751. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157713 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 12:57 pm

The traffic routes and factories in Dresden could have been targeted without dropping bombs in the knowledge that they would burn down the whole city.

My grandparents have lived through that. I don't think anyone living in a country that never had a large military machine attack them directly can imagine what it is like. Seeing a 150 kilometre stream of bombers fly overhead, hearing the sirens - cowering for shelter in the basement, then hearing the explosions - going out to look for family members only to find that the fires are so large that the temperature on the streets is enough to burn your flesh, that you cannot really breathe - to see your house, and thousands upon thousands others reduced to rubble.



This is not meant as an appeal to emotion - merely to make clear the horror inflicted upon these people.

Yes, stopping Nazi Germany, stopping the death-camps, the invasions and the atrocities was absolutely necessary. But some things that were done to achieve that were atrocities as well - and should and could have been avoided. That's all I'm saying.

I am not condemning the bombing of Nazi Germany in general - absolutely not. The industry, the roads, factories, train-tracks etc, the military bases - that was absolutely justified. These and more - but not all of the bombings - and certainly not the ones specifically targeting civilians.

752. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157703 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Al,

two things.

1. No it didn't - at least not generally. Many cities, towns and villages were bombed that did not support the war effort in any way anymore - many at a time when the Nazi War Machine was already on its knees. Dresden town centre for example was entirely unnecessary. Peenemünde - yes. Dresden, no!

2. If the bombings of elderly, women, children and generally civilians as was done there did help to bring down the Nazi War Machine it would do that in no other way than bombing almost all civilian settlements of any country during war would, because they are "raw-material" for the war machine. So you could say that it would be justified to carpet bomb Baghdad, Basra, Rome (during WWII), the Vichy-French cities etc.

Many cities, many civilians could have been spared by targeting only the infrastructure that was essential to the War effort. Certainly not the town centres and non-industrial districts of Dresden, Bayreuth and countless other cities.

Even in war - not everything is permitted to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible - for that would justify the worst atrocities. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is not justifiable in my opinion.

I can understand you position - maybe you can understand mine.

753. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157692 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I'm sorry, but this

for every Dresden there was a Coventry. There really isn't any need for the allies to justify their position; it was war and war is not nice.

is just astonishing. What's that? The slaughtering of civilians is justified because the other side did it too - and to a larger extent? That's just plain disgusting. And no - it's not that for every Dresden there was a Coventry. Germany remains the only country to date with a first-world population density and culture where all larger cities, towns and villages were bombed to the ground, so much that you'd be hard pressed to find a single city that wasn't bombed.

Yes, waging war against Nazi Germany was necessary, stopping them was necessary - but that doesn't justify all atrocities that were committed in the process. Simply stating "well it's war" and "inter arma enim silent leges" won't do I'm afraid.

You can say that Nazi Germany in the end brought it upon itself, but that does not mean that the bombing of cities, towns and villages is justified.

An act of slaughtering civilians doesn't become justified simply because it happens during war and was committed against Nazi Germany.

People who know me will know that I condemn the crimes of the Nazis absolutely - but you're position is simplistic, black-and-white and altogether not very humane.

754. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157620 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 10:47 am

hungarianelephant,

good post. I generally agree.

What troubles me is that this ignores the evidence that a lot of local commanders were acting on their own initiative.

I wasn't really aware that this is not general knowledge. Of course Hitler, Heß, Himmler etc still had the plan for the final solution, approved of whatever the local commanders did to kill the jews (preferably have them work beforehand in the later years). And of course the logistic effort was still largely planned from above. But that the local commanders share responsibility - is that really questioned?

The Nazis were not solely Germans. They were drawn from every one of the occupied countries. Had the invasion of Britain succeeded, it's reasonable to assume that there would have been a Vichy-style government based somewhere like York or Durham, and that Brits would have volunteered for the SS - so no moral highground for us either.

