plopped down, and the successful ones were smart. They revered smart, educated, and successful people (perhaps the genesis of the stereotypical Jewish mother's boast "My son, the doctor") and, perhaps I over-generalize, they still do. The Xians were the Jews who got tired of being Second Class Jews - that is, Third Class in scoiety. They weren't just Jews. They were blue-collar Jews {I apologize in advance for the image of Larry the Cable Guy in a toga that will now haunt you on sleepless nights as it does me}. So they made a virute out of mediocrity. "Blessed are the sick...the meek...the stupid...the lazy..."
Faith is just a way to convince oneself that not seeking and especially ignoring the truth, failing to achieve or succeed, and reusing to learn are to rewarded in some other place (?) solely to appease them as they fail, suffer, and die in this place. And it's reinforced from on-high in the institutions of both religion and government ("Belive me - your taxes are worth paying because for every dollar you spend, you'll get $1.07 in government services" "Believe me - we're invading Iraq because Saddam is mean to the people. Oh - and they've got yellowcake") in most societies.
It's a great tool. Toil, Disease, Suffering = Achievement, Health, and Bliss. War = Peace. $1.00 = $1.07 (for large values of $1). Once the weak-minded masses are all-in, they're obliged to tout the company line the whole way or else their whole world view comes crashing down. I have long believed that all the practitioners of religion and all the blind patriots know this, although I'll wager that many here will disagree. And it's no coincidence that the two groups overlap so much.
Back on-topic, I guess I've got no idea what philosophy's all about if it isn't a framework for evaluathing an argument's truth value. Dear Harriet's no philosopher. But, on the upside, she's the epitome of a faithful Christian. So she's got that going for her. Which is nice!
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
August 7, 2010 10:33 AM
Did she explain why Pascal's wager and disregard for the truth did not drive her to Islam?
I am going to quote Samuel Clemens: "faith is believing what you know ain't so".
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 7, 2010 10:33 AM
Scene: The Throne of Judgement.
God: "OK, next."
St Peter: "Harriet Baber, boss."
Baber: "Ooh, I was right! Yay for me! Oh, God, I just can't wait to get started on contemplating you for eternity!"
God: "Hang on, Harriet. We've got a couple of formalities to go through first. How does she measure up, Pete?"
St Peter: "I'm afraid it doesn't look too good, boss. Intellectual dishonesty, profound lack of curiosity, smugness, self-satisfaction, made everybody miserable with her halitosis because she ignored everything her dentist ever told her ..."
God: "Oh. Sorry, Harriet, but we've got standards around here. I'm afraid you're out."
Baber: "But, but ... I accepted the Wager. I believed in you even thought there was no reason for doing so. I went to church. I did everything I was supposed to do. I was supposed to be rewarded for it!"
God: "Oh, crap. Another Pascalian. Pete, you're supposed to filter out these blind-faith numbnuts at the Pearly Gates."
St Peter: "But she looked so normal."
Baber: "So ... no eternal bliss? Does that mean I'm going to suffer eternal torment instead?"
God: "Eternal torment? What have you been reading? Look, Harriet, you don't seem a bad sort, so I'll give you a choice. You can have oblivion, or you can be reincarnated as a flatworm to see if you can do better next time. Or you can go and play in the sandpit with the aborted foetuses."
Baber: "A choice? Can I think about it? I may need to consult my bookie."
God: "Sigh. You're not big with the learning, are you?"
Baber: "What? Are you saying ... Pascal's Wager is flawed?"
God: "You can go and ask him. He chose the sandpit."
Posted by: Egaeus
|
August 7, 2010 10:33 AM
Wow. Just...wow. She is a professor of philosophy, and teaches logic. LOGIC! WTF?!
Posted by: norm.olsen
|
August 7, 2010 10:34 AM
A piece like that makes you wonder just how much education enables one to declare themselves a "philosopher".
I once read a book called The History of Philosophy; perhaps I'm a philosopher too? Oh and I learned how to assemble a lawnmower engine; maybe I'm a heavy duty mechanic. Hey this is easy!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Qwd2SYR81vd_FB2puZ4A6wgrnl348w--#e9239
|
August 7, 2010 10:36 AM
Dental caries isn’t a significant factor in human morbidity/mortality until after the introduction of milled grains in the human diet (eg after the agricultural revolution). Thereafter dental pathology can be a rollercoaster ride of intrigue due to the factors introduced by the high-sugar diet. Caries and their coincident infection can create frankly horrifying skeletal damage that can in severe cases entirely compromise the palate or mandible. Coincident particulate matter mixed in with cereal biproducts (particulate matter abraded off of manos/metates and inadvertently baked into bread) creates wear patterns that can over time grind teeth down to the roots, in some instances making a person’s teeth have an almost ‘shaved-down’ look in profile. The pathologies and secondary cultural implications that are resultant of this effect are the stuff about which entire forests of theses and dissertations have been written.
I am an archaeologist by education and training, but I have been fortunate enough to also have experience and education in human osteology, skeletal trauma and pathology.
Posted by: Pi Guy
|
August 7, 2010 10:41 AM
*double check failed*
Posted by: Pi Guy
|
August 7, 2010 10:44 AM
Still wiping coffee off monitor!
Posted by: Egaeus
|
August 7, 2010 10:47 AM
And it gets worse. Her Ph.D. is from Johns Hopkins! How the hell does such a fuzzy-thinking dunce get a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins?
Posted by: jacob.basson
|
August 7, 2010 11:06 AM
I love it when people claim to believe in god on account of pascal's wager. The fact that one would suggest that, because the consequences of believing in god might be better, you there DO believe in god, seems to me to fundamentally undermine what it means to believe things. if someone offered me a $1,000,000 to stop believing in the existence of chicago, i would nevertheless remain disappointingly unable to effect that belief. people who offer pascals wager as a reason to believe in god are implicitly saying that they DON'T believe, that BELIEF isn't important: it's just an allegiance, a team membership, an identity. not a belief though...you don't really CHOOSE those...
Posted by: mmelliott01
|
August 7, 2010 11:29 AM
jacob.basson@48:
Does anyone really tell you that *they* believe because of Pascal's Wager? That would surprise me.
More likely I think is that they believe for the other more common trite reasons, and they merely use PW in a lazy attempt to convince you to believe in the hope that you are as intellectually lazy as they are.
Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu
|
August 7, 2010 11:32 AM
The Johns Hopkins degree indicates that she may have been rational once. It's just that a dental abscess has been steadily eating into her brain ever since.
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
August 7, 2010 11:34 AM
DiscoveredJoys #27 I had always thought that dwarf-tossing(unless consensually) was a form of assault, yet she teaches at a university?
Posted by: raven
|
August 7, 2010 11:34 AM
This so called philosopher is crazy.
She better care about the extensive body of truths about her body that her doctors impose on her.
Otherwise, this is a good way to shorten your lifespan considerably and die young.
Same goes for her car mechanic. Ignoring the extensive body of truths about her car imposed on her by an auto repair shop can result in a trashed, nonfunctional vehicle before its time.
Hariet Baber is just indulging in an intellectual auto-erotic practice called Postmoderism. There is no objective reality and all beliefs are simultaneouly true. It is a celebration of pure ignorance as a virtue.
Posted by: Westcoaster
|
August 7, 2010 11:48 AM
As I read the article, that was was running through my mind too.
Posted by: Steve
|
August 7, 2010 11:54 AM
Faith is the grown-up version of make-believe.
Posted by: redrabbitslife
|
August 7, 2010 12:00 PM
Dental disease is currently one of the suspects regarding the new theory behind the inflammatory contributors to cardiac disease.
In brief, lipitor and the other statins we currently use to lower cholesterol have been found to have an effect on cardiac disease independent of their ability to reduce cholesterol levels. The current theory is that they also have a heretofore uncredited anti-inflammatory effect. This is the reasoning behind new recommendations to measure inflammatory markers when making a risk assessment for a given individual, as seen in the JUPITER trial.
It's still theoretical, but it's a good reason to be concerned about what's going on in your mouth.
Posted by: skepticalseeker.com
|
August 7, 2010 12:16 PM
"There are a great many truths in which I have abolutely no interest - truths about the lifecycle of Ctenocephalides felis, (the common cat flea) or the extensive body of truths about the condition of my teeth that my dentist imposes on me. I see no reason why I should bother with these truths or make a point of believing them."
Woah, what? I can understand the point that some facts may be irrelevant to our lives and there is no point, indeed no possibility, in knowing *everything* there is to know. But how in the world does it follow that truth is overrated??? That makes no sense at all.
