501. Comment #89201 by irate_atheist on November 20, 2007 at 2:14 am

I loathe Barbie, as does my wife. Thankfully our son was born a boy.

Personally, I've never seen the fascination with playing with a leggy blonde with big fake plastic tits. Oh, hang on, let me think about that image for a minute...or two...or perhaps a bit longer.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

502. Comment #89202 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 2:21 am

According to Plantinga's original argument if naturalism and natural evolution are true then the probability of us having any cognitive capacity is low or at best inscrutable. So, according to Plantinga, our mathematical reasoning for example would not necessarily have evolved towards truth but only towards causing (when combined with our desires) the appropriate behavior.

That is a naive understanding of evolution. For example, there is no reason why 'the appropriate behaviour' should not uncover truth. For example, when humans started to use fire to keep warm (appropriate behaviour) they discovered the truth that fire can hurt. Drop a mammoth leg into the fire by accident, and you discover fire can cook... at that point Gordon Ramsay is inevitable :)

1) It represents more a wish about how things should be in order for the argument against naturalism to be invalidated, than an actual argument. After all where's the evidence that such an amalgam of previous cognitive capacities would serve for the completely different task of ontological reasoning?

It happens all the time in biology. I gave the example of parrots talking English. The amalgam of their capacities serves a completely different task.

In biology, things are messy and chaotic. There is no predicting what a collection of capacities evolved in one environment are capable of in another.

2)My point using these examples is to show that our cognitive faculties appear to be much less flexible than what would be necessary for Steve's argument to work.

You are missing an important point here. Humans are the supreme toolmakers. Once you start making tools you can extend what you do in all kinds of ways, and far beyond your initial biological capabilities. Just look at what happened when when we started making simple tools... humans could kill the largest animals, and could chop down trees. Make those tools a bit better and we end up flying to the moon. Where is the evolutionary advantage of the lunar landings?

You see, evolution is not as clever as Plantinga implies. It can't evolve "only the toolmaking suitable for hunting".

Reasoning is a tool, and once you start to use it, what you can achieve in terms of thinking is phenomenal, especially if you have other people to help, and symbols to write things down with. You can even manage 11-dimensional math with that arrangement!

But if a naturalist is always willing, no matter what, to make additional assumptions and/or change naturalism in any possible direction as long as doing so avoids supernaturalism, then that is a reaction motivated by a premise accepted on faith, isn't it? (Here I am using faith in its common meaning of "dogmatic".)

No, because it depends what kind of naturalist you are.

For me, and for many other "naturalists" the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" does not have much meaning.

For me, there seems to be stuff that happens and I want to try and understand it. If we found evidence of ghosts (for example), I would not be disturbed; I would want someone to set up a research project to study them like any other phenomena. What I dislike is when people assume the things for which there is no clear objective evidence and then imply that it is up to those who disagree to try and prove them wrong. Science doesn't work like that.

We need to build up models of the stuff out there carefully, step by step, so that we try not to fool ourselves (as we often do).

This, you see, is my objection to what people call "supernatural". I am not claiming "it can't exist", or as some would say "it is anti-science". My objection is that belief in the supernatural starts from the wrong place - assuming complexity at the start.


Other Comments by steve99

503. Comment #89203 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 2:24 am

Comment #89199 by Veronique

How about a $100 donation to RDF, just to show that you are cognisant of the time you waste? Please don't respond to me, just pay your dues.

There is an appeal for a very good cause on the site at the moment.

Other Comments by epeeist

504. Comment #89205 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 2:30 am

Have you guys made any headway?? I think not. Not that I would want to stop your fun, frustration or whatever:-).

Well, perhaps we have made no headway against DG directly, but I have learn a huge amount. And, like epeeist, I find that if you don't take DG too seriously, this can be fun.

Other Comments by steve99

505. Comment #89206 by Diacanu on November 20, 2007 at 2:38 am

Epeeist-

There is an appeal for a very good cause on the site at the moment.

Oh, who cares if bad guys hurt Hirsi Ali?

So long as idealistic theism is intact.

Idealistic theism, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,...

*Rubs aching tendons*

I'm fighting for you Jesus!! I'm fighting for you! Can you hear it? Can you feel it?
Anoint me, oh lord!!
Fill me with your love!!

Idealistic theism, idealistin theism, idealistic theism, *foam dribbles between teeth* idealistictheismidealistictheismidealistictheism....