Also true - the Nazis received high praise internationally before people knew of the death camps. They had supporters everywhere - Britain, the US, France, Russia, Hungary etc.

The catholic clergy deserves a lot of blame as well. Many people do not realize the extent.

Stepinac, the Roman Archbishop and friend and supporter of Nazi-puppet Pavelic (Ustashe) oversaw the forced conversion and otherwise execution of thousands. (although he later changed his mind concerning the extermination of the jews)

Franciscan monks worked in concentration camps (as overseers mind you)

There are literally dozens of pictures showing Roman catholic clergymen saluting Hitler.

Have a look at these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Pavelic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustaše

Anyway - good post hungarianelephant!

755. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157598 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 10:13 am

Peacebeuponme,

you're right - given that the evidence is there and overwhelming, and the responsibility is there to learn from that, I find the act immoral, but perhaps not the person who honestly does not know better - but then, if there is one topic where you COULD know better, it's this... so maybe there still is a moral dimension.

756. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157585 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 9:55 am

Can I just ask though: what did you think of the Jewish fellow on the programme? He seemed to indicate that Jewish suffering was such a special case that it needed a different application of law. That is not something I would subsrcribe to. The Mongol expansion did not happen by negotiation, but if I put forward the view that Ghengis Khan was a jolly fine fellow, I would be rebutted and ridiculed. I wouldn't expect the Chinese and most of Asia to want to imprison me. Of course that was over 600 years ago and WWII was pretty recent. However, I get disappointed by what seems to me to be special pleading for the Jewish case from time to time.

Well - the Holocaust was unique at least in the respect that never before have such detailed, strict, industrial logistics so coldly been applied in genocide. The "technology" used and especially the logistics of the Holocaust is what makes it unique. It is also what accounts for the "banality of evil", to quote Arendt. Eichmann himself said that it made no difference whether he was managing the logistics of shipping potatoes or sending millions of people to their death - it was logistics and his duty.

I do feel that it is morally unacceptable to deny the holocaust, to have Hitler as one's hero or even say that this all wasn't that bad - I feel at least as long as the survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau, Flossenbürg etc and their immediate relatives and friends, as well as the liberators are still alive, a special situation in Germany where denial of the Holocaust is an offence is not morally illegitimate.

But generally, and in perhaps a few decades time, I hope we won't need that any more - it should go without saying that we find something like that disgusting.

And maybe then the education about Germany in other countries will also be able to make sure that kids don't grow up associating Germany and Germans inextricably with Naziism, that they know that this was a 12-year period in a millenium of history including some of the most famous writers, composers, philosophers, scientists and so on - maybe one could also include in the curricula how modern Germany has successfully dealt with its past. This would surely serve to normalize the situation again.

So - it still is something special, mostly as long as the people it affects are still alive - and we should never forget, we should all learn the lessons from this (including the ones that Germany has learned) - but taking into account the technological and logistical means, it wasn't unique in history and this should be acknowledged. Genocides have taken place in the US, in Turkey, in China, in Mongolia and other places... but sensitivity to the survivors is definitely a good thing.

757. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157577 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 9:35 am

okay then...

"Someone denying the Holocaust - that makes a battalion of bells, an army of alarm-bells, a peal, a carillon go off in my head"

Everyone happy now? :)

758. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157574 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 9:28 am

Cartomancer,

you're right of course... but since it is somehow amusing, I'm not going to change my post :)

759. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157568 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 9:20 am

Despite my critiques of Israel, the saying "Never Again" says exactly what I feel.

My feelings exactly. And I am very glad that this is deeply etched in the collective conscience of the world - and most of all Germany. Some will get defensive when some stupid assholes from Britain, the US or elsewhere will lift their right arm and cry "Sieg Heil" whenever they meet a German, when they still think Germans are generally Nazis and when these 12 years are the only thing they know about when it comes the millenium of German history. All the composers, philosophers, scientists, painters, writers and other cultural figures of world rank are disregarded, only these horrible, disgusting 12 years count. This is so incredibly sad that I understand that this elicits a blocking reaction or even an aggressive one.