Posted by: SteveM
|
August 7, 2010 12:24 PM
Seems to me that she isn't saying she doesn't care about "Truth", but about details. For example, she doesn't care about the details of fuel injection and internal combustion, just that if she turns this key and presses this pedal, she can make the car get her from here to there. The same with teeth; she doesn't care about the details of the cares bacteria, just brushes her teeth and has the dentist fill the cavities. She doesn't need to know these "petty" details because she is more interested in seeking the Truth of Life the Universe and Everything. That is all fine, everybody can't know everything about everything, but to then say that Pascal's Wager is anything other than a limiting case of probability and a convincing argument for Faith is just lazy, not pragmatic.
Posted by: herlathing
|
August 7, 2010 12:25 PM
Historically, dental decay was one of the leading causes of death during the period between the discovery of agriculture and the invention of modern dentistry. Osteomyelitis of the jaw, abscesses that eroded into the cranium, and simple starvation from inability to eat were all common. It's true that there is a strong correlation between dental decay and heart disease (a double whammy for those who can't afford to see dentists and who tend to eat a cheap high-carb diet), to the extent that we might one day regard dental clearance as a cost-effective means of preventing heart disease, rather than as a preventable tragedy. What a bizarre thought.
As for those who make Pascal's wager, it boils down to whether I can respect the intellectual poverty of someone who adopts a religion with no personal conviction, but as a form of insurance. Naturally, the corollary to Pascal's wager is that if there is a god, he/she/it will see through you and condemn you anyway...
Posted by: BdN
|
August 7, 2010 12:42 PM
Well, she's so much wiser than you think.
Take a look at her "What women want"
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=11902427
"The Ordination of women, natural symbols, and what even God cannot do"
http://books.google.ca/books?ei=yIpdTNGgEYSBlAf10LiZCA&ct=result&id=fQ_XAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22ursula+king%22+women+world+religion&q=baber#search_anchor
And her chef d'oeuvre : "How bad is rape?"
Answer :" I argue that to be compelled to do routine work is to be gravely harmed. Indeed, that pink-collar work is a more serious harm to women than rape.
My purpose is to urge politically active feminists and feminist organizations to arrange their priorities accordingly and devote most
of their resources to working for the elimination of sex segregation in employment.
"
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VyG6HNvrg6oJ:home.sandiego.edu/~baber/research/rape.pdf+%22how+bad+is+rape%22+baber&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjBoOnmFD0f3H1huofM9X_RLAe2xFz0z58z5nEWTTn8WVU7XfczRSeROuYn09xCKX64VebZ3y5AZmXBk3-_gpgXAU79zPQC14SlBLLLn-_dZdBY7hw1jLnY9ri2R5pMFY7pYKQZ&sig=AHIEtbRG4GsevQAybxRFLsKxsd3t_4sbJQ
Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto
|
August 7, 2010 12:43 PM
Truth does not matter! I believe that this is true!
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
August 7, 2010 12:44 PM
If this philosopher doesn't think the truth about the state of her teeth is useful, then what the hell is she doing at the dentist in the first place? She must be aware that the dentist is using hard won truths to keep her teeth from rotting out of her head, right?
So if these truths are not very valuable then why not leave the state of her teeth and gums to Jesus?
I'm thinking she actually does value the truth when it is practical to do so, but she doesn't want to be encumbered by having to apply it to the fanciful garbage that she would prefer to believe.
Posted by: raven
|
August 7, 2010 12:52 PM
Truth is a lie
This crazy woman is probably scouring Orwell's 1984 for hints on what else to believe.
Ignorance is strength will probably be the subject of her next "philosophy" article.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
August 7, 2010 12:59 PM
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
August 7, 2010 1:03 PM
Such disdain for knowledge. Philosopher is not the correct word. She's a misosophist.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
August 7, 2010 1:04 PM
Yeah, this is one of the biggest problems with religions and why it "just so happens" that so many religions end up supporting conservative and regressive worldviews and politics.
See, life (properly lived) is one of constant discovery. A process of learning new things today that one didn't know yesterday, becoming a smarter and better person today than yesterday. And a life well lived is one where the world you leave is better than the world you entered. It's a process of self-discovery, world-discovery, and so on.
But religions hate this process and instead like to say "everything is figured out", stop caring about learning new things, strive to say the same today as you were yesterday, to leave the universe unchanging and "understood". This viewpoint is also the same as conservatism, the blocking of progress and addressing of wrongs and trying to keep everything the same as it was or at least the same as a nostalgic understanding of a time that never was when everything was perfect because one was ignorant.
Christianity even makes this explicit with a Garden of Eden which was "perfect" precisely because humans were ignorant of everything and it all "fell" when humans stopped being ignorant and "now they can't go back".
Knowledge is the enemy of the perfect world, your childhood idiocy was actually good and whole and not the product of being too stupid to know what was going on.
And so you get people fighting any progress, any knowledge, any attempts to build on to our society and collective knowledge, because the religions tell them its so necessary to something and because it's so comforting to be able to do away with the hard work of self-improvement and intellectual curiosity.
Because it's so much easier to just claim you are done and you need not improve ever again.
And that creates people like her, fuck facts, fuck reality, leave me to my delusions, a fictional ignorant bubble in which I will quickly turn to working against everyone doing the hard work in order to protect.
And of course, while she says this, she'll take advantage of the hard work produced by those who went before. She'll go to a dentist and use the vast history of dental care procedures and lessons, but she'll remain staunchly ignorant about it and will fight things that could lead to better care to avoid learning things.
Because these "stop the world" "proud to be ignorant" types are essentially leeches. And religions train them to be so.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
August 7, 2010 1:09 PM
Also, I would really thank the horde of philosophers and philosophy students who use their degrees essentially to better trick themselves into ignorances while sounding "edjumacated and stuff" and generally Dunning-Kruger themselves into a black hole to really really stop.
Cause they make me think bad thoughts about philosophy as an academic discipline and those who follow it and that's unfair, untrue, and makes me upset, because my partner was a philosophy major and doesn't suck and there is another horde of philosophy majors and philosophers who don't suck.
Posted by: Moggie
|
August 7, 2010 1:13 PM
There's a word for a person who doesn't care about the truth: bullshitter. Once we discover that a person is a bullshitter, we tend not to assign much value to anything they say or write from then on, for obvious reasons. It's a little unconventional for someone to deliberately out themself as a bullshitter in this way, but I think Baber is to be commended for letting us know that we don't need to make the effort of paying attention to her in future. Assuming she's telling the truth about herself in this article, of course...
Posted by: SheepdogB
|
August 7, 2010 1:20 PM
@raven #52
Thank you for the opportunity to add to my collection of derogatory phrases describing the cognitive disorder known as Postmodernism. I most often describe it as "formalized solipsism" but I must admit intellectual auto-eroticism has greater panache.
I minored in Philosophy in college with a concentration in logic and reading Baber's tripe simply gave me vertigo. I seriously doubt, however, that reminding her that Pascal's wager has been debunked would be anything but an exercise in futility. She would simply regard that as one of those truths she can't be bothered with.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
August 7, 2010 1:24 PM
Pascals Wager is nothing more than a slightly more sophisticated expression of the oldest tool in the fundie handbook:- fear. Tell people at length about the unevidenced horrors of hell (the supposed 'bliss' of heaven is useful to, but fear of torment has a broader effect than promises of infinite choclate chip cookies or seventy two virgins... or 'small white raisins of the highest quality' depending upon translation). Go into grotesque and nauseating detail about the nastiest things your fevered imagination can come up with, and then hit them with a seemingly reasonable proposition:-
'Even if the chance that this horror actually exists is slim, why risk it? Just play it safe, and profess faith in god. Afterall, it costs you nothing...'
This, of course, is a rank lie. It most certainly does cost you something. The supposedly insignificant price you pay for this 'afterlife-insurance' is nothing less than your intellectual and moral integrity. Worse, as Voltaire famously said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Belief in the unevidenced sky fairy is step one to the collapse of your rational faculties and the erosion of your free will; once you sacrifice your own sense of ethics on the altar of religion, you can all too easily find yourself producing hatred-to-order toward whatever group the priesthood chooses to identify as sinful this week.
Even leaving aside the direct personal and social harm caused by belief in the psychotic sky daddy, there remains the fact that personal fear is not a good reason to embrace mythology over the evidentially supported, scientific understanding of the universe. Wilfully believing a lie, even where that lie (unlike religion) is not manifestly a source of injustice and harm to the well being of billions, is always harmful to the individual's capacity to view the world rationally, and to the progress of humanity toward some kind of enlightenment.
As for Harriet Baber and her claim that the truth is unimportant, well I would invite her to demonstrate her disdain for evidence and information. How about the value of the truth of gravity? She could readily show the worthlessness of Newton's theory to her life experience by stepping off the roof of the nearest tall building...
Posted by: Kirk
|
August 7, 2010 1:32 PM
Harriet deserves most misleading article title of the year award.