*Bangs head against monitor*

Other Comments by Diacanu

506. Comment #89209 by Philip1978 on November 20, 2007 at 2:51 am

Diacanu
What have I told you about using hard religion? I know how it all starts, you think you are ok on the soft religion, just a bit of theism now and again. But sooner or later, you start Idealising and thats when the blahing begins! Look at you man, mouth frothing, banging your head on the monitor like that, its not good for you or your monitor!

Come back to the light, write a book on atheism, it will make you froth less!! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

507. Comment #89210 by Diacanu on November 20, 2007 at 2:54 am

I've hit rock bottom man!
*Weeps*

Other Comments by Diacanu

508. Comment #89216 by BMMcArdle on November 20, 2007 at 3:06 am

Dianelos,
In 88882 you wrote:

If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are.

God comes from within us, and according to idealism, without our consciousness nothing exists, including God.
The idea of a personal God is very dangerous for humanity, as it leads people to think that they are ethically empowered by it to do all kind of nastiness, instead of relying on basic human rights and dignity.
Religion wouldn't be bad if people could all agree on one, but as long as you can make up anything you want for a religion or worldview, that is not going to happen.
A natural explanation is by default far simpler than a supernatural one.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

509. Comment #89217 by Philip1978 on November 20, 2007 at 3:07 am

Then the only way is up from here!

Drink some Tea, I can help you get back on your feet if you need help acquiring it. English Breakfast or a good Assam Tea will stop the weeping, soon, you may stop Idealising and all will be ok!

Just know that Tea is not a figment of your imagination, its there for you mate, its will give you hope for the future! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

510. Comment #89218 by Diacanu on November 20, 2007 at 3:08 am

God comes from within us,

If God is within me, I hope he likes ham salad sandwiches, cuz that's what's he's getting.
:P

Other Comments by Diacanu

511. Comment #89219 by Diacanu on November 20, 2007 at 3:11 am

Philip1978-

Just know that Tea is not a figment of your imagination, its there for you mate, its will give you hope for the future! :)

Hallelujah!
:D

Other Comments by Diacanu

512. Comment #89228 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2007 at 3:53 am

Steve99

You are missing an important point here. Humans are the supreme toolmakers. Once you start making tools you can extend what you do in all kinds of ways, and far beyond your initial biological capabilities. Just look at what happened when when we started making simple tools... humans could kill the largest animals, and could chop down trees. Make those tools a bit better and we end up flying to the moon. Where is the evolutionary advantage of the lunar landings?

* round of applause. *

Diacanu - where's your stamina mate? I hear they are still posting on the McGrath thread...

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

513. Comment #89231 by windweaver on November 20, 2007 at 4:04 am

This may be a little off topic, but seeing as Dianelos is posting on this thread at the moment I thought I'd post his review of The God Delusion. He rated it one star out of five:

I am hugely disappointed in this book because Dawkins is a top scientist and moreover the author of one of the seminal books in my life, "The Selfish Gene". But his stroll into the field of philosophy of religion has here resulted in a book that's bellow mediocre. The fact that this book proved so popular only evidences how little critical thought there is around, including in atheist circles.

The single biggest error in the book is that it misstates the question as an opposition between theism and science, when the opposition is between the ontological views of theism and naturalism. This is such a fundamental category error that any subsequent discussion is rendered not only irrelevant but also misleading. The trouble starts at page 2 where Dawkins writes: "'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe", which, I dare say, would be news to almost all theists.

So why does Dawkins believe that the theistic hypothesis is a matter for scientific investigation? Because he assumes that naturalism is true and in naturalism any ontological hypothesis can be investigated scientifically (Dawkins thinks). But naturalism opposes theism (naturalism and theism cannot be both true) so by assuming naturalism Dawkins begs the whole question. And, by the way, he does not explain why he thinks that naturalism is true. Apparently his justification goes something like this: the vast majority of scientists are naturalists; science has proven its truth beyond doubt; therefore naturalism is true.

A second example is his much ballyhooed "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument for the non-existence of God. It seems Dawkins is so certain that theism is not only false but also trivially false that he fancies himself able to present a killer argument against the existence of God, one that academic philosophers were not smart enough to spot. What's his argument? Well, Dawkins reasons that if God were an explanation for the existence of our complex universe then God would be an even more complex and improbable entity, which moreover would need an even bigger explanation for its existence. As Plantinga notes in his review of the book this argument is so primitive that it would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. After all the only reason to believe that an intelligent mind is complex is to assume that it must work on the mechanical principles that a naturalistic understanding of reality posits. But to posit naturalism as an implicit premise is - again - to beg the question. Moreover Dawkins fails to see that an explanation works on its own merits; it's not like an explanation works only if you have an explanation for that explanation too - if that were so then no explanations would be possible at all.