Still, never forget, never let anything like it happen again. That is one of the foremost duties of every nation on earth.

But at least the denazification worked, German society and politics is as aware of the dangers of nationalism, unquestioning, rallying-round-the-flag patriotism, and militarism as can be... and we (or at least I) will always point the finger at any person, group or nation that is moving in that direction.

Would that all nations learned as much from the crimes in their history.

Someone denying the holocaust... makes a battalion of alarm-bells go off in my head.

760. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157290 by MPhil on April 8, 2008 at 9:09 pm

ASMarques,

My goodness - that's sickening.

You are without a doubt the (willing or not) victim of a conspiracy theory of the largest scale - which is extremely disgusting in its denial of one of the planned mass exterminations in history.

We have the original documents of the deportations, the photos, the gas canisters, the confessions on record, the eye-witness reports, the films, the survivors, some surviving descendants of the victims or other family members - we have the confessions, the radio reports.

I've been to the concentration camps - I've talked to survivors, I've talked to an American soldier who saw these things, I've seen the confessions, heard and read both the official statements of the Nazis concerning the Final Solution, their propaganda, - for goodness sake, I have seen the evidence both for the Reichspogromnacht, the Deportation and the extermination myself.

You however support a disgusting conspiracy theory - and the evidence against it couldn't be better documented and preserved. I'd like you to tell your story to anyone who has lost family members in Auschwitz, Dachau, Flossenbürg etc.. or to the Soldiers who liberated the camps, or to the few remaining survivors themselves... although on second thought I wouldn't want you to inflict that kind of cruelty on those people.

Being a conspiracy theorist of the worst kind, you will (as you have) "blame" my reaction on being "blinded" by the conspiracy, on being misinformed and not allowed or willing to see the truth.

You are figuratively spitting on the graves of the victims of the Holocaust, in the faces of the survivors and the families and friends of the deceased...

... I think I speak for all of the people on this site when I say that this is entirely unacceptable behaviour, and that this site, a place of truth, reason AND empathy is no place for someone like you!

761. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157266 by MPhil on April 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

ASMarques:

and then about the so-called "Holocaust" (in fact the latest politically and religiously motivated aggiornamento of Judaism, riddled with contradictions and straight falsehoods that fly in the face of careful examination).

Are you denying that the holocaust took place?

If not, forgive the following - but if so, this is for you:


Claiming that the actual sites of the atrocities (which I visited), the perpetrators (who confessed), the detailed accounts (remember Eichmann?), the video (which I saw), the incredible amount of actual evidence and above all -
the eye-witness reports (I talked to survivors of the camps) and the people still alive who knew the people who were slaughtered....

.... that this is somehow forged?

I - as a German, an Atheist, someone who has studied the history, and mostly as a human being capable of rationality and empathy - have to say:

I am disgusted beyond words by denial of the holocaust, and by any person capable of that!

762. Fleabytes

Comment #156196 by MPhil on April 7, 2008 at 4:34 am

Just want to say I don't like being singled out by Robertson for intelligent and rational comments. There are so many amazing people on here - almost all of which I would call intelligent and rational. Some very much so - to the point of some admiration from me.


Furthermore, Mr. Robertson - if you should happen to read this (the above being your final post notwithstanding) - two small points:

1. There are atheists who still argue for metaphysically objective moral values, and they can - but in that sense they are not "brights". The two mustn't necessarily always go together. And as I said - one can simply postulate metaphysical entities, no deity needed.

but more importantly

2. That many people including me think there are no metaphysically objective moral values does not mean that we think there are no rather universal moral realities - such as evolved constants of behaviour. Objectively necessary imperatives for the survival of individuals and the species. Now if we can have the shared goal of survival of the individuals in question and the human (and other) species, these objectively necessary imperatives become moral values derived from objectively necessary imperatives given one shared goal (it might be an evolutionary constant that this goal is shared...)