There's nothing in the article explaining why her choice is informed, and her last sentence summarizes the real reason she is a believer:
Posted by: chrstphrgthr
|
August 7, 2010 1:34 PM
@Alverant
Many of them adhere to weird biblically revisionist histories that accuse secular history of conspiracy and mass deception. They feel a great conviction to believe that the false religions are all younger than theirs, because, of course, their fantasy was handed down to the first two people ever. Six thousand and whatever years ago.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 7, 2010 1:37 PM
I'd think that Pascal's Wager could just tip the balance, if you thought God was reasonably likely, which, of course, would need some reasonable evidence for it.
What's weird about PW is that it is wielded by ?Xians, and Xianity seems to be a religion not very friendly to people simply covering their asses. You're supposed to "love the lord with all your heart," etc., and just trying to escape hell or eternal death or whatever god is threatening you with isn't likely to do it.
For Pascal, to be sure, it wasn't quite like that, since you can be christened, confess your sins, and get your last rites, and you're pretty much going to heaven, if after a thorough roasting in purgatory (I don't know how much people believe in that now, but I think it would have been a given to Pascal's mind). A certain amount of going through the motions might get you a lot of insurance against eternal hell, if you really thought hell a likelihood.
But it wouldn't have worked for most of us Protestants, and we still were told that we ought to at least think about Pascal's Wager. Yet god would never have accepted something like that (hell was threatened, but we weren't supposed to just respond to the threat of hell), so what good was it?
The good thing is that Pascal's Wager, along with the rest of most religious teachings, is so obviously a cheap ploy backing up the utter lack of reason to believe that we can safely ignore it and all of religion.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 7, 2010 1:44 PM
Here's some e-mail correspondence I've just had with Harriet Baber, (chronologically adjusted for easy reading).
-----------------------------------------------
On Aug 7, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Richard Harris wrote:
Harriet Baber,
The Christian’s Jehovah is Almighty God,
a capricious and cantankerous sod
and, so far as I can tell,
the Christian often is as well.
The bible bogey, he’s taught to see,
is three that’s one, and one that’s three;
it’s a father, son, and a friggin’ ghost,
that with magic spells becomes wine and toast!
With the problem of theodicy,it sure as hell is idiocy.
The Jew’s Yahweh is a wrathful old jerk,
setting strict rules on when to work,
how to dress, and what to eat and sip,
and giving baby boys the snip.
Myths of Bronze Age, Mesopotamian nomads
metaphorically get ‘em, by the gonads.
The Moslem’s Allah is a fierce great djinn;
Submission’s the name of his religion.
Apostasy’s treated just like a crime;
they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line.
The religion of peace is what they call it,
with warfare & terror, they zealously enforce it.
Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain,
Wiccan, Taoist, and the Born-Again,
the devotees of every cult or religion,
are mired in the miasma of superstition.
------------------------------------------------
From: "Harriet Baber" Add sender to ContactsTo: "Richard Harris" Thanks! I used to write poetry too and it rhymed--though mine wasn't very good.
H.
Dr. H. E. Baber
Department of Philosophy
--------------------------------------------------
She has a sense of humour. I guess I'll have to read her article again, now that i know that.
P.S. I send that poem to all the religious nuts that I come across.
Posted by: Hempenstein
|
August 7, 2010 1:46 PM
Once again I have to go thru Password Recovery to log in here. This is a real pain in the ass!
One notable fatality from dental hygiene was Carleton Coon of the Coon-Sanders Nighthawks (& who was from Rochester). He died in 1932 from a jaw abcess:
http://www.redhotjazz.com/coonsanders.html
They're still celebrated:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x538360176/Coon-Sanders-jazz-fest-kicks-off-tonight-with-free-jam-8-11
Posted by: Judy L.
|
August 7, 2010 1:49 PM
Laughed out loud: Even before I got to the second part of the post I was already thinking about her teeth, and that both the nifty and annoying thing about truth and objective reality is that they both persist and affect our lives no matter how much we choose to ignore them. Unlike revealed truth, actual truth doesn't require you to believe in order to make it "true"
Her dentist isn't imposing "the extensive body of truths about the condition of (her) teeth," he's simply observing what he can perceive with his trained dentist-eyes and sharing that knowledge with her. The condition of her teeth would be the same even if without a dentist (read: tooth scientist) to tell her all the icky details.
Seriously, I can understand not being personally interested "the lifecycle of Ctenocephalides felis, (the common cat flea)", but your TEETH are vital to your ability to eat and speak properly, give shape and structural support to your face, and the health of your gums affects the health of your internal organs. If anything deserves worship and care in this world, it's your teeth.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 7, 2010 2:00 PM
Dear Harriet Baber,
Ctenocephalides felis is a potential carrier of the Black Death.
Yours,
Blake
Posted by: Aquaria
|
August 7, 2010 2:17 PM
Hey Blake--how ya doing?
Too many ifs are needed for PW to work, even for Pascal's mass and holy water woo as a path to heaven. If gawd exists. If gawd's wishes have been correctly conveyed. If he isn't a trickster gawd. If he even cares. If your church is doing the correct rituals. And so forth.
It's just dumb from top to bottom, only going to show that even an incredibly intelligent person can think incredibly moronic things.
Posted by: Kalirren
|
August 7, 2010 2:19 PM
In short, Baber wants to know what ought to be done without wanting to know why to do it. Nowhere near as strong as the assertions that are being made that she doesn't care about her teeth, or that she'd let her cats go all fleabag on her.
She doesn't want to bother knowing about exactly how a tooth decays, but she'll probably still brush and floss if her dentist tells her to, because he's an -authority-, and she'll probably still give her cat flea baths, because her vet said to do so, and he's an -authority-.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
August 7, 2010 2:22 PM
Pascal's Wager is basically like saying that God is the type of deity one would never ever in a thousand years want to pray to.
I mean, if God is willing to treat Pascal's Wager as anything less than an insult to his intelligence and the point of Heaven, God would have to have one of two personality traits:
A) Moron. So unbelievably stupid that he could be "deceived" by a dishonest and disingenuous "bet" against what would presumably be a creature that knows everything. Rewarding someone for thinking you are an idiot entirely because they think you are an idiot and answered the way you wanted means you are the type of deity who can't be trusted to tie his shoes much less run the world and prevent Heaven from being a broken-down truck on the front lawn of the Universe. I'd choose Hell just to avoid the tetanus of that idiot's idea of "Paradise".
B) Rule Lawyer. Entirely focused on nothing other than the correct mantras of magic spells, not goodness, not work in the service of others or the improvement of society, but whether you went through the correct motions like a mindless corporate automaton. What kind of "Paradise" would such an entity envision? It'd have to be something usually reserved for Dystopian sci-fi, a false utopia like Metropolis of automaton-like slaves doing repetitive tasks in someplace "clean". If it didn't care about motivations, actions, only that I belonged to the "right group", there is no justice in such a creature's actions, no understanding of good and evil, of right and wrong, simply wires and levers, like a broken robot in charge of the universe. I can see no greater vision of Hell then what such a creature would view as Heaven, so I would gladly choose Hell any day of the week.
It's like the whole argument in general of Eternal Reward based on Faith not Works, it turns God into a deity not worth praying to, whose idea of "Heaven" would surely be a monstrous wrong and who by the nature of this injustice, couldn't be "all good" and thus also likely lying about how bad his competitor is.
And yet those recruiting to Earthly religions for group-identification in an uncaring universe think that these sorts of arguments will sell us to their religions where it's so easy to be saved, all you have to do is fake belief and do the magic spells!
But it only reveals how hideously morally bankrupt their idea of God must be and how little respect they have for their supposed creator.
I mean seriously, Pascal's Wager basically goes "I'm playing to con an omnipotent and omniscient deity". Even if we bought their unsupported argument for God's existence, how the fuck do they think that would end well for them?
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
August 7, 2010 2:33 PM
Fuck, I hate Pascal's Wager. It's the dumbest idea in history, including both religion (Which at some point was at least not obviously false) and what we call Solipsism.
By living as a good Christian, you consign yourself to Helheim, which kind of sucks. You have to die in a state of baresark to go to Valhalla, a freakin' sweet place, which is incredibly unlikely if you're living like any form of Christian.
And that one paragraph throws the entire wager out the window. If Christianity is an acceptable belief system because of what not living by it gets you, there's no way to compare it to other religions because they all have the same basic gain/loss formula at work.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
August 7, 2010 2:33 PM
If decisions should be made only on the promised benefit, regardless of the likelihood of sucess, we should all be sending our money to Mariam Abacha and her horde of Nigerian spammers.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
August 7, 2010 2:34 PM
Wow. She doesn't even seem to grasp the difference between not having a particular interest in a subject and the truth.
When it comes to gods, I'm seriously interested in the truth, not gambling, because gods and those who claim to speak for said gods have a vested interest in controlling my life.
Posted by: bonefish
|
August 7, 2010 2:40 PM
Aside from the whole screed making very little sense, she didn't actually get around to addressing the question: whether we can choose what we believe.