But where Dawkin's systematic begging the question becomes painfully obvious is in his discussion of the so-called anthropic principle. This plausible principle states that reality must be such as to produce any phenomenon we now observe, and specifically must be such as to produce humans like us. Now an as yet unanswered scientific question is the origin of life (which must not be confused with the origin of the species), i.e. how come the enormously improbable phenomenon of life has started on Earth, which is a necessary condition for the natural evolution of the species to subsequently take place. Now instead of clearly stating that science does not yet know the answer and leave it at that, Dawkins notes that some theists claim that the answer is some supernatural action by God which started life on Earth. So he must find an alternative explanation and he thinks that the anthropic principle fits the bill. Here is his reasoning (page 136): "The great majority of planets in the universe are ... not suitable for life. ... However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it." So, from the premise that life can evolve by itself (i.e. on naturalistic grounds) given the right planet it follows that our planet has had these right conditions. But of course whether life can or can't evolve by itself on *any* planet is the very question under discussion, so here - again - Dawkins begs the question.

He goes on to discuss the far more serious problem of the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe. It turns out that if these constants (e.g. the value of the strong force) were even a little off then life as we know it could not evolve, so some theists argue that this evidences God's design. Dawkins coyly fails to mention how fine that apparent fine-tuning is: if the combination of physical constants were off only 1 part in 10^100 then life would not have evolved. So how does Dawkins explain that strange state of affairs? He writes (page 145) "Once again, the anthropic principle does its explanatory duty". So, we are here, naturalism is true, therefore there must be some naturalistic explanation for the whole thing. What explanation exactly? Why, just hypothesize anything no matter how implausible or lacking of evidence as long as it is naturalistic. Amazingly powerful that anthropic principle. Anything out there that naturalism cannot explain? Well, as naturalism is true the anthropic principle will always do its duty as the explanation of last resort. A one-size fits all question begging magic wand.

There is no space to mention the many other fallacies in "The God Delusion". It basically just recycles the theme that theism is false because naturalism is true, and that naturalism can't have any problems because after all it is true. What's really amazing is that so many people would be inspired by such a superficial book. It seems you don't need to be a religious fundamentalist to be able to switch off your capacity for critical thought and to full heartedly (or foolish heartedly) embrace non-explanations.

Other Comments by windweaver

514. Comment #89232 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 4:19 am

After all the only reason to believe that an intelligent mind is complex is to assume that it must work on the mechanical principles that a naturalistic understanding of reality posits.

I really can't believe anyone could post anything this dumb. Intelligence is complicated because it involves storage and processing of information. This has to be the case no matter what the substrate (atoms or fairy wings or GodMind).

It is astonishing how some people manage to convince themselves that by flicking the switch from 'natural' to 'supernatural' that anything goes, and they can use terms as they wish.

It seems you don't need to be a religious fundamentalist to be able to switch off your capacity for critical thought and to full heartedly (or foolish heartedly) embrace non-explanations.

Well, indeed. You could hardly find a better example of a non-explanation than "God's mind can be simple because he is in the supernatural realm".

Other Comments by steve99

515. Comment #89239 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 4:46 am

Dianelos claims he's pro-science and not a creationist. But that review shows gross ignorance of the scientific method and advocates for "Goddidit" miraculous intervention to explain the emergence of life on Earth.

How to explain such a self-contradictory mind?
1. ignorance
2. mislead by someone in authority
3. madness
4. mendacity

I'm voting for #4 at this point, although I'm trying my best to give the benefit of the doubt.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

516. Comment #89242 by Timnea on November 20, 2007 at 4:55 am

Dianelos
Reply to post 419

What God wants is for us to grow in virtue

How does that fit in with killing thousands, including small children, with tsunamis, hurricanes, earth quakes etc.

on average all people will get about the same deal.

If you can do the mental gymnastics to believe this I think you would be susceptible to believe anything.

The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death

To use "life after death" as the basis for a simple argument you will need to prove it. It's a very big claim and your argument rests on it. Don't tell me to disprove it because I could make a thousand statements you couldn't disprove, that doesn't make them true.
Killing innocents because the victims will get a better deal after death sounds like the excuse of a psychotic serial killer.

Other Comments by Timnea

517. Comment #89243 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 5:10 am

irate_atheist: I loathe Barbie, as does my wife.

"But," says Suzi, "Barbie is the best toy ever. Introspection, which is just as good as science, proves me right about this."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

518. Comment #89246 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 5:25 am

How to explain such a self-contradictory mind?
1. ignorance
2. mislead by someone in authority
3. madness
4. mendacity

I'm voting for #4 at this point, although I'm trying my best to give the benefit of the doubt.