-MPhil

763. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155732 by MPhil on April 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Sehr interessant, danke Paula.

Schon traurig wenn man bedenkt dass man in den meisten Fällen keine Chance auf eine höhere Ausbildung hatte wenn man kein Parteimitglied war, beziehungsweise wenn die eigenen Eltern keine Mitglieder waren - oder gar politische Gegner.

(And for the non-German speakers :) -

Very interesting - thanks Paula.

It's sad that in most cases you didn't have a chance to get a higher education if you weren't a party member, or if your parents weren't party members... not to speak of political opponents. [which, in a one-party system comes down to "undesirables"].)

764. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155726 by MPhil on April 5, 2008 at 11:47 am

ZekeCDN,

the difference is quite astounding. While I haven't been to East Germany before 1990, I am thoroughly educated on how it was there, and have spoken with many people who lived there and went to school at that time.

Nowadays it's pretty much like west Germany - only that there are more "Plattenbauten" (70s giant, ugly concrete buildings), more xenophobia (especially in the rural areas) and slightly less prosperity. Otherwise it's just like West Germany. And of course the many national and international treasures are now more beautiful than ever - the Dresden Frauenkirche, the Leipzig Thomaskirche (where J.S. Bach was Thomaskantor), the Berlin palace is about to be rebuilt, the Alexanderplatz, the Anna Amalia Bibliothek etc.

Really a lot to see - and well worth the trip.

But I'm still interested to hear how Paula got into an East German School - since they were official, public schools where the teachers were screened pretty thoroughly by the Stasi and had to meet with government approval.

765. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155720 by MPhil on April 5, 2008 at 11:20 am

Paula,

how did you - a westerner - get to teach English in East Germany before the Reunification? (And in which city, if I may ask)?

And can I gather from this "dass du ein wenig Deutsch sprichst?" :)

766. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154983 by MPhil on April 4, 2008 at 3:29 am

Cartomancer,

I would go even further.
If something exists which we can know nothing about, then we couldn't even perceive it, observe it or recognize it - because that would already imply knowing something about it - namely that it's there.

So unless one wants to declare complete intellectual bankruptcy by asserting that we have a "sensus divinitatis" or some such thing - all we can possibly perceive is physical and even the speculation that something more exists can never be anything else than unwarranted.

Even if we observe a phenomenon we cannot explain at all - that would give us no justification for postulating anything supernatural.

767. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154971 by MPhil on April 4, 2008 at 3:18 am

I'm with Cartomancer...

two and a half millennia of philosophy have failed to show what you (Artful Dodger) assert, and in the last century of philosophy of mind, especially the last four decades very good accounts have been forwarded of how materialism can deal with these things.

768. Fleabytes

Comment #154403 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

"sodden vibrator" - lol
btw - anagram finder:

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/

769. Fleabytes

Comment #154373 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 6:34 am

Sorry, couldn't resist - but our theist friend's response to "Paul suffered a heatstroke" was just too much... it immediately reminded me of the last picture in this comic.

770. Fleabytes

Comment #154372 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 6:32 am

771. Beware the Believers

Comment #154367 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 6:24 am

This reminds me of the "Gina likes Rock(Music)" and "Sandra agrees, she also likes Rock (Hudson)".

When we talk about a historic person, we can only refer to that person by description. When almost all of the actions and attributes ascibed to that person did not happen/are untrue - and people (theists) still use these, can they then be said to be refering to the Jesus who actually lived.

Jesus, the nazarethan, who is god's son, who held a sermon on a mountain, who had 12 deciples, who bas born of mary, whose husband was jacob, who was a descendant of david. Jesus who was sentenced and executed by pontius pilate etc etc etc.

If it turns out that there was a preacher at that time to which some of the teachings can be ascribed, but of whom of the above only the sermon were true - would it be accurate to call that person Jesus?