Or maybe I've missed the point...
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
August 7, 2010 2:41 PM
I just can't get past
Seriously, I didn't read past that sentence. What kind of philosopher isn't concerned with "the truth"?
Oh wait. I did read a little more:
An intellectually lazy philosopher isn't concerned with "the truth".
Doesn't Christianity demand virtue and not settling for "good enough"? It seems to me that if you're going to spend your time writing such drivel, you should at least claim to adhere to your faith's rulebook. Pascal's Wager or not, you're not getting into heaven with that attitude, lady.
Posted by: Mr.Nerdz
|
August 7, 2010 2:45 PM
Philosophy: The love of wisdom, not the revelry of ignorance.
She's a disgrace on the subject.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 7, 2010 2:52 PM
Actually, in the end Baber seems not to be a Pascalian Xian at all, just someone who like dabbling in it, and eating the Forbidden Fruit. Why didn't she just say so, instead of trying to justify it?
Like this:
Maybe the first is right, but we seem as a species to want truth (or even Truth), so why shouldn't we aim for it (small t)?
The second is almost certainly the case, and that statement suggests that she's as much lazy as she is intent on sticking her finger in the eyes of those who put down her precious religion. Nietzsche said "In the end, if you want to know something, you must do everything yourself, which means that there is much to do!" Well, yes. And Baber seems not to want to do much, just take a position that can't be shown to be wrong (if she's wrong she's dead in the end anyhow), and to dabble in ancient superstitions.
Fine, if she can get away with, she may as well do what she wants. But if she actually would take on the task of learning, she might find out that teeth are interesting bits that tell us much about evolution, and that fleas have both their own interesting evolutionary histories, and that their evolution tells us about human and cat evolution.
Really, aside from the bashing that biological evolution takes, it's by far one of the most interesting parts of science altogether, something that she's missed via her indolence. It's not as accessible as anthropocentric myths, but it's far more interesting because it's really true.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Eriol Tolkien
|
August 7, 2010 3:09 PM
"I don't much care about getting the right answers to what are commonly called the big questions."
Then why (claim to)be a philosopher?
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
August 7, 2010 3:16 PM
The lifecycle of the common cat flea is an important matter. Studying it allowed the good people at Frontline to design a drug that allows my cat to spend months flea-free.
As for this lady, she's gonna lose her teeth, and she has it coming. Let her try to fix the problem with prayer if she so wishes. Heh heh heh...
Posted by: irenedelse
|
August 7, 2010 3:28 PM
Otrame, thanks for that Heinlein quote! It's true of so many people, alas...
"I never pay any attention to politics."
"You should. It's only slightly less important than your heartbeat."
"I never pay any attention to that either."
Posted by: FrankT
|
August 7, 2010 3:40 PM
Yes, carries is the most common disease today, and it still kills foold. Dental disease was even worse before antibiotics came around.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
August 7, 2010 3:43 PM
Also, now that PZ invited Lenin for dinner, I feel allowed to quote (or paraphrase) from Materialism and Empiriocriticism. Where ol'Vlad Ilich writes approximately this: those who profess that truth (or material reality) doesn't matter, or that it's an illusion, have a basis to reason you out of ever fighting to improve your condition. And you can trust them to use it.
You're overworked, underpaid and have no right but to shut up? Why, it's only "your truth"! Your boss has his; it's certainly different, and no less valuable. So go back to work, and stop all that talking about "decent conditions".
Posted by: nejishiki
|
August 7, 2010 3:48 PM
This is why I actually have more respect for people like William Lane Craig. They will actually say that truth is important, and that belief in god should be rational, despite the fact that they arrive at a different conclusion than I do.
Posted by: raven
|
August 7, 2010 3:55 PM
This whole article is so filled with gibberish that it is like shooting fish in a barrel. This woman isn't a philosopher, she is an insane idiot.
The Guardian must have published it as a good example of a favorite European sport. Laughing at lunatic fringe Americans. Can't blame them, the USA is a world leader in many areas including that one.
Always a good question. In the old days, one could force themselves to believe by threats of imminent death or torture. These days it isn't so easy. Beating your head in with a hammer, major brain surgery, or massive doses of psychoactive drugs might work but few people can be bothered to try them.
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
August 7, 2010 3:57 PM
What a maroon. Her philosophy boils down to something like this . .
SCENE OPENS:
A savanna boiling with heat. A large ostrich has it's head in the sand:
OSTRICH: "I can't seeeee you hyenas. I'm saaaafe here. You can't hur . . . "
Fade to black.
(cue sounds of helpless squawking, chomping and tearing of flesh).
Scene opens.
A wood paneled study festooned with religious artifacts. A philosopher scratches absent mindedly at her arm :
PHILOSOPHER: "Hey, I wonder why this itchy scab keeps bleeding? Nevermind, I really don't want to know . . ."
Fade to black
(cue dolorous organ music and weeping of mourners).
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 7, 2010 4:12 PM
What an incredibly bizarre, sloppy, self-contradictory mess. Baber doesn't believe in God: she believes in belief in God, and puts on her faith as if it she was putting on a comfortable costume for playing dress up.
So she chooses to believe in God not because she thinks it exists, but because it makes her life more "pleasant." How perfectly lovely. And she playacts taking it seriously, too. Not for her the rationalization of religion as "an existentialist 'philosophy' about the human condition, an ethical system or a list of answers to the big questions." Apparently, it's her personal therapy, a handy metaphor or story to hang her hopes and dreams on.
Except -- she suddenly takes a U-Turn and insists that no, she's taking it literally, and seriously. She's into folk religion.
Interests her as what -- a hobby? Like collecting trains, or doing something edgy for attention? The good ol' folks who believe in that there magic world of God, angels, demons and honest-to_God miracles you can pray for are not playacting belief. They are not airily brushing off the idea of truth and talking about what's true for them, or what makes them feel good about themselves, or any of that post-modern rationalization she just advocated for -- right before she pretends to reject it and says she really belongs with the old fashioned Folks.
No, the folks in the folk religions believe in God because they believe God is REAL. And TRUE. They think it matters. The only reason they'd have you is you're telling atheists faith is peachy keen. The minute the non-believers are out of the room, they will turn on you and eat you.
As someone upthread mentioned, this isn't an "informed" faith: it's bullshitting. I would think this little essay would bother honest believers as much, or more, than it bothers atheists. Could there be any chance she's doing it on purpose, and writing this as too-subtle satire?
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 7, 2010 4:47 PM
Sastra, see my post # 73. Harriet Baber demonstrated, in her e-mail to me, that she does have a sense of humour.
When I think about this article, & her position as a philosopher at a catholic University, & her PhD, my mind becomes discombobulated.
Posted by: FredJ
|
August 7, 2010 5:11 PM
I have a relative who is a preacher.
He said "You know, we can know too much." What he was saying was that we do not need to know how his god does some things. I could not believe he was telling me that.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
August 7, 2010 5:20 PM
Hasn't someone claimed that Pascal meant his wager as parody?
My entire family seems to believe that all religions are, at base, the same, and count as the same for the purposes of Pascal's Wager. Srsly.
Posted by: TheCalmOne
|
August 7, 2010 5:48 PM
Cerberus #65:
Great post, I really enjoyed reading that. :-)
Posted by: Tim
|
August 7, 2010 5:59 PM
I would like to disagree with just about all of those who commented.
Let's review: Ph.D. in philosophy from Johns Hopkins, currently at USD (a Catholic University)
Instead of Pascall's wager, lets apply Bayes' thoeorem. I see two possibilities:
1. This accurately represents her current views.
2. This column is a spoof, perhaps a setup so she can make a future point about critical thinking. After all, she seems to concentrate on teaching logic.
The A Priori probability of proposition 1 (P1) is very high. People rarely write articles that portray themselves in an unfavorable light. I would estimate P1 at .995 (to pick a number out of the proverbial hat).
But hold on. What is the probability (P2) that Ms Baber is unaware that the views expressed in the article are gibberish? (Philosophically speaking) Her educational background is such that she knows that Pascal's wager has been thoroughly discredited, yet she advances it with a straight face. The paragraph PZ quoted is guaranteed to make her a laughingstock among her (former) peers. She surely knows that.
If she knows these things, we must make sense of her publicly expressing views she knows to be intellectual swill. So let's try:
a) She is acting out of pure economic self interest. Perhaps she is not tenured (I didn't try to find out), and is simply pandering; she is just following the Party Line.
b) She is the victim of a mental disorder. (We could speculate on a "Road to Damascus" syndrome.) That is, she is unable to recognize her views as intellectual swill.
c) She was desperate for a column, and came up with this one in the hope she could just take the money and run. I.e., she was just pandering to the Guardian and its readers.
d) it's an elaborate, and yet to be played out, spoof.
