551. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169368 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Piper Ann,

There is much to be said for empathy being specifically a function of mirror-neuron activity.

Mirrir neurons become active when observing certain behaviour or observing someone else (usually a being from the same species) being submitted to certain situations. They then trigger the activity of the relevant neural sub-networks that are active when the individual itself is performing that action or experiences the situation which the observed individual experiences.

Also, as I do not tire to point out - most of our emotional activity is in our consciousness inextricably linked to higher cognitive activity.
When I am feeling emotional pain, a lot of cognitive activity is associated with that - certain patterns of thinking complex thoughts, of remembering comlplex situations, an integration into a conceptual scheme. Thus the experience of emotions, including empathy of animals (even higher animals) is still hugely different from our own as being integrated into and/or inextricably linked to a conceptual and cognitive framework.

Anyway - I think the question "How did empathy evolve" is still relevant.

It does happen in evolution that a functional change in a certain organ, or even in a tiny area of an organ is selected for because it gives a small (and often cumulative) advantage for producing surviving offspring - but that this change also has epiphenomenal effects that are not really selected for, but do make a crass difference. This might have happened with some higher functions of consciousness.

With empathy however, I think the relevant specific mirror-neuron and in general limbic-system activity might very well be a requisite for employing Evolutionary Stable Strategies in animals with central nervous systems. In fact, this is probably what made certain evolutionary stable strategies even possible.

It's all very well to say that a parent (animal) behaves towards its young in a certain evolutionary stable way, and that this includes responding to certain signals for example by protecting them, giving them attention or defending them. But it might just be some sort of mirror-neuron activity and rudimentary empathy that actually motivates/triggers them into feeding the crying young, or attending to them etc.

"The Evolution of Empathy as Mirror Neuron Activity as a Constitutive Prerequisite for Employing Evolutionary Stable Strategies in animals with Central Nervous Systems"... maybe there's a paper in that. Highly hypothetical, but potentially very rewarding point of investigation methinks.

Best,
-Mike

552. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169330 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I hope you don't mind.

Not at all - but if I someday I might want to publish (or hand in as a thesis) my thoughts on philosophy of religion, I might get into trouble because people will think I just copied it off the internet :D

If you haven't dug it up already, feel free to use this as well:

We can prove that the concept of a non-physical, personal god is contradictory, because being a person means being a thinker and potentially an agent, and the concepts necessitate that any potential referent is within time because action and thought is always also a change in state of affairs - which only makes sense in spacetimetime. Our concepts of personhood and agency are inextricably linked to our concept of time.
Therefore, a "personal god outside space and time" is a conceptual impossibility - a category mistake.

Something non-physical effecting something physical is - aside from being in contradiction with the conservation of energy and momentum - another conceptual impossibility.

Furthermore, the concept of intention being fulfilled without a mechanism is incomprehensible in principle. It doesn't make sense. And just saying "well, god can" - won't do.


As for the logically contradictory notion of omnipotence... I'll have to post the link again, since the text is rather long:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page49#136661

Although I shuold mention that the discussion of omnipotence isn't complete - there are some loopholes which I need to close (and will do so when I get to it) - but it's a start.

But I stand by my discussion of omnipresence:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page59#138081

and potentially, my discussion with seeker_of_truth, starting here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page10#166472
may be of some help.

Best,
-Mike

553. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169322 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 7:10 pm

MPhil, I'm beginning to dislike reading your posts.
Almost every time you open your metaphorical mouth, I have to add another book to my list,

You wouldn't be the first :)

If there are any specific philosophical disciplines you would like to get into - epistemology, ethics and metaethics, philosophy of mind, (philosophy of science) - just PM me :)

554. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169312 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Oh, and Lil_Xunzian,

as for trying to educate people like Remnant or TheTruthID about the failure of their ethical hypothesis... forget it, I already tried:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page12#166750

That wasn't the first time, either - and I reposted that comment on this thread, as rianduoglas noted earlier (thank you)...

I also provided both Remnant and the TheTruthID with logical arguments for the impossibility of God... never got a reply.

It's really useless - they ignore everything they cannot answer, their mind doesn't allow the successful processing of information that would show them that they are wrong... pick out some statements they (wrongfully) think they can answer sufficiently and then proclaim victory.