That is too simple, Dr B. We know for sure there is oodles of (1).

I would suggest another explanatory factor:

5. fear

Some people just can't deal with the idea that we have to steer ourselves in terms of morality, that there we are alone. They feel insecure, and scared of what they think would be the consequences.

So, morality must be objective, and determined by good God; not because of any evidence, but because of the horrors that would result if we assume it isn't....

Other Comments by steve99

519. Comment #89252 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 5:50 am

Comment #89246 by steve99

I would suggest another explanatory factor:

5. fear

I would add

6. Failure of imagination

7. An inability to take joy wherever it is found

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

Other Comments by epeeist

520. Comment #89256 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 5:56 am

Timnea: How does that fit in with killing thousands, including small children, with tsunamis, hurricanes, earth quakes etc.

Like most fathers of girls, one day Dianelos will have a talk with his daughter that goes something like this:

Dianelos: "I don't think X really loves you."

She: "How can you say that Daddy? You're just being over-protective."

Dianelos: "Honey, when a man loves a woman he's considerate of her feelings..."

She: "X does all kinds of nice things for me."

Dianelos: "Yes, but he's not consistent. He stands you up and doesn't call. One minute he's charming and you're laughing; the next minute I see you getting tearful because he's distracted and not paying attention.

She: "Well, he's got a lot on his mind."

Dianelos: "You'd never be so insensitive toward a friend no matter how much was on your mind, so why do you make excuses for him?"

She: "I love him, Daddy."

Dianelos: "I know. But X is teaching you all the wrong lessons about the nature of a caring relationship. Once you find someone who really does love you, you'll see the difference."

She: "You don't understand. X is everything to me."

Dianelos: "Longing for someone who isn't quite there for you isn't healthy. You'll blame yourself for not being good enough. And when you occasionallly get a signal from X that he really might love you, you'll feel such relief. Too much relief. You'll chase after those moments like an addict, and you'll lose all sense of perspective."

She: "I can't imagine living without X."

Dianelos: "Honey, if I could give you only one gift, it would be this: to know what genuine love is like. One day you'll find it. And when that happens, you'll see that you don't need to make excuses all the time, as you do for God -- er, I mean X."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

521. Comment #89260 by irate_atheist on November 20, 2007 at 6:00 am

520. Comment #89256 by Dr Benway -

Ooh, biting, biting...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

522. Comment #89266 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 6:09 am

Comment #89260 by irate_atheist

Ooh, biting, biting...

Yes, a good couple from Dr. B. this morning (my time), though it was "My Little Pony" in our house.

I can see the the ideal pairing for the DG daughter; He for God only, she for God in him.

Other Comments by epeeist

523. Comment #89275 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 6:39 am

Fear might explain Dianelos' persistence. However his methods aren't fair minded. Example:

Dianelos: I am sorry to note that Harris comes close to justify the torture of suspected terrorists and even of their families.

Mr. Reset failed to mention that we chatted about this before:

#59675
#61013

I corrected him then, showing that Harris was offering a thought experiment in his usual Socratic style in order to demonstrate most everyone's acceptance of torture under certain circumstances. Dianelos thanked me for the clarification.

Dianelos, imagine Mr. Creepy Sexual Predator has your daughter in a warehouse somewhere nearby, watched by his sidekick Mr. Sicko Retardo. Retardo has a ritualized fetish involving a favorite knife and small creatures. He likes to cut bits off "to see what they do." Mr. Creepy is tied to a chair in your home, looking up at you with a smirk. You know Retardo will be anxious and prone to playing with his knife while waiting for Creepy to return.

Under such circumstances, are you categorically opposed to using, say, a baseball bat to a shin as a means of persuading Creepy to tell you where he's got your daughter?

If you answer "no" then you are in support of Harris' point.

If you answer "yes," then I'm afraid you won't be voted "father of the year" this time around.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

524. Comment #89281 by Timnea on November 20, 2007 at 7:05 am

Dr Benway
Post 520

Thanks for that Doc.

Looks like there's some tough decisions coming up for the Dianelos household.

I always enjoy reading your posts

Tim

Other Comments by Timnea

525. Comment #89286 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 7:29 am

503. Comment #89203 by epeeist

Yes, I know. Have done that via Harris' site when I was emailed a couple of days ago.

Maybe DG could contribute to both:-).

I read somewhere that the Flea has been banned from this site. Wow. I hadn't realised. One less playmate:-).