Let's try to estimate the A Priori probabilities of these 4:
Pa: I tend to discount this. Any literate undergraduate could write a better apolodia for Catholicism than this. Let's guess: Pa = .30
Pb: Hard to assess, as I am not a psychotherapist. But I know that apparently sane people go nuts occasionally. I know of two in my experience. My estimate: Pb = .20
Pc: This seems the most likely. Deadlines can be cruel taskmasters; perhaps she was working under a deadline, and never considered that her column would be picked up by Pharyngula. My estimate: Pc = .35
Pd: By default, Pd = .15. I'm aware this is very shaky reasoning, and that I really have no quantitative basis for it. Suffice to say that all four estimates are trial and error estimates, based on the requirement that they must total 1.00.
If my estimates are correct, then the probability that the column is intended to be taken seriously is: (Pa+Pb+Pc)x.005 or roughly .846.
The exact numbers are obviously guesses (Read: bogus), but the conclusion is not. I think there is a small but non-zero probability that subsequent events will show that the column was a spoof.
After all, it's hard to believe that a Ph.D. could be this stupid.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
August 7, 2010 6:00 PM
It's the complacency and self-regard that offend most, and the assumption that she thinks she is being genuinely thought-provoking. What a silly, shallow person.
Posted by: Tim
|
August 7, 2010 6:07 PM
Disclaimer: I read comment#73 only after I posted #100.
Posted by: windy
|
August 7, 2010 6:45 PM
Maybe she'd prefer to learn about the little trolls that live in teeth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOJo73IGpfE
Posted by: Timothy
|
August 7, 2010 7:12 PM
Who pays this clown's bills? There are a lot of unemployed people in America and surely at least one is less of a fool.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
August 7, 2010 7:49 PM
@ #41: Apparently Frank Herbert has been there. Aborted fetuses in the sandpit seems a very familiar mental image...
Posted by: Rorschach
|
August 7, 2010 8:03 PM
Sastra @ 95,
A quote from "Breaking the spell" by Dennett comes to mind :
I thought one of criticisms of the wager was that it doesn't specify which god you put your money on, not which religion.
Posted by: articulett
|
August 7, 2010 8:13 PM
It's one thing not to care about the details of dentistry-- after all ignorance may be bliss. But Harriet Baber goes beyond this "I don't want to know" stage when it comes to "The Big Questions." She tells us that she'd rather believe a LIE then to say "I don't know" when it comes to the Christian version of god(s)/souls. Why? Because Harriet thinks it's good for people... at least she believes the Christian version is. Plus, she gets to savor the notion that she'll live happily ever after if she's right (which means she's also motivated by the corollary fear that she can suffer forever if she doesn't make herself believe.)
So Harriet Baber is more comfortable believing, spreading, enabling, and ennobling a probable lie based in mental manipulations then finding out whether she may be deceiving herself and others in the only life any of us has.
Typical theist, eh?
I wonder if the local Scientologists feel the same way about their beliefs, and if they feel that Scientology is as good for society as Harriet Baber imagines Christianity is. I'm sure the Muslims feel similar to Harriet regarding their "wager"; wherein, all those who believe as Baber does are going to hell for believing Jesus to be a god.
Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to BELIEVE.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 7, 2010 8:21 PM
Then you really don't understand the cognitive dissonance that occurs with when folks try to explain why they believe in imaginary deities. Check out a twit named Heddle here. He simply cannot see his religious views from a scientific viewpoint, in spite of being a tenured physics professor. He flips over to irrational religiousness every time that his imaginary deity is approached. We see it all the time...Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
August 7, 2010 8:29 PM
I've either entered a bizarre shadow world or else this lady has been teaching philosophy for a very long time.
Years ago, at a small New Hampshire college, I took a course in philosophy. I was actually looking forward to a bit of clarity. 'Twas not to be, alas.
The instructor was a grey lady. She dressed, each day, in black and shades of grey. Her lectures were grey and contained no good end point, nothing to hang a certainty on. She and her lessons were uniformly grey.
Her delivery was grey. I cannot recall a moment of excitement or conviction the whole semester long. For a long time afterward I avoided the subject of philosophy or any established way of getting a handle on knowledge and how my mind might deal with it. How sad in retrospect. Not to mention the extra burden of labor I've had to shoulder, building my own philosophical base without the guidance of a professional.
And now I am faced with a conundrum worthy of SyFy TeeVee show. I know that what I'm about to say goes counter to everything that we know about the world, time and human lifespans. I don't know how she could survive this long and still stand erect let alone continue to opine. Nevertheless I must advance the notion that Harriet Baber was my philosophy teacher in 1971!
. . . the world is stranger than I can imagine . . .
*and the damndest thing of all is that if I could meet her today the first thing I would give her would be a hug . . . knowing that she's missed such simple pleasure for so long*
Posted by: PS9
|
August 7, 2010 8:32 PM
At the risk of sounding naïve (read: the majority dislikes the fact that I disagree with them), I'm not entirely sure that Pascal's Wager was purely a pro-religious argument. Read in another light, it sounds sarcastic and dismissive of those who take religion for benefit rather than belief or without thinking - and that religion is only for those who choose to partake in it.
Or to quote the computer Joshua from the movie "War Games", "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
I think Pascal was inferring that the only people who need to worry about whether or not to believe are those that worry about whether or not to believe, that those who don't believe are not in error.
.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkOxyC7WFXvi-PQPqz9mtQMtXRCYWv_edA
|
August 7, 2010 9:30 PM
Wait, Hopkins gave this writer a PhD and fired the author of " http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
">The Fixation of Belief"?
Posted by: goldfinch
|
August 7, 2010 9:50 PM
Reading post #110 it sounds like Pascal is agnostic. Maybe I am full of it, but isn't Pascal's wager what every religious person does? They are making a bet that seems to have little or no cost, but big potential payoff. And you aren't even tricking God or pretending to believe, you make the bet and you do believe. Rationalization is powerful psychology.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
August 7, 2010 9:57 PM
I just read her article. My strong impression is that she is slumming, trying to be one of the "folk."
Posted by: thrawn369
|
August 7, 2010 10:49 PM
"I have always been interested in religion in that way, in the way that railroad buffs are interested in trains. I am a hopeless high church junkie. And I am a Christian because I just plain like religion."
And yet whenever anyone else that their favourite TV show actually exists in an alternate reality, and they themselves are the reincarnation of a character from it (or shall be reunited with them after death), people call them mentally ill.
Posted by: thrawn369
|
August 7, 2010 11:00 PM
"I argue that Christian evangelism is justified in order to make the this-worldly benefits of religious belief and practice available to everyone, to bring about an increase in religious affiliation for the purpose of providing a more supportive social environment for Christians, and to promote the survival of the institutional Church, which benefits Christians and non-Christians alike by maintaining church property, providing access to church buildings and doing liturgy visibly and publicly for the sake of all people."
Basically she thinks people should be christian so she doesn't have to hear anyone disagree with her, and it's easier than getting your local council to pass sensible heritage laws.
Posted by: praymont
|
August 7, 2010 11:22 PM
The main flaw in her paper is sloppy wording. She doesn't say that truth is generally unimportant.
Near the outset of her piece, she says, "While believing isn't a strictly voluntary action, when it comes to disputed questions like this we can decide which way to jump." I interpret her as meaning that for many questions there is already good evidence indicating what we should believe. On those questions believing isn't really a voluntary action -- once you're aware of the evidence or reasons for accepting a claim and you see the evidence provides such support, you're not really free to deny it (other than merely verbally).
In the case of some questions, though, there isn't enough evidence to support decisively a given proposition or its denial. The evidence seems to be neutral on the question. Baber denies that we should always, in such cases, remain undecided, or neutral, on whether to belief the proposition in question. She thinks we are entitled to, in some of these cases at least, freely choose what to believe. In such cases it's okay to be guided by the impact of the belief on my life (e.g., would it make me happier?).
Analogy: you're being treated for a potentially lethal condition and it's not clear whether the treatment will work or not. Even the specialists don't know. Surely it's okay to choose to believe that one will survive (since one'll be happier and perhaps the 'power of positive thinking' will help you recover), even though one does go beyond what the evidence supports in forming that belief.
The main question is whether questions of religious faith today are relevantly similar to the above case. She's on shakier ground there.
Posted by: raven
|
August 7, 2010 11:42 PM
What benefits of religious belief and practice?
Believing the earth is 6,000 years old and the center of the universe with the sun orbiting it?
Assassinating MDs?
Telling everyone they can't use birth control and must have 12 children or go to hell?
Checking into Mind Control Central everyday and finding out who is on the To Hate list? While mourning the fact that the secular authorities took away all their heavy weapons and armies so they can't fight wars with other sects of Fake xians?
Waiting around in a catatonic state hoping jesus will show up 2,000 years late and kill 6.7 billion people and destroy the earth?
This not-a-philosopher managed to write a whole page of complete and total nonsense. That must be another of those benefits of religion, not having to think for even a second and knowing that all the other zombies will applaud wildly as long as you bash atheists.