In their case, I would really speak of a serious mental deficiency - mind you, I've encountered very intelligent and polite theists on here as well.

555. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169310 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Also good to see someone mentioning Lakatos! Most people know about Popper and potentially Kuhn, but Lakatos is somehow almost never mentioned.

If you're interested in philosophy of science, you might want to look into structuralism, ie the works of Patrick Suppes, Joseph Sneed, Wolfgang Stegmüller, Wolfgang Balzer and Carlos Ulises Moulines (my professor of philosophy of science, worked and pubslished with all of the above).

Some texts:

An Architectonic for Science - The Structuralist Program Balzer, Moulines, Sneed
(accessible via JSTOR)

The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics Joseph Sneed

For an introduction, see here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-structuralism/

556. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169307 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Lil_Xunzian,

ah - another philosopher... always good to meet more people with similar interests.

FYI, Heidegger wasn't a Nazi for long...he was initially open for it, but rejected many of the ideas of national socialism later on. And while Sein und Zeit is interesting, it has little to offer in terms of logically structured arguments. - At least in my opinion. I'm all for analytical philosophy. (Before and after the linguistic turn)

And if you want to point creationists trouting "christian ethics" to philosophical ethics - in most cases you can forget it. They wouldn't get past the first paragraph of Kant. Anyway - I would recommend (and have done so) the Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals), not the Kritik der praktischen Vernunft.

I always recommend Mill's Utilitarianism, Kant's Grundlegung zur Metaphysic der Sitten, Mackie's Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong (for metaethics) and for those specifically interested in an anti-realist rational ethical theory - John Rawls A Theory of Justice viewed from an ethical point of view, possibly with T.M. Scanlon's What we owe to each other - and for a totally different view, Bernard Williams' Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy - but mostly Mill, Kant and Mackie.

Best,
-Mike

557. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167444 by MPhil on April 24, 2008 at 3:51 am

Quite right.

I'll be on for another half hour, sporadically - then off to uni, then off to catch the train to get to my best friend's wedding...

558. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167438 by MPhil on April 24, 2008 at 3:41 am

I think the primary goal should be developing, discussing refining and helping to set in action "enlightenment strategy", how to go on the offensive, what strategy to employ to get the public to listen and to enlighten them ...

The fora aren't visible enough IMO.

559. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167226 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 6:23 pm

"Any thoughts?"


No, those comments of yours are pretty conclusive... you don't have any. No go and play with your poo some more, instead of flinging it at us.

560. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167208 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Any takers? By now anyone on here can call him out on that... but I'd rather have Steve do it (no, not out of sadism :)

561. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167206 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Damn - seems I was a moment too late.

Great post, Cartomancer...

-and again it shows that I'm not a non-native speaker. It always takes me some time to figure out that you can pronounce "theories" as two syllables and either "fella" as one or "educate" as two.

Just goes to show - the learning never stops :)

562. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167201 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 5:58 pm

And now we're waiting for a post along the lines:

Oh come one - that's not evolution and you know it. It's not evolution unless a bacterium splits into two frogs!

563. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167196 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 5:53 pm

passing on of genes in which the stronger ones able to show resistence were then able to pass on their more resistence genes.

Ah, you mean random mutation, some of which caused antibiotic resistance - and the only those organisms that had the resistance could pass on their genes... ie random mutation and natural selection? ie evolution?

564. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167177 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 5:32 pm

You would never admit it, we all know that, but deep down you are totally aware of the incredible lack of _{[true scientific]} evidence for _[evolution]. It's just a matter of time before it all caves in. One day you will be accountable for participating in one of the biggest injustices in all humanity.

...and that by a theist. Cute.

565. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167138 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Interesting - I always knew that our madam chancellor studied physics... but not what specifically. Now I know - Quantum-Chemistry.

If only she had remained in that field. Terribly inept madam chancellor.

:)

566. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167136 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 4:49 pm

That sounds even better, Steve...

... certainly more practical, and structured.

But I wonder if we can get the same amount of contributions on a private blog?

Like an web2.0 "enlightenment think-tank".

567. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167132 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I am trying to think of ways to attack. Not just on this site, but in other forums as well, and using other methods of communciation.

Maybe we should actually conduct a serious discussion on that, gather and refine ideas, discuss approaches and help each other out in actualizing them. Lay out a diverse strategy etc.

I suggest the Fleabytes thread... and we will have to ignore any interruption by theists - not engaging anyone.

I think we could also plan such gatherings, schedule them... or, when we see that many commentators are active, gather them there to discuss this?

What do you think?

568. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167128 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm

On a side note - there's a documentary about Plank on right now... interesting, a nice reminder that Munich University has produced some real greats:

Plank, Hahn, Heisenberg, Pauli, Berthold Brecht, Roentgen, Karl Jaspers, Schelling, Edward Teller, Cassirer, Ian Flemming... (okay, and Ratzinger as well :)

Anyway, I didn't know Plank was such a tortured personality... interesting.

569. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167123 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 4:31 pm

I am afraid I am feeling tired of these battles. A few idiotic creationist nutters come here, and it distracts us all. These are not the battles that need to be fought, I feel. Expelled has not been that much success as a film, but hundreds of thousands have seen it, and millions believe its message. Sparring with a few deluded individuals here achieves nothing. We need to think about how to spread the message further; how to collaborate to ensure that religion does not stifle education.

I think you're right...

...it's just that when I see such mental diarrhea on this board, I cannot help it - I have to respond... because who knows, one might change a mind or two... and once one has responded stopping would appear to outsiders as admitting defeat.

But still, you're right.

570. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167108 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Is that all you have?

Breathtaking inanity.

I have provided arguments for the impossibility of god and the unscientific nature of ID - so have many others. You chose to ignore them.

And you dare to ask that question?

If your IQ should ever rise to room-temperature (in degrees Celsius)... you may try again.

571. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167092 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Crick was prepared to even discuss in detail how the mind worked purely as a physical mechanism.

He was a rock-solid naturalist.

Yep, "The Astonishing Hypothesis":

"You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.'

572. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167069 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Well - the thing about "atheism" is a slight semantic problem. It invites misconception. But since I personally am not only don't believe in god, but am also an antitheist, anticlericalist and rationalist - I don't really mind.

573. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167061 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 3:18 pm

PBUM,

I was merely attempting to state that this identifier is useless. "-ist" has connotations of ideology... and we don't want that misconception. Rationalism is an ideology - the best there is :)

And "idiot" is in fact the accepted identifier for people whose ideology and/or thinking and acting in general are contrary to rationalism :)

574. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167053 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 3:14 pm

We're showing how the religious conception of god as all-good is contradictory to what he does (send people to eternal, infinite torture - and then saying "Well it's your choice, you obey or get tortured")... and the ridiculous attempts by theists to defend the bible as humanitarian and god as loving.

Idiot.

575. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167048 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm

why don't evolutionists simply state that, as far as science is concerned, evolution is the answer.

Because the validity of anything that isn't science cannot be established. In fact, not being scientific makes it incapable of explaining anything in the world.

We do not know and can't answer if there was ID in the origin of life.

Then ID is worthless - if it isn't testable, it explains nothing.

Actually, serious theories of abiogenesis at least have explanatory value.

And again, there are no "evolutionists", just as there are no "gravitationalists"

but at the same time make claim that there is no God.

Not all do... but then, the claim is justified. Read my above posts.

576. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167043 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I think we should stop asking the question "who made god"... as theism has generally maintained that god is metaphysical, which makes the question meaningless.

Of course we might ask it to get this answer and then point out how a metaphysical agent is a logical impossibility, and how even if that wasn't so, it couldn't influence the physical world etc etc

577. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167034 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

TheTruthID

biology studies these questions,

it's just that "how did life come about", and "how did the diversity arise" are different questions.

You might as well say that General Relativity is inadequate because it cannot explain computer programs.

The origin of life is a different question than the one evolution answers.

I can understand that one can come to the conclusion of evolution but still keep an open mind of the possibility of a creator. Why are so many evolutionists so quick to degrade and ridicule a beliver,whom believes in a higher power when in fact they themselves separate evolution from the origin of life.