Benway, gotta love your posts:-)

Goodnight everyone
V

Other Comments by Veronique

526. Comment #89289 by steveroot on November 20, 2007 at 7:39 am

510. Comment #89218 by Diacanu on November 20, 2007 at 3:08 am

God comes from within us,

If God is within me, I hope he likes ham salad sandwiches, cuz that's what's he's getting.
:P

It also explains the preoccupation with sex exhibited by the major religions! ;-)
"Jesus is coming: Grab your umbrella!"

@Dr. B.- Priceless parody!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

527. Comment #89291 by Quetzalcoatl on November 20, 2007 at 7:46 am

Veronique-

I read somewhere that the Flea has been banned from this site. Wow. I hadn't realised. One less playmate:-).

Aye, t'is true. Informed Billy of that earlier today. I don't think anybody particularly misses him...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1832,I-didnt-know-the-FLEA-CIRCUS-was-back-in-town,RichardDawkinsnet

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

528. Comment #89298 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 8:38 am

Well, I think I will take the advice of pretty much all of you here and refrain from adding my [put any derisive adjective here] posts to this site. But I will try to answer a few more posts today. No hard feelings though, one way or other I really learned a lot here, and I am happy to see that Steve at least did so too.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

529. Comment #89301 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 8:45 am

Steveroot (post 397 or #88693):

"Indeed science is completely compatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are theists."

The assumption here is that winners of the Nobel Prize are unable to simultaneously entertain conflicting worldviews.

Yes, that's exactly the assumption.

I'll bet this assumption could be shown to be invalid.

Yes, I believe you'd bet that :-)

Maybe a touch of Argumentum ad Verecundiam as well.

Nothing of the sort.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

530. Comment #89302 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 8:46 am

Dr Benway (post 408 or #88723):

Dianelos, if you say "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" [snip]

:-) But I haven't said anything like this. That was a misrepresentation, a rather smelly red herring.

Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water.

You should apply it to religion then.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

531. Comment #89303 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 8:53 am

Dr Benway (post 403 or #88709):

Look, here's a glass of cool, refreshing water. Wait! It may seem like water, but in reality it's a collection of H2O molecules.

The "in reality" in that sentence is only a figure of speech, or maybe evidences the author's naturalistic intuitions. What science only tells us is that we can make better predictions about our experiences with that glass of water if we model it as a collection of H2O molecules. That science is only about modeling phenomenal reality becomes painfully clear when you get down to the level of quantum mechanics.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

532. Comment #89305 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 9:07 am

Peacebeuponme (post 425 or #88819):

My original claim was that the moral Zeitgeist for the last thousands of years has been slowly catching up with theistic ethics. You now write:

So the Chinese and Greeks were ethical puppies compared to the Jews 2,000 years ago were they?

Well the great moral writers of the Western civilization, the Greeks Plato and Aristoteles, the Israelite Jesus of Nazareth, the various Sufi masters, the German Kant – were all theists. As for Chinese ethics, you have a point. I should have not used above about "theistic ethics" but rather about "religious ethics" (the same religion which according to Hitchens "poisons everything"). You see it's the religious response to the human condition that helps people realize the objective morality that is present in the world.

In any case I can't imagine how you can conclude that human rights were more respected then than now (which is the implication of your original comment)

No, I meant precisely that the moral Zeitgeist is always catching up with religious ethical teaching, so it is now better than it was 2000 years ago.

What war crime was whitewashed by Abraham almost murdering his son?

No crime whatsoever. That is a particularly misleading story in the Bible. Apparently it tries to teach the virtue of obedience – we can argue if that's a virtue at all, but it's clear that blind obedience that Abraham displayed is not a virtue.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

533. Comment #89311 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2007 at 9:25 am

Dianelos. I've been arguing about the freedom to post on another thread, so I hope you don't include me in your post 528 above (possbily on the basis of a throw-away remark on the McGrath thread).

Anyway, I think were going to have to call it a night on the question of objective morality and religious ethics, though I'm at pains to leave the sentences

You see it's the religious response to the human condition that helps people realize the presence of objective morality in the world.

and

No, I meant precisely that the moral Zeitgeist is always catching up with religious ethical teaching, so it is now better than it was 2000 years ago.

unresponded. I think you probably know that.

I'd love to have seen you formulate an argument supporting the existence of objective morality that didn't boil down to God, "goodness" and circular reasoning. That would have really given me something to think about.

Nevertheless, the journey through biology, physics, mathematics, philosophy and some humour may have been frustrating (or boring) for some but I've found it...enlightening I suppose. There was certainly a lot I have learned and which has reinforced my atheism (I'd say the primary reason for this is that theist responses generally become unclear when pressed by an intellectual atheist, which I'd call the McGrath effect. I think our own unholy trinity of Steve99, Dr Benway and Epeeist have done a pretty good job here in that regard).