Posted by: SC OM
|
August 8, 2010 12:10 AM
Baber, moments ago, at B&W:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/in-which-i-do-the-expected/#comment-57000
Posted by: Rorschach
|
August 8, 2010 12:26 AM
Baber the philosopher :
*sound of Plato spinning in his grave*
'nuff said.
Posted by: H. E. Baber
|
August 8, 2010 12:28 AM
Hello, PZ--pleased to meet you.
What amazes me about the comments I got at the Guardian site and elsewhere is how pious secularists are. I'm just a simple, self-serving hedonist.
For a nice discussion of Pascal's Wager, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
August 8, 2010 12:29 AM
Pascal's Wager is basically a threat for forcing people to accept the existance of Yahweh without evidence.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
August 8, 2010 12:34 AM
You're also a naive fool who ought to be embarrassed, at her age and education, to credit Pascal's Wager.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
August 8, 2010 12:35 AM
quoted in #118:
*clears throat, enunciates, "ramen", winks broadly at crowd.*
Posted by: SC OM
|
August 8, 2010 12:37 AM
What's really creepy is that she appears to think of religion as some sort of naughty slumming. Next thing you know she'll be singing "Folk-religion Blues" to get out of the scary club.
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 8, 2010 12:41 AM
Baber:
Must be new around here. :)
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
August 8, 2010 12:46 AM
Honestly, I can't believe she's not embarrassed to say the things she does.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
August 8, 2010 12:52 AM
Hello, Harriet!
Do I really recall you teaching a class forty years ago or are you an echo? (Surely not. You are much too young.)
Dear Lady, please consider that when you observed, "how pious secularists are" the first thought that occurred to me (and others, no doubt) was that in order to be pious one must first assume that one is closer to the truth and more anointed by it than the listener. Dear Lady, I've been waiting for a long time to hear a hedonist address how preference, probability, heavenly propriety and providence collide. I think you are about to explain it . . .
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
August 8, 2010 12:54 AM
Oh, you're so very clever. Anyone who insists on clarity must be a "fundamentalist," right? I bet you're very quick to identify "fundamentalist atheists," aren't you?
Please explain: how is that you religious folk those same attributes as insults? If it's good to be "pious," then how is it an insult to characterize an atheist (however inaccurately) as "pious?"
Oh, wait, I've figured you out. You're playing the postmodern game. All knowledge is personal, subjective, veiled from public scrutiny. There's no objective means by which to measure it, therefore it's rude (and epistemologically verboten) to interrogate it.
Then shut the fuck up about everything except your personal, subjective, "this is how I like to imagine things in my head" feelings. You're a bullshitter, Harriet.
Posted by: praymont
|
August 8, 2010 1:14 AM
What she's saying about truth isn't incompatible with philosophy. Saying that something is overrated doesn't entail that it's unimportant.
As a hedonist, she values truth only insofar as it's a means to attaining other objectives that have more value (like pleasure). On this view, the truths that matter are the ones we need to know in order to survive, maintain a good standard of living, and secure more pleasurable experiences.
Beyond that, truth doesn't matter. It has no value in and of itself (say some hedonists).
So, suppose there was a perfected Ecstasy, a pill that would make you feel good all the time without any bad consquences. It achieves this effect partly by giving you pleasurable experiences that may or may not be illusions. You don't know if these experiences are true or illusory but don't care since you're a hedonist.
As a non-hedonist, I wouldn't take that pill but a lot of intelligent people would. For Baber, religion is that pill.
Posted by: khylate
|
August 8, 2010 1:19 AM
This seems to be her cowardly avoidance of the absurd nature of existence so she dodges by using philosophical language to justify her ludicrous conclusion. First sign of a hack, an unwillingness to examine their own premises. Historical evidence alone destroys her notions of Christianity as it can clearly be traced to older religions and political gamesmanship. Also her faith was written down a century (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong) after it's scion was martyred (funny that the Roman have NO mention of this in their fairly meticulous records). She's a twit and I'm almost embarrassed too admit that this autodidact wants a Master's in philosophy...
Posted by: khylate
|
August 8, 2010 1:22 AM
And I used *too* instead of *to*, dammit!
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 8, 2010 1:27 AM
praymont,
No, because it's so vague and unqualified that it could be shoehorned anywhere.
Sure, one can hold that the only truths that matter are those which affect one's life (if I stand on the edge of a cliff contemplating the rocky terrain below, truth matters quite a bit), but how does one know which truths fall into that category without examination?
It's not a position I'd care to defend.
Posted by: raven
|
August 8, 2010 1:32 AM
If religion were just make believe (it is) like the Society for Creative Anachronism, Fairie World, the various Renaissance faires, Burning Man, and so on, I could see her point.
Let's all play "dress up", go the "church", pretend to worship a sky fairy, sing songs, eat cookies and drink coffee and so on. A few times a year people gather for festivals called Xmas, Easter and Halloween.
It would all just be fun for a certain group of self selected people.
But it isn't that way. People have taken it seriously enough to kill each other by the tens of millions. Even today in the USA, xian terrorism is a serious and sometimes fatal problem for various people. Religion is the best vehicle ever invented for social conflict. And a lot of modern US xianity is based on hate. Hate of science, scientists, the USA itself, democracy, gays, other xians, other religions.
The fundie Dominionist perversion would destroy our secular democracy if they could. At 20-30% of the population they have a chance.
I don't see xians and xianity as make believe fun and games, although that would be a vast improvement. If they stopped murdering MDs, trying to destroy science and the USA, hoping jesus shows up to kill everyone, etc., maybe it would be different.
'dress up,
Posted by: Jack Pott
|
August 8, 2010 2:27 AM
Posted by: praymont
|
August 8, 2010 2:35 AM
John Morales: "but how does one know which truths fall into that category without examination?"
Good point, and one that I, happily, don't have to deal with (since I'm not a hedonist). I guess Baber wants to just focus on untestable claims about a deity and an afterlife (although some of her claims about a this-worldly, physical Jesus may be more testable than she'd like), and say that for those matters, at least, she can believe whatever makes her happy, for even if her beliefs are false, they won't affect her life negatively. But she's open to objections on that score, since some people might have a lot more fun if they didn't hold certain religious views.
Posted by: Anri
|
August 8, 2010 3:39 AM
Hmm... surely, we don't think H. E. Baber is actually going to hang around and defend that utter pile of claptrap she wrote, do we?
I'm going with a different interpretation of the three-post-rule - unless someone is willing to engage in three or more posts either supporting or defending their position, I'm going to consider them a drive-by-troll and generally not worth my time and effort, as feeble as that effort may be.
My guess is that Baber was just swinging by to plop that smelly turd of a faux-triumphant 'one-shot' without actually trying to support anything she said. I'd love to be proved wrong, but...
(Shakes Magic 8-Ball)
All indications point to NO
Posted by: Harbo
|
August 8, 2010 4:09 AM
"Philosopher" see Tom Lehrer
"someone who gives helpful advice to people who are happier than they are"
And thank you Iain# 41 for:
God: "Oh, crap. Another Pascalian. Pete, you're supposed to filter out these blind-faith numbnuts at the Pearly Gates."
I may laugh for days.
Posted by: mikee
|
August 8, 2010 4:46 AM
"I see no reason why I should believe that life is, as Tony Soprano's perfectly awful mother Livia put it, "a great big nothing" after which we are annihilated. That may very well be the way things are. But I see no benefit to believing it is so. If I believe that, then my life will not be as pleasant as it would otherwise be and, if I am correct, I will never even have the gratification of finding out that I was right all along because I will die dead."
I will die dead? is that even correct English?
The thing that annoys me most about her argument is that it incorporates the myth that believing in a god/having religion makes life "more pleasant". I live a very happy life thank you very much as an atheist, not having to put up with the fear and the contradictions of religion. I find Baber's article self absorbed and patronizing.
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 8, 2010 5:13 AM
mikee,
I suspect it's an artefact of sloppy editing (I do that quite often) and it should read "I will be dead".
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
August 8, 2010 7:26 AM
I find her example odd.
There's a neighborhood cat here I let in when it's stormy out. As a result, the carpet got fleas.
The FIRST thing I did was look up information on the lifecycle of fleas to better understand how to kill the buggers effectively.
Ignorance is not a useful trait to cultivate.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
August 8, 2010 8:32 AM
Surely the fact that Pascal's nonsense has to be invoked at all is proof positive that the premise of an all knowing, all loving, all singing, all dancing, omnipotent sky fairy is fatally floored from step one.
Such a beneficent figment of a cretinous imagination would not disguise itself as to its own veracity if is was a fact.
The ego apparent, a perusal of the the wholly babble both pre and post version of the brat would suggest a rather nasty piece of work that admits to being a very jealous dick head.