Because while life on earth might (unlikely, but testable) have been spawned there by super-advanced aliens, this is a regress-problem, who designed the aliens?

And why ridicule believers? Because postulating a supernatural designer is unscientific and logically impossible, as I and others have shown time and again.

Every event in space-time is either completely random or has a necessary and sufficient physical cause.

Given the conservation of energy and momentum, no interference from something nonphysical is impossible. If you want to claim otherwise, you have to show that conservation of energy and momentum do not hold.

But that won't do you any good, because a supernatural agent is a logical contradiction, omnipotence is another contradiction, and something nonphysical effecting something physical is a category mistake.

578. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167016 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:41 pm

self-replicating molecules are not hypothetical, they are actual.

And if what we have is a religion (it isn't) - then shouldn't you respect it just because of that? After all, all you have is religion as well.

But I'm happy to say I have no religion at all. I have reason and evidence.

You have shown to be incapable of even knowing what these are, much less make use of them.

579. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167012 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm

nighty-night epeeist.

580. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167007 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:35 pm

easeltine,

Notice that Eugenics began as an idea by Darwin's cousin after reading "The Origin of the Species."

Ever heard of the practices of the Spartans? That was slightly before Darwin. Similar things happened in many societies.

Religious morality is a contradiction.

Let me spell it out for you by quoting myself (if I may):

I will say this much for mainstream religious morals [Protestant/Catholic bibles], they are in black and white,

Which is why they fail to apply, their world-picture is far too coarse.

include much detail, and some even have a stated explanation behind them [within the text].

But in the end it comes down to "because god said so".

That's the thing with theistic ethics. Either god commands things because they are intrinsically right or wrong - that is objectively, in which case god is just a middle-man and is not required for morality. Or things are right and wrong because god said so, or because it is god's nature that determines this, in which case the values are not objective, but subjective to/dependent on god's nature.

Also, "because it is god's command" is never a moral reason unless you have already have made the moral choice to accept the bible/god as the commander of moral values - which has to be justified from without the moral theory of theism - which is impossible for the theist. The logic of theistic morality is circular.

Furthermore, the concept of ethical responsibility is meaningless in theistic ethics because there it comes down to following commands by a celestial dictator (however benevolent one might think he is) - not because things are objectively, intrinsically moral or because of the reasons a rational philosophical ethical theory can provide.

Also, the moral commands of the bible are at places contradictory. Also, they are decidedly unegalitarian and unfair. The basic liberties, rights and freedoms cannot be affirmed. Liberty of Conscience cannot be affirmed. At least if taken seriously. As Jean-Jaques Rousseau correctly noted:

It is impossible to live in peace with people of whom one thinks they are damned; [...] There is no other choice but to either convert or punish them. [...] Such a dogma [there is no salvation outside of the church] is only compatiple with a theocratic constitution, in every other it is ruinous.

If you think that someone who doesn't affirm your doctrine will suffer eternally, you cannot let that happen if you like or love that person and thus have a duty to convert him - and indoctrinate your children, thus crippling the child's ability to make full, rational use of his liberty of conscience, freedom of choice (a child successfully indoctrinated will not even develop that ability to any reasonable degree) and freedom to embrace or reject(!) any religion.

This is incompatible with the requirement to grant everyone freedom to of thought, liberty of conscience and freedom of religion - since this religious practice does not allow for the people over which its adherents have influence (especially children) to develop and make use of that freedom.



But as shown above, theistic morality is inconsistent, incompatible with basic liberties, faces a dilemma and has a seriously inadequate underlying world-picture.

581. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166995 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm

You gotta to love that "science of the gaps" mentality. We'll discover it someday, just abandon your faith in the mean time kids.

That cracked me up... that anyone could have it so completely backwards...

Thanks, I really needed that laugh.

Gotta save this somewhere and show it to people, perfect example. Might also use it in future papers as an example of theistic irrationality.

Could you possibly do anymore to confirm every negative conception about theists?

582. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166983 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm

An accepted first principle of knowledge is that life does not come from non-life.

Actually, that's complete bullshit. Even for medieval theists - that wasn't a "principle of knowledge" - "Where did biological life come from" was always a question.