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

534. Comment #89313 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 9:31 am

Steve99 (post 429 or #88839):

You claim God is good. Please provide us with an objective measure of 'goodness' that we can use to determine this. If I claim God is evil, or neutral, how do you distinguish my theory from yours?

There is a lot that is real but that is not "objectively measurable" such as one's love for one's wife, or the beauty of the laws of the physical universe.

As for how to decide which is more reasonable, an ontology that posits an evil God from an ontology that posits a good God, we've been over this many times: compare the two ontologies one to one under the same set of criteria, including which best explains the whole of your experience of life.

You claim ethics are objective. Please provide evidence for this.

Not all reasonable beliefs admit of evidence; this is well known in philosophy and we've been over this many times (such beliefs are called "basic beliefs"). You are under the impression that strict evidentialism works, but as Sam Harris puts it in his "End of Faith", one must take the first step to get out of darkness. I have given you many examples of basic beliefs, but let me give you one more. Suppose I claim that I am a conscious being, and you ask me for evidence. You see? There is no evidence I can give you for something I know with absolute certainty is true.

Anyway, let me once again give you my reason why I believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective: It seems completely obvious to me that "to help somebody in need is better than instead torture them" is both true, and true independently of anybody's personal opinion or any social convention, i.e. is an objectively true precept. If you really doubt this, then I pity you.

I have provided clear evidence to the contrary, this being the confusion about this matter and the existence of psychopaths.

Yes, I remember your suggestion, but I never understood what kind of evidence that is. Perhaps a few people suffer from some kind of mental handicap that makes them incapable of counting and realizing that 2+2=4; but this would not evidence that mathematics is not objective.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

535. Comment #89314 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 9:31 am

That science is only about modeling phenomenal reality becomes painfully clear when you get down to the level of quantum mechanics.

Repeat after me slowly until you understand:

"Science is not just modelling"

Modelling is just one tool that science uses. Science is also about 'start simple and work up from there', but you don't like this bit.

Just because you personally don't like the implications of Quantum Mechanics does not mean that the implications are false. Whatever is out there does not have to conform to Dianelos' personal taste.

If you don't like it, come up with something better, an alternative theory, that can be distinguished from QM by experiment and that is as accurate.

"Goddidit" won't do.

Other Comments by steve99

536. Comment #89316 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

Dianelos, if you say "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" [snip]

:-) But I haven't said anything like this. That was a misrepresentation, a rather smelly red herring.

Here's what you said:

It's naive to ask people for "proof" simply because there cannot be any proofs for ontological claims(1). Strictly speaking not even mathematical proofs are really proofs, because they all use as a premise unproven axioms(2) and production rules(3). So when many an atheist keeps asking like a broken record "prove it, prove it" they are only evidencing how clueless they are about epistemology.

And:

Of course mathematical proofs are needed(4), and we have confidence in them even though they are based on unproved premises(3).

Rephrased:

1. Ontological claims are not supported by proof and that is ok.
2. Some mathematical premises are not supported by proof and that is ok.
3. Some mathematical production rules are not supported by proof and that is ok.
4. Mathematical proofs are needed.

How does my paraphrase, "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" contradict the above?

Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water.

You should apply it to religion then.

I have. You can too!

Send check or money order for $19.95 to Doc Benway's Emporium and ask for "Bathwater No Mo!" You'll be glad you did.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

537. Comment #89317 by Bonzai on November 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

Apparently it tries to teach the virtue of obedience – we can argue if obedience is a virtue at all, but it's clear that the blind obedience that Abraham displayed is not a virtue.

Yet Abraham was rewarded for his blind obedience, so clearly according to the bible's "theistic value" it is a virtue.

The thesis that the moral Zeitgeist catching up to "theistic ethics" is the most stupid idea ever written on this site. You interpret ancient teachings with the hindsight of our moral zeitgeist and cherry pick whatever that conform to our current ethical outlook and say see, it was in the bible. What nonsense.

Also, the Chinese, the Buddhists and the Greeks might have been theists but they didn't think of the gods as the source of their morality. Their moral philosophers didn't argue that we have to be good because the gods commanded it and that there would be moral chaos without gods, their ethical philosophies were for all practical purposes atheistic. It is a peculiar idea of the Abrahamic faiths that we need a God to be good.

Just get lost and get a life. Your endless repeating of discredited and debunked claims is getting tiresome. Why are you here?