Such traits displayed are not conducive to a deity determined to rule the universe, first step would be to provide an unequivocal demonstration to get his own legions of slobbering slaves lined up in the same direction.
And it is profoundly unlikely the fairy would leave the ambiguity hanging there for 2000 odd years cos he does need unification of purpose.
A minimum requirement I would assume.
Existence of such a phenomena could be easily provided in fact it would be in the best interests of everyone Yahweh included.
That such evidence was made available would be the best advert to 'praise de lawd'
It would affectively dismiss all competition in the holier then thou stakes and it would be regarded as a fact beyond dispute.
Tis a win win situation, 'chuckles' gets a very committed audience and the committed audience gets summat tangible to drool over and other folks will not laugh at them for doing so.
Gambling on such a premise, because Pascal's Wager is just that, the clue is in the second part of the name...WAGER...is as ridiculous as it is blatantly obvious that theists required an intellectual argument that sounded plausible, well enough to fool the hard of thinking anyway, that basically tries to paper over the gaping crack in the god claim by admitting that there is no such concrete evidence available therefore a gamble is the only sensible way to proceed.
In fact the magic man premise in deep doo doo, science keeps on trumping it and the gaps in knowledge of the natural world. where 'chuckles' can fester, are getting rarer then hens teeth.
Even the premise of the gamble itself is tainted beyond serious contemplation because the whole clap trap was debunked years ago, except in the desperate pouting of theist apologetica.
But they got now't else and clinging to a sinking ark of ignorance is all they got left.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
August 8, 2010 10:20 AM
SC OM @ # 118 - Great timing! (re: # 120)
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 8, 2010 1:06 PM
H.E. Baber (#120):
And are you really willing to wager that God rewards self-serving hedonists? Good luck with that.
Actually, re-reading your article it seems to me that your underlying reasoning is far more Jamesian than Pascalian. What you're actually after is the benefit that you personally find in this life as a consequence of being a practicing Christian, more than any prospect of reward in a putative afterlife. Of course, if one applies the reasoning of James's Will to Believe argument consistently, and if one avoids artificially weighing the outcome in favour of theism (as James does), then atheism or agnosticism turn out to be just as viable as theism. So your embracing Christianity is not "the logical thing to do", as the subtitle of your article puts it. It is at best a logical thing to do (from a purely pragmatic perspective), given your personal, subjective preferences.
It's a fairly good entry. Sums up quite nicely most (although not all) of the problems with Pascal's argument. One can, for instance, also argue that one has no reason to assume that the outcome of believing in an extant God has a positive utility - i.e., the putative "reward" for believing may be no reward at all. Certainly, your notion of "a blissful afterlife contemplating [God]" strikes me as a grim, dehumanising existence that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. In other words, plausibly assigning a positive (let alone infinitely positive) utility to the outcome of believing is rather more problematic than Pascal and his defenders assume.
Mind you, the fact that in the comments section of the CiF article you do an about turn and admit that Pascal's Wager is flawed, suggests that you already know all this. That made me feel slightly less embarassed by you in one respect (you're smarter than the article itself lets on), although more embarrassed in another (you reveal yourself as a hypocrite). But then I noticed another comment in which you argued for encouraging the spread of Christianity on the grounds that:
"(1) Being a hedonist, I'd like to be in a comfortable majority rather than a despised minority. In my social world people look at you funny--or worse--if they find out you're a religious believer.
(2) I like fancy church buildings and fancy services. This costs money. If there are too few Christians to kick in it won't be possible to maintain these facilities. And even if a few are kept up as museums, that's just not the same thing. Seriously, I believe that losing the buildings, the services, the prayer book is a terrific cultural loss that can't be compensated, and can't be fixed by reconstituting these things as art objects."
This goes way beyond mere self-serving hedonism, and into the kind of infantile egoism that most people grow out of by the time they're five. The fundamentalist street preacher I can just about respect - he genuinely thinks he's trying to save people from themselves, and is willing to risk discomfort and ridicule in pursuit of what in his mind is an altruistic goal. With you, it's just "me, me, me", and to hell with what might make other people happy.
You may be a better philosopher than your original article suggests, but as a human being, you suck. But at least you're up front about it.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
August 8, 2010 1:50 PM
To be fair, I don't think "I will die dead" is either sloppy editing or bad writing. As I said at B&W, Baber likes to be provocative. As I didn't say there (but have said in the past), she's often good at it, and I often enjoy it. She has a good line in deflationary realism (in the non-technical sense) about why she is an academic; it's because she tried low-level white collar work and hated it; it's nice to have a nicer job. She reminds me of Kingsley Amis saying "nice things are nicer than nasty ones."
I'm sure she meant "I will die dead"; the point is to contrast that with dying not dead - with dying into a new life, etc. It's a nice, blunt, vivid way of saying it.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 8, 2010 2:27 PM
H.E. Baber #120 wrote:
By "pious," you mean passionate.
And by "simple, self-serving hedonist," you mean bullshitter.
As a philosopher, you ought to appreciate the value of clarifying your terms. Yet as a bullshitter, you probably also value leaving your terms open to multiple interpretations. Doing so doubtless makes the discussion more thrilling for you.
Posted by: KG
|
August 8, 2010 2:45 PM
- Harriet BaberYou write an article in which you show quite clearly that you are completely selfish, extremely cowardly, despise the truth, and are nevertheless employed as a professional philosopher, and this is your response to the fully justified criticism you receive? You are utterly despicable.
Posted by: Tim
|
August 8, 2010 2:49 PM
Since my last post (#100) I have found out that the Guardian article is not one that is intended to be taken at face value. This is easy to see if one browses the many articles she has written for the Guardian. Her playful comment (#120) should have pointed us in that direction.
The following quote is the final paragraph from an article written a year ago:
(Emphasis added)
The last sentence is obviously incompatible with the adoption of Pascals wager. Perhaps Ms Baber will elucidate at some future time; meanwhile we should all try to sharpen our sense of skepticism. We are being toyed with.
Posted by: KG
|
August 8, 2010 3:01 PM
- Harriet BaberYou write an article in which you show quite clearly that you are completely selfish, extremely cowardly, despise the truth, and are nevertheless employed as a professional philosopher, and this is your response to the fully justified criticism you receive? You are utterly despicable.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 8, 2010 3:01 PM
Tim (#147):
Good detective work (although I'm embarrassed I didn't pick up on it myself).
But I suppose that's the thing about CiF Belief - trolling isn't reserved for the comments section alone.
Posted by: KG
|
August 8, 2010 3:07 PM
- Harriet BaberYou write an article in which you show quite clearly that you are completely selfish, extremely cowardly, despise the truth, and are nevertheless employed as a professional philosopher, and this is your response to the fully justified criticism you receive? You are utterly despicable.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
August 8, 2010 4:09 PM
What Tim said. I think Baber does mean it, but she puts it in a way she knows very well will provoke.
I'm not always a fan of her content, but I do like her style. And it's probably sensible not to take her 100% literally.
Posted by: CJColucci
|
August 8, 2010 8:44 PM
It has always struck me as unfair that non-believers in the afterlife will know only whether they are wrong and that believers will know only if they are right.
Posted by: SC OM
|
August 8, 2010 9:03 PM
Posted by: TimmyC
|
August 8, 2010 9:58 PM
Most philosophers believe in truth and reason and disbelieve in God (perhaps for that reason). Please don't hate on philosophers because of this woman.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
August 9, 2010 5:50 AM
A mere attention seeker. How dull.
I would also like to be paid for playing with myself in public, but unfortunately I have reason to believe that something more productive is demanded of me. I also feel a public duty not to offend the eye with grotesque things that are better left for private.
The beauty of a bubble or the sustenance of bread? A hard choice for a starving man, I'm sure. I'll take the house filet mignon, please; those little turned potatoes on the side make me hungry just by looking at them.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
August 9, 2010 9:26 AM
You'll notice she didn't actually phrase Pascal's wager in terms of heaven or hell, but in terms of the pleasure she would get from knowing she had been right. It's probably another thing that should have indicated a joke, but it's not incompatible with her previous statement.
Posted by: KG
|
August 9, 2010 9:32 AM
Tim,
People who despise the truth are not committed to consistency.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 9, 2010 10:13 AM
qbsmd (#156):
Except Pascal's Wager is based on the assumption that one's belief in God is (at the very, very least) a major factor in how God dishes out reward and punishment in the hereafter. So Tim is correct - the comment quoted is not compatible with the wager, because it contradicts one of its major assumptions.
Baber's argument (if you can call it that) is more a version of William James's The Will to Believe, which focuses on the benefits of belief in the here and now. So when she claims to be a "Pascalian Christian", she's being somewhat less than honest (or is being "provocative", as Ophelia Benson more charitably puts it). She's really a Jamesian Christian. Which is a slight (albeit only a slight) improvement.