Theists also say that life comes from non-life. After all, the definition of "life" only applies to biological things. God, being outside time - cannot have a metabolism, cannot reproduce etc.

So he is not "alive". So even for you, there is "life from non-life".

Accepted first principle of knowledge my ass...

...you're just pulling things out of your arse.

583. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166972 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Bonzai,

I think I have a better one:

"Explicatio non habemus. Ergo deus est."

"We don't have an explanation. Therefore God exists"
____________________

On a completely unrelated matter - you said there are only very few musicals you like... have you seen "Once"? Brilliant, touching, wonderful music and plot - and especially good because it is everything but the typical Hollywood musical.

584. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166961 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I knew this would come...


even only the comment about the second law of thermodynamics shows what an incredibly ignorant, deluded fool remnant is.

Let me spell it out for you, remnant:

The second law of thermodynamics means - putting it non-technically - that disorder in a closed system will always rise (entropy).

Disorder can only decrease by external infusion of energy.

The earth is not a closed system. There is this thing called "sun", providing huge amounts of energy every day.

Evolution has no problem with thermodynamics.


You come to a site with biologists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians, historians, philosophers and tons of other people, many very knowledgeable in one or several fields.

You show ignorance and idiocy concerning every field you engage in - and make yourself out to be an expert.

Moron!

585. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166945 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Bonzai,

I don't know what Brian's translation was - but this would be correct:

"nescio, ergo deus est"

586. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166934 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I just needed some comic relief, and thought it mildly funny :)

I will attempt to do better in the future :)

587. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166923 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I say 'pha, prove that i dont have the ticket!!!'

And then the guy behind the counter pulls out the winning ticket, labeled "evolution" - and shows that it has the winning numbers.

Then remnant says: It isn't - look, there's a smudge on the numbers!

Then the guy behind the counter says: No, that's a smudge on your glasses, here, let me fix that for you... (offers a handkerchief to clean the glasses)

Then remnant says: "NO! These glasses work perfectly, I can see everything!", attempts to take the winning ticket to show that it has a smudge on it and isn't the winning ticket...

...and grasp half a metre above and to the right of the ticket...

588. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166915 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:40 pm

What we want aren't quotes simply stating "It's not possible"... we want the arguments for that,

We want:
-Testable predictions of ID (How can it be falsified?) Every theory has to be able to make predictions that can be tested, and if found untrue, will show that the theory is incorrect.

-Corroborations through these tests.

THEN you can proceed.

589. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166897 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:31 pm

MaxD and Steve,

yes indeed!

590. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166892 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Science could (but doesn't) lead to the conclusion that a designer is the most probable explanation (again, this is counterfactual) - but never a supernatural one, as that would contradict all science, would be a category mistake and would be physically impossible (conservation of energy and momentum etc)

591. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166886 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Since we're being specific, I believe that should be 'evidence?'

I think it proves the possibility - but if you want, call it evidence. I don't object.

The very same reasons it does not compare well to the human mind.

This is not about investigations of the mind, or how possible the situation is - it is impossible. But it is a hypothetical model, that - because it is idealized - can provide us with objective standards of fairness.

Even math gets distorted with predispositions of the subconscious, statistics being one example.

Applied mathematics can where assessments about the world are made, simply deterministically unfolding a mechanism cannot.

And since the original position does not claim actuality or possibility, these objections are all fine but irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The model does lead to objective standards of fairness - and if we want such fairness, the model can provide us with the details. That's all this is about.

The examples I provided should have made it clear that this is a workable thought-experiment.

592. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166874 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Everything to you has to be explained by science

If it's a statement about a supposed fact about the world, it is accessible by science. Logic, rationality in general and science as the embodiment of rationality in inquiry are the epistemic gold standards.

If a supposed explanations is illogical and fails the standards of rationality - it is crap. It has no epistemic justification. If you want to maintain the infantile and desperate idea that postulating something that "simply does" what we need to explain without being observable or testable - and at times even being logically contradictory or meaningless - that's your delusion.

You claim to have an explanation - you need to provide a mechanism, and it has to be potentially testable.

What you are doing is equivalent to what Voltaire ridiculed a few hundred years ago:

"Why does opium make people sleepy?"
-"Because it has a sleepy-making spirit/force".