Other Comments by Bonzai

538. Comment #89318 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

Steve99 (post 437 or #88859):

Actually idealistic theism's solution to the respective problem (i.e. How does consciousness produce physical things?) is trivial: Physical things only exist as patterns in our conscious experience, so it's not like they are produced as something intrinsically different from conscious experience.

No, sorry. That is not the solution of idealistic theism. That is the solution of idealism.

Well, any solution of idealism carries over to theistic idealism too.

It is a very big step from idealism to idealistic theism.

Not really that big a step, but I don't have time to elaborate on this. But observe that there aren't any idealistic non-theists.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

539. Comment #89319 by Lauregon on November 20, 2007 at 9:39 am

"But," says Suzi, "Barbie is the best toy ever. Introspection, which is just as good as science, proves me right about this." Dr Benway

"Honey, if I could give you only one gift, it would be this: to know what genuine love is like. One day you'll find it. And when that happens, you'll see that you don't need to make excuses all the time, as you do for God -- er, I mean X." - Dr Benway

*Hits the nails smack on their flat little heads!*





Other Comments by Lauregon

540. Comment #89321 by Bonzai on November 20, 2007 at 9:48 am

"Ontology" is basically just a pompous and pretentious way of saying "Dianelos' subjective beliefs". He likes to talk about ontology because it allows him to make claims without proof or evidence and assertions without arguments.

If Danelos can write 900+ posts on "Ontology" with 1500 to 2000 words each by playing word games and nothing more, it indicates the whole subject is just a waste of time and not worth pursuing.

Other Comments by Bonzai

541. Comment #89322 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 9:49 am

Well, any solution of idealism carries over to theistic idealism too.

No, it doesn't, not in any meaningful sense. That is like saying 'we see life all around us, therefore accept my claim that dragons exist'.

Not really that big a step

It is one of the biggest steps you can imagine. From the existence of minds to the existence of God. A good that is, against all the evidence, supposed to be good. A God we can't know, but should trust anyway.

Is this some new use of the term "big step" that I am not familiar with?

But observe that there aren't any idealistic non-theists.

Aren't there? Isn't this a claim about reality :)

Anyway, it is irrelevant. Idealistic theism is idealism + theism. You can't sneak that last step in without a lot of justification.

Other Comments by steve99

542. Comment #89323 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 9:53 am

I have. You can too!

Dr B's product is amazing. Apply it to idealistic theism and you get all that consciousness and mental reality stuff, but fresh and clean and wiped free of the stain of God. Personally, I am not that keen on what I have left (idealism), but it looks far better without all that smelly 'God is good, and do what He says' stuff.

I am a satisfied customer.

Other Comments by steve99

543. Comment #89324 by Bonzai on November 20, 2007 at 9:57 am

Why is Dianelos hanging out here just to repeat his throughly discredited ideas like a broken record? What is his agenda? Is he a pushy, shameless salesman for God who doesn't understand the meaning of "No" or is he just a person without a life?

The only "super natural" thing I see in his posts is the volume of output.

Other Comments by Bonzai

544. Comment #89325 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 10:03 am

Steve99 (post 380 or #88619):

I overlooked this bit:

There is an important exception though: direct experience while we are having it is knowledge that cannot be wrong

Wrong! As any psychologist can tell you, our brain is perfectly capable of deluding itself, and frequently does.

Illusions are wrong inferences we make based on our direct experience. But the experience itself cannot be wrong. For example if you put a pencil in a glass of water you experience it broken, and that's perfectly true: you do indeed experience it broken. The illusion would be to infer from that experience that the pencil does break when you put it in a glass of water. Or take one of the many optical illusions where you clearly see one line segment being longer than another, when in fact they are both equally long. The illusion is not that you experience the two line segments as being of different length, for it's perfectly true that you do experience them as being of different length. The illusion is to infer from that that if you take a ruler to measure the respective lengths you'd find one to be longer than the other. Incidentally, both that direct sensory experience is always true, but that anything we infer from it may be wrong, is one of the oldest insights of philosophy.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

545. Comment #89326 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 10:04 am

Dr Benway (post 445 or #88878):

Thou shalt not overstate thy data.

Very good. But there is another precept: Thou shalt not disregard thy data.