It would seem that the whole "Pascalian Christian" bit is a big mislead, so that she can get her jollies watching non-believers attack a position she doesn't really adhere to, and then smugly comment how "pious" they are for taking her at her word.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
August 9, 2010 10:37 AM
Which are so easily rebutted that the entire position is bankrupt (even as provocation to anything other than straightforward rejection).
Is every contemporary philosopher a poseur, or only the ones who make it into mainstream print/bits?
I have heard nothing good from modern philosophers, which is possibly doubly telling; that I do not seek out Philosophy, and that egregious waffle is better suited to self-promotion than understatement of thoughtful ideas.
Posted by: H. E. Baber
|
August 9, 2010 6:57 PM
Eat it.
Posted by: CJO
|
August 9, 2010 7:08 PM
A "philosopher" with all the rhetorical acumen of Weird Al Yankovic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2010 7:13 PM
And philosophers wonder why the have been ignored and scorned for the last half century. Their wit and wisdom is something to behold...Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
August 9, 2010 7:20 PM
Christ, if Baber's an indication of the quality of USD's faculty, I'm certainly glad I didn't get invited there for an interview. Then again, being a faggot, I hope to never set foot on a Catholic campus again.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 9, 2010 7:28 PM
There you are, KG, a comprehensive refutation of your comments about Frau Doktor Professor Baber.
And people sneer at me for not being impressed by philosophers.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
August 9, 2010 7:45 PM
H. E. Baber:
Surely this will go down in the annals of philosophy as one of the all time great philosophical
essaysidiocies of all time.Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 9, 2010 7:50 PM
Really? The old "atheists are really religious" appeal to emotion? She's going with that? No wonder she thinks Pascal's Wager is good.
She's fucking new at this.
I look forward to her next groundbreaking paper: Why Do We Drive on a Parkway and Park on a Driveway While Orange You Glad I Didn't Say 'Banana': Reflections on the Schoolyard Dialectic.
Boy, is algebra going to blow her fucking mind when her tutor gets to that module.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
August 9, 2010 7:56 PM
H. E. Baber:
Surely, a second Socrates!
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
August 9, 2010 8:03 PM
Actually, though I think her article was ridiculous, I quite like that as a retort (what can I say?)!
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 10, 2010 5:26 AM
IOW, I take advantage of those even more stupid than I, and I get away with it, and I like it. Nyah nyah.
Whatta specimen.
Posted by: KG
|
August 10, 2010 5:43 AM
- Harriet BaberI did. Then I spent the next three hours throwing up.
Posted by: KG
|
August 10, 2010 5:45 AM
'Tis,
She's not a philosopher; she's a pholisopher.
Posted by: KG
|
August 10, 2010 5:52 AM
It's just occurred to me that Harriet Baber may have meant "Eat it" literally, as advice on what to do with her article. You'd certainly get at least as much intellectual nourishment from doing that as from reading it.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
August 10, 2010 6:03 AM
Did someone say Eat it ?
Posted by: Icaria
|
August 10, 2010 6:20 AM
She strikes me as little more than a hedonist, which is fine in a... juvenile kind of way but it's kind of concerning that someone with such an apathy for the subject matter, happens to be teaching it. It's almost a contradiction.
Posted by: KG
|
August 10, 2010 7:30 AM
Among Catholic pholisphers, admittedly, she's pretty much par for the course as far as her intellectual level goes - consider that egregious idiot Plantinga.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 10, 2010 7:36 AM
*Makes sign of crossed tentacles*Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 10, 2010 10:46 AM
KG (#175):
... who is a Calvinist, not a Catholic. And who also generally says what he means and means what he says. Unlike, say, a certain Harriet Baber ...
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
August 10, 2010 11:01 AM
Hedonism is a plausible approach to life. It's not mine, or maybe I just have a different idea of "doing things that make me happier" than just the pleasures of the flesh.
But why is a self-identified philosopher surprised that other people take the discussion of ideas seriously?
Nor do I see why Baber thinks people will cut her slack because, deep in the comments, she says that she is dishonest. If her dishonesty and hedonism are essential to the discussion, they should be included in the notes about the author. Not "Harriet Baber is a philosophy professor at..." but "Harriet Baber is a dishonest hedonist who teaches philosophy at..."
Even if she's a troll (rather than someone who would rather keep digging than admit she's lost an argument), we can discuss what she posted on our terms.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 10, 2010 11:11 AM
And it didn't take her long to descend to our level, did it?
Sorry, Harriet - you get smug points deducted for that kind of thing.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
August 11, 2010 8:18 AM
My understanding from reading various sources is that complications from dental infections are what killed most people (in the end) in the bad old days. Though the stats from many hunter-gatherer cultures argues against that: Up to 30% death by homicide (/war) for males.
Now it's usually pneumonia that delivers the coup de grace.
Posted by: windy
|
August 11, 2010 10:01 AM
And this is the best you can think of? LOL!
Why does this remind me of...
"We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing!"
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
August 11, 2010 1:17 PM
Present-day Catholic academics who fit into the same mold:Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence and dabbler in the philosophy of Why Gays are Bad. On August 4, 2010, he put out a press release that said, in part: ""Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges." And this guy is a professor of jurisprudence? And he wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Examiner on August 6th, saying among other things:
Philip Blosser is a Catholic who is a professor of philosophy at Metro Detroit in Michigan. He writes the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist.
Then there's Kenneth Howell, a Catholic professor of philosopy that PZ discussed on July 9. PZ's noted that this is not hate speech, it's stupid speech.
Posted by: Icaria
|
August 12, 2010 6:43 AM
Probably because nihilism tends to act as (an all too convenient) stepping stone to hedonism, although that doesn't appear to be the case, here.Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bzANHP0Yps6eHx6NdyQQJ.DoXzQurIHttLw-#e05d1
|
August 13, 2010 7:43 PM
Myers uses prejudiced conclusion regarding Baber and her dentist.
Baber:" ... or the extensive body of truths about the condition of my teeth that my dentist imposes on me."
there are two observable facts from this comment.
1.Baber has a dentist.
2.The dentist gives her "extensive" information.
Myers:"..virtue of fools: I wonder how much misery and death.."
whilst not explicity stating this may have any relation to baber' views, the later "truths about the condition of people's teeth actually matter"
further seem to infer assumed view of Baber,
that is that she is not interest in dental health.
This inadequacy in reasoning makes me curious about Myers other applications of bias.
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 14, 2010 9:04 PM
Yahoomess bzANHP0Yps6eHx6NdyQQJ.DoXzQurIHttLw-#e05d1: You base your contention on a quote-mine. Here's the quote from which you extracted that nugget (emphasised).
"There are a great many truths in which I have abolutely no interest - truths about the lifecycle of Ctenocephalides felis, (the common cat flea) or the extensive body of truths about the condition of my teeth that my dentist imposes on me."
It's damn clear what Baber states here: Baber unequivocally states she has "abolutely no interest" in it.
It's neither prejudice nor inadequacy in reasoning, contrary to your fatuous claim.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/bzANHP0Yps6eHx6NdyQQJ.DoXzQurIHttLw-#e05d1
|
August 17, 2010 1:40 AM
John Morales. i just happened to only display a small section of the quote, it was my own laziness or attempt at efficiency rather than mining :)
to then take a wider perhaps less fatuous claim.
still considering that she has a dentist -
this infers to me she has some concern about the condition of her oral state.
and her dentist gives her an extensive body of truths - that she has absolutely no interest in.
it is possible to consider the "extensive body of truths" as a singular entity in which she has no interest, thereby leaving open the space for her to have concern over a smaller body of truths in which she can be interested.
leaving me to consider any definitive linking of her statment to her care for personal oral health is tentative, and in Myers case prejudicial.
i think it important to consider her status as a philosopher. and that she appears to have more than a passing aquaintance with the quest for truth.
even from a scientific perspective you can never actually prove anything has a known relationship with reality, just that it works.
of course it may be that she considers her dental health at a safe/secure level, such that she need not understand any precautionary measure she may engage in such as brushing/flossing/gargling. and that her dentist will alert her to any new threat to her personal well being.
this is just to offer another possibility in her relationship with the truth of her teeth, not any claim or definitive suggestion. after all, she doenst actually say that much.
its funny how no one thinks it important that she should be aware of "the lifecycle of Ctenocephalides felis". I guess no-one thinks she has a cat.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 17, 2010 1:56 AM
This inadequacy in reasoning makes me curious about Myers other applications of bias.
you get right on that and let us know what you "discover".
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 17, 2010 2:00 AM
Eat it.
well, one can accuse her of being moronic and shallow, but at least she ain't verbose on the matter.
I give her marks against Plantiga for that.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 17, 2010 2:06 AM
For a nice discussion of Pascal's Wager, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager
indeed.
I guess Barber never got as far as the objections, which I quote "are manifold".
In fact, they are the vast bulk of the article.