It's vacuous - useless.

Postulating a god is even worse.

It's beyond ridiculous.

593. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166864 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:14 pm

MaxD, good work...

I think what it generally comes down to is what I have stated in my post #166574:

You cannot infer the existence of a certain entity from the incompleteness of explanation of a phenomenon from within a certain theory. You cannot infer any existence statement from that. And while the probability of the incompleteness of these explanations is raised by the assumption of a god, this hypothesis itself is in light of the scientific evidence completely improbably - aside from the fact that I have already shown that the theistic conception of god is impossible.

Also, the probability of the incompleteness of the explanations is explained perfectly on scientific grounds.

594. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166860 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:10 pm

I'm a philosopher... I wouldn't be good at what I'm doing if I didn't practice what other people might consider nitpicking :)

Anyway - things "logical laws may not be violated", methodological naturalism and the standards of evidence and other methodological statements thus could be described as assumptions, since they are taken for granted without proof.

But these assumptions are minimal and for all we know necessary- simply the standards of rationality, rigorously applied. And in the end - they have proved to be prudent assumptions, given that the epistemic stability of science is greatest for all ways of looking at the world.

595. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166854 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Under the social sciences falls both political science and social work.

Again, political science is not ethically normative - it can at most uncover which course of action is prudent. Where it incorporates non-descriptive, ie normative ethics, it is no longer scientific. Science is always only descriptive.

I'm a philosopher, so I have no objection against philosophical ethics - but one has to clearly distinguish between descriptive scientific investigation and morally normative statemts.

Social work is part of social science? It can be studied by it, and can investigate which courses of action, which actions based on which ethical theory and metatheory have which effects, but it cannot say "we have scientifically uncovered that this is morally right and this is morally wrong"... that's not science.

All reasonable definitions of science will state that it is only descriptive.

Anyway - my assessment of Darwin's letter:

For the most part, he makes no ethical judgments about it - only methodological ones. The only statement that can be interpreted as an ethical judgment is this:

the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race.

And even this must not be ethical. It could mean that he rationally judges that this would be the only means to improve humanity, but that he doesn't state whether this would be worth it - and would be ethically justifiable.

But if that was to be interpreted as moral approval - I would disagree, because this would not lead to a just and stable society. The standards of fairness from the original position are not met.

Yet, while I have some serious reservations, I am not in all cases and degrees against things like diagnosing the embryo in its earliest stage to check the genome for debilitating diseases (mutations or inherited recessive or dominant traits leading to that) and only implanting the ones without such diseases.

Does that answer your question?

596. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166821 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Of course science makes tacit initial assumptions - and these are exactly the things I pointed out, that this and that constitutes evidence, that this and that constitutes corroboration, that this and that are the methods to be employed - only not about what it will find.

Even methodological naturalism is among these assumptions - but not ontological naturalism.

Although "assumption" might be a wrong word, since that assumes that there is a matter of fact about this. These methodological and demarcation criteria and standards are postulations - and they have proved to be the most rigorous and helpful ever... and also those that lead to the epistemically most stable conclusions, under any reasonable theory of epistemology.



Thus, for any "method of coming to know thing", logic is the gold-standard, and in extension science.

Since ID is creationism in disguise, it starts with ontological pluralism, assuming the existence of the supernatural. Which is in itself incompatible with science.

And as I said - logic tells us that supernatural influence in the natural world is a category mistake - like saying that "colourless green ideas sleep furiously".

597. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166794 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Oh please, no conceptual scheme starts from nothing - science neither. It has logical standards of evaluation of evidence, procedural standards and methods of corroboration. Also, it makes use of logic - thus not allowing for category mistakes or logical inconsistencies.


Since the assumption of something supernatural influencing something natural is a category mistake, it always fails to be science, and cannot possibly be supported by any evidence.

You might as well try to find evidence for the statement:

"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously"

598. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166787 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Imagine (I know it's hard, remnant) you are a rational adult, capable of rational discussions and very willing to engage in them.