The Jesus myth is clearly copied from Hercules, Mithras and Osiris. And there is afaik only one mention of a revolutionary jewish group-leader around that time in contemporary works by a roman historian (or rather documenter) - and the description has otherwise nothing to do with jesus.

Then of course there are the inconsistencies in the descriptions of how Mary and Joseph travelled, how the line of Joseph is to be traced back, the inconsistencies in the descriptions of Jesus himself and his teachings - and the fact that no archeological evidence exists of anything to do specifically with Jesus.

I don't doubt that there was a sectarian leader who caused the local roman government some trouble... there were in fact quite some.

My main point is that the Jesus-myth demonstrably buries heavily from the Mithras, Osiris and Hercules myths - so that these attributes can be shown to be unoriginal and in all likelyhood not true.

I think it entirely plausible that one of those sectarian leaders at the time was the inspiration for the gospels, who then made up fairy tales about his powers, attributes and actions. But I would be disinclined to then say that "Jesus existed" - because that implies more than "a sectarian leader who was the inspiration for the gospels but did none of the magic-stuff and not even most of the mundane stuff existed".

Concerning that quote of mine you cited - I actually thought whether to include that I doubt the historicity of Jesus (in the way above) - but that would have required something about the length of this post, so I thought "nevermind".

772. Beware the Believers

Comment #154337 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 5:52 am

Bonzai,

you have a point. It might be so... but we shouldn't forget that it is highly dubitable that the accounts of Jesus' life are accurate, that he said or did any of those things... some accredited hitorians doubt the existence of Jesus. After all it is a fact that most of his "divine" attributes, and some less divine are copied from other, older myths that were around at the time.

So maybe we should say that the "stories of jesus" had that intent?

773. Beware the Believers

Comment #154328 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 5:29 am

Of course I expected such a reply. Yes I have read the actual bible - and was rightly disgusted. Especially by the OT, by Paul and Matthew.

And - while some of the quotes are taken out of context on that site, by far the most aren't. Especially the ones about violence and cruelty in the Bible, - furthermore I'm not going to let you off so easily.

Especially Paul's writings are clearly misogynistic... have you even read the entire page?

How about this one?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
(although the "New Testament" sections should be of more interest to you than the OT-section. But then there is the little problem that Jesus affirms the OT-law, even says he came to uphold it - so there's no getting away from that)

or this
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

mabye this
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

or perhaps this
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html


It won't do to show that a few are actually out of context - I have read the bible (Luther translation, parts of the King James version and parts of other translations), and most of what the skepticsannotatedbible lists is not out of context.
Of course, I have seen some theists attempting to provide reinterpretations that were absolutely ludicrous just to avoid having to face the reality about the violence, cruelty, injustice, intolerance, misogyny and contradictions in the bible.

774. Beware the Believers

Comment #154308 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 4:54 am

Especially Paul is a misogynistic bastard - but that isn't news.

775. Beware the Believers

Comment #154307 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 4:50 am

No, not jesting. The social status of females was certainly better in rome than it was in medieval europe for example. Actually, women were almost always treated better than in the dark ages when the christian church had near absolute power.

And concerning the teachings, look here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/nt_list.html

776. Beware the Believers

Comment #154289 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 4:18 am

I didn't say that the romans and greek had gender equality - just that they had a lot more respect for women and that they were granted more freedom, and could enter into positions other than maid, whore or farmer's wife :) (high priestess for example :) than under Judaism, Islam - or Christianity.

777. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #154284 by MPhil on April 3, 2008 at 4:02 am

well, denoir - I get your point

and I don't think we really disagree.

One thing caught my attention, though:

I've had plenty of experiences with those philosophers working with 'philosophy of mind'. I work developing artificial neural networks (I'm an engineer) and in that capacity I cooperate a lot with neuroscientists. They are extremely frustrated over the invasion into their field of an endless line of philosophers whose complete ignorance is only surpassed by their arrogance. There seems to be a giant tribe of mind-mystics that don't know the most elementary things about the brain and the state of neuroscience yet have strongly held convictions about what the mind is and how it works. And these are well respected philosophers such as Searle.