I understand scientific naturalists' infatuation with science and desire to emulate science as much as they can, and it's true that the scientific method is based only on corroborative data, i.e. objective observations. But science does not thus disregard any data as science is about modeling physical phenomena, and all data about physical phenomena are objective. So by using only objective data, science uses all data that are useful for its project. But the same physical phenomena represent only a part of the whole of a human being's experience of life. We have many more data to our disposal, indeed subjective data: how it is to love somebody, how it is to perceive beauty, how it is to understand or to realize the meaning of something, and, in general, how it is to be human. My thesis is that one cannot understand reality if one disregards this wealth of data, and it seems to me unwise to disregard them just in order to ape science which does not require that data in the first place.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

546. Comment #89330 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 10:08 am

Comment #89325 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Illusions are wrong inferences we make based on our direct experience.

Too busy preparing lessons to post anything more significant.

However have a Google for "debauched kinaesthesia" to see how it is rather more than simple optical illusions.

Other Comments by epeeist

547. Comment #89331 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 10:08 am

There is a lot that is real but that is not "objectively measurable" such as one's love for one's wife, or the beauty of the laws of the physical universe.

But what we are talking about is trying to communicate that belief to others.

As for how to decide which is more reasonable, an ontology that posits an evil God from an ontology that posits a good God, we've been over this many times: compare the two ontologies one to one under the same set of criteria, including which best explains the whole of your experience of life.

I can honestly and in all sincerity say that the best ontology that explains the whole of my experience of life is that if there is a God, he or she or it just does not care at all.

You are under the impression that strict evidentialism works

All I am asking is that if you claim something that I don't believe, you don't expect me to change my belief just on your say so. You want to dress this all up in fancy words, just to confuse a poor soul like me.

Suppose I claim that I am a conscious being, and you ask me for evidence. You see? There is no evidence I can give you for something I know with absolute certainty is true.

How do you know they are true? How do you get to decide? Do you trust yourself so much? Do you have a direct path to truths that philsophers have been trying to seek out for millenia?

If you know with absolute certainty that there are absolute ethics, then either you are one of the greatest philsophers who have ever lived, or you are deluded. Which do you think it is?

It seems completely obvious to me that "to help somebody in need is better than instead torture them" is both true, and true independently of anybody's personal opinion or any social convention, i.e. is an objectively true precept. If you really doubt this, then I pity you.

Then pity me. But as I have said 10,000 times, "completely obvious" is a really dumb way to determine reality. We KNOW it just doesn't work.

Yes, I remember your suggestion, but I never understood what kind of evidence that is. Perhaps a few people suffer from some kind of mental handicap that makes them incapable of counting and realizing that 2+2=4; but this would not evidence that mathematics is not objective.

But that doesn't work, does it. There is no consensus on ethics. One person's human right is another person's religious taboo.

I am really worried that people think like you. Looking inside yourself as an individual is fine. But claiming that what you find reveals absolute truths is very dangerous, especially when you claim divine backing.

Other Comments by steve99

548. Comment #89332 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 10:09 am

Illusions are wrong inferences we make based on our direct experience. But the experience itself cannot be wrong.

Of course it can. Look in the dictionary under "hallucination".

Incidentally, both that direct sensory experience is always true, but that anything we infer from it may be wrong, is one of the oldest insights of philosophy.

Absolutely. Which is why you are wrong to be certain about the insights you get when you look inside yourself.... you may get a "feeling" that you have discovered absolute ethics, but as you yourself say, inferring that you really have is a big mistake.

Do you understand?

Other Comments by steve99

549. Comment #89333 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 10:12 am

Dianelos: I used to think that those who claimed that atheism is a position of faith were overdoing it. But if a naturalist is always willing, no matter what, to make additional assumptions and/or change naturalism in any possible direction as long as doing so avoids supernaturalism, then that is a reaction motivated by a premise accepted on faith, isn't it? (Here I am using faith in its common meaning of "dogmatic".)

We've covered this ground before.

The "supernatural" is a wastebasket for things that
1. Lack corroborative evidence in their favor
2. Violate established scientific theories

Look in the wastebasket and you'll see Thor, the evil eye, zombies, resurrections, angels, fairies, Yahweh, Jesus, Vishnu, ghosts, etc., etc.

To move from the wastebasket onto our collective map of reality, we need:
1. corroborative evidence indicating the thing exists
2. a reformulation of established scientific theories, or an explanation as to why the thing doesn't actually violate these theories.

There's nothing dogmatic about this. Non-supernatural entities, such the Higgs boson or the multiverse have to meet the same requirements in order to get on the map.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

550. Comment #89335 by Bonzai on November 20, 2007 at 10:14 am

My thesis is that one cannot understand reality if one disregards this wealth of data,

That is rich. Baseless assertions about ethics and "Dianelos believes because he feels good" don't count as data. On the other hand, your "theistic idealism" doesn't account for any real data except by supplying a convenient, all purpose God of the gaps

Other Comments by Bonzai