Then someone comes near you and starts telling you that the world actually rests on the back of four giant elephants who stand on a turtle. At first, you ask for evidence. He draws a pamphlet from his jacket on which it says

"The world rests on the back of four giant elephants"

"The elephants stand on a turtle"

You tell him that's no evidence... he says "but the earth moves, and how could it move if it wasn't carried. Ha! See, I'm right"
just repeats himself, throwing more pamphlets at you.

Then he starts telling you that if you don't believe him, you will be horribly tortured someday.

You put questions to him which aren't answered.

You give up on this idiot - and say aloud that he is not contributing, just making inflammatory comments and is incapable of rational debate.

Then he claims "Ha! See - you resort to censorship. That's all you can do!"

----

See?

599. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166763 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:18 pm

By conceptualizing another's predisposed influences we can arrive at an influence-free frame of mind? I like the know-thyself-offset concept better.

That's not what I meant - I was offering that as a proof that we can coherently conceive of persons who do not have our predispositions. That is all that is required.

The censor bypasses, even supersedes, the rational mind, often giving the unconscious a priori status.

True, but of no consequence. Since you have a laid out "algorithm", with an objective task - it is logically demonstrable which statements follow from the premises and which don't.

That's why I gave the math example. The internal censor doesn't matter - it is objectively, logically verifiable if something follows from the original position or not.

But you really should read the entry - take your time, I'm here for a while.

Example: I (MPhil) am a white male of rather high education. Yet I and anyone else can perfectly well see that from the original position, behind the veil of ignorance,
A rational person would not affirm that white males of higher education should have a better standing in society, since beyond the veil of ignorance, one does not know what color, sex or education one would have, and as such it would be irrational to affirm any bias, since one might receive a disadvantage from it.

This is a quasi-algorithmic procedure... and as such my predispositions are of no consequence.

Your objections are thus almost like stating math is impossible because everyone has an internal censor and a certain bias might be there without you knowing it. This is irrelevant for logical deduction.

600. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166750 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I will say this much for mainstream religious morals [Protestant/Catholic bibles], they are in black and white,

Which is why they fail to apply, their world-picture is far too coarse.

include much detail, and some even have a stated explanation behind them [within the text].

But in the end it comes down to "because god said so".

That's the thing with theistic ethics. Either god commands things because they are intrinsically right or wrong - that is objectively, in which case god is just a middle-man and is not required for morality. Or things are right and wrong because god said so, or because it is god's nature that determines this, in which case the values are not objective, but subjective to/dependent on god's nature.

Also, "because it is god's command" is never a moral reason unless you have already have made the moral choice to accept the bible/god as the commander of moral values - which has to be justified from without the moral theory of theism - which is impossible for the theist. The logic of theistic morality is circular.

Furthermore, the concept of ethical responsibility is meaningless in theistic ethics because there it comes down to following commands by a celestial dictator (however benevolent one might think he is) - not because things are objectively, intrinsically moral or because of the reasons a rational philosophical ethical theory can provide.

Also, the moral commands of the bible are at places contradictory. Also, they are decidedly unegalitarian and unfair. The basic liberties, rights and freedoms cannot be affirmed. Liberty of Conscience cannot be affirmed. At least if taken seriously. As Jean-Jaques Rousseau correctly noted:

It is impossible to live in peace with people of whom one thinks they are damned; [...] There is no other choice but to either convert or punish them. [...] Such a dogma [there is no salvation outside of the church] is only compatiple with a theocratic constitution, in every other it is ruinous.

If you think that someone who doesn't affirm your doctrine will suffer eternally, you cannot let that happen if you like or love that person and thus have a duty to convert him - and indoctrinate your children, thus crippling the child's ability to make full, rational use of his liberty of conscience, freedom of choice (a child successfully indoctrinated will not even develop that ability to any reasonable degree) and freedom to embrace or reject(!) any religion.

This is incompatible with the requirement to grant everyone freedom to of thought, liberty of conscience and freedom of religion - since this religious practice does not allow for the people over which its adherents have influence (especially children) to develop and make use of that freedom.

I'm still searching for as much from the social implications which stem from naturalism.

Unless you take a theistic morality or supernatural morality as default, there are none.

But as shown above, theistic morality is inconsistent, incompatible with basic liberties, faces a dilemma and has a seriously inadequate underlying world-picture.