This I find interesting because philosophy of mind is my speciality.

I thought that was funny - (cognitive) neuroscientists study the brain and how consciousness is produced/emobdied/based in/identical to certain aspects of the brain at work. Philosophers of mind develop theories as to what can be reasonably inferred from the data, what problems there are, what can't be inferred from the data - what various theories about body/mind relation are compatible with it, what the detailed implications of these are, if there is any incoherence in any of them etc.

So, this is the natural domain of the philosopher. They don't want to tell the neuroscientists "Look now, you're getting it wrong - the broca's and wenicke's areas have nothing to do with aphasia and the production and procession of language in general!". When the neurscientists make claims about dualism, identity theory, functionalism etc they are entering the field of philosophy. And they do frequently make quite blatant mistakes, famously John C. Eccles for example, whose theory of the body/mind relation is absolutely ludicrous.


Now don't get me wrong - I love the neurosciences, have studied basic neuroanatomy, machine theory and neural network theory (the latter actually more extensively - extremely interesting field) and (other) areas of (cognitive) neurosciences.

The only problem with artificial neural networks is that while on/off and synaptic bias do get you very far - (as you know, for example face-recognition and even completion of blackened-out areas in photos of faces with the complete versions of which the network was trained), the actual signal-processing abilities of the neurons involve more than on/off and synaptic bias - which may account for the higher signal-processing ability of biological neural networks.

I agree, Dennett is very good - but so are (although I think they're sometimes wrong, here) Searle and Chalmers and others. They're all brilliant thinkers with wonderful contributions to the field.

And there are some philosophers who actually have very good knowledge in these fields... if I may make a suggestion: Read some Paul Churchland, who has worked extensively with neural networks and has made stunning use of it - for example in his paper on "neurosemantics", and of neuroscience in general (for example his wonderful paper on colour-qualia and their reduction to output coding-vectors of the Hurvich-Jameson network in his paper "Chimerical Colours").

If you like Dennett because of how well his theory works with neursciences - you'll love Churchland!

I suggest

"The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the soul"
and
"Neurophilosophy at work"

(for example)

anyway,

wonderful to hear that you work in neural network theory!

778. Thy will be done

Comment #154209 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Dawkins has stated many times that he participates in public religious ceremonies (such as signing Christmas carols) and believes that teaching the Bible in school should be mandatory so that you can better appreciate certain aspects of our culture, such as Shakespeare.

He has stated plainly that he thinks the bible and religious symbolism should be taught as literature, mythology and symbolism, necessary for understanding the english literature, cultural heritage and language - and that he enjoys religious art, such as Bach's Mass in B-Minor.

Nowhere does he state that he wants religion to anything more than a practice exerted by consenting adults, and he certainly does not want it to have mandatory public inluence - especially over children in schools.

Having god in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our money truly does not matter, in the end. Nor do crosses on public property. So much religious symbolism is built into our national heritage and landmarks (I'm speaking for America here) that it would be impossible to remove all traces of them.

"One nation under god" and "in god we trust" are, as you very probably know - remenants of the (despicable) McCarthy era. Of course there are more, but religion in the pledge and on the currency are omnipresent symbols of endorsing religion, which Jefferson, among others, would most certainly not have wanted. Much of the official religious notions like pledge, motto, currency - certain 'education-progams' (abstinence), Creationsism/ID in schools are more or less recent - most of the "official" bias towards religion and christianity stem from the opposition of communism and the proto-fascistic methods employed in the McCarthy era. Sort of a demarcation-criterion for a "true American".

The US can do without "In God we trust" visible everywhere, and without "One nation under god" at least.

(Not to mention that I find national pledges in schools and for every new citizen highly disgusting, as well as pledges to anything other than the constitution and being true to one's own conscience for officials)

779. Beware the Believers

Comment #154206 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 9:44 pm

In his time Mohammad was a great feminist

You can't be serious! Women enjoyed far more rights and social status in the classical roman empire and on most greek islands almost a century before Mohammad was born - which was in no small part reflected in the/linked to the greek/roman mythology with its many worshipped female godesses, the worshipping of hedonistic pleasure, fertility and the ascription of positive qualitites, sucessful acts and "entities" (heard-fire, fertility, hunt, harvest to mention only the most essential) to female godesses.

Not to mention the far-eastern religions that actually worshipped female sexuality...

Compare the description and treatment of women on the greek isles and in the roman empire (and in the far eastern religions I mentioned - also in parts of India) with that of females as described and treated by the Koran and Islam...

_______________________________
On a side note - I violently dislike the term feminism... I'm all for equal rights, privileges, payment, opportunity etc - but when I think of "feminism", I think of "feminist philosophy" and "feminist science" - which mostly said "There is a way of knowledge, of insight into reality that men can't acheive. All this (rigorous logic/scientific methodology) is actually a sexist suppression by chauvinist men! You don't honestly believe in (the JTB-theory/ DNA), do you? You do? Well then you're just blind or still trapped in the subjugation of woment by those male chauvinists!

This might sound like a made-up story... but sadly, it's real and documented - and it even was a major movement.

Equal opportunity, wages, education, rights, privileges - absolutely! Such incompetent, ludicrous, illoical, blatantly stupid nonsense - absolutely not!

:)

780. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #154123 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 5:58 pm

denoir,

I was hoping for a response from someone :)

I think I understand your position, but must respectfully state that I don't share it.

Saying that she isn't up to academic standards is a bit like saying that the Selfish Gene isn't up to scientific standards. It isn't - it's popular science and Rand is popular philosophy

I don't think so. The Selfish Gene is thoroughly based in rigorous academic biology, written by a real scientist who has used the methods of academic biology to correctly and thoroughly to make his point in The Selfish Gene. This isn't true for Rand and philosophy (for the reasons mentioned above).

However, that doesn't say anything about the validity of her philosophy.

I think it does - it shows sloppy thinking and the ascription of almost "mystic" attributes to the law of identity. Every serious philosopher cringes at objectivism, partly for that reason.

I would for instance defend her theory of ethics, or at least the foundations of it.
[...]
Rand says that 'is' defines 'ought'.
[...]
The important point is that you can derive the fundamental individual rights that way (right to life, right to private property and the right to free speech…) - they are derived as necessary prerequisites for life of a human being in this universe.

This is what I mean with sloppy thinking - it's simply wrong. This isn't an aswer to Hume's law (as you correctly stated), not even an approach, it commits the basic naturalistic fallacy (see Moore)... ascribing a non-natural, perscriptive quality to naturalistic qualities or attributes. She never gets above the "is"-level. What she does (attempt to do, not convincingly) is show that some behaviour is necessary, but not that certain actions are inherently good or moral - only that they are consequentially justifable. Also, - you can't derive capitalism, much less laissez-faire capitalism as basic necessity of an evolutionary stable society, much less show that is demonstrably moral. Better people have tried and failed.


All of this (and the above mentioned) leads me to say that I cannot subscribe to

Given a few very simple axioms to rest on, her system holds pretty well.

The arguments are so fallacious that you needn't even be a first-year philosophy student, much less an expert in epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind and metaphysics to see the errors. Furthermore, while Kant is incredibly complex and hard stuff - so that even some otherwise great philosophers struggle with understanding him - her take on Kant (sorry) absolutely worthless for its superficiality and misreading.

I don't think Rand is popular philosophy like The Selfish Gene is popular biology, I think (again without wanting to insult people on here who happen to like Rand) Objectivism is to philosophy as ID is to biology.

There are brilliant introductions to various topics of philosophy. Rand is not one of them.

781. Fleabytes

Comment #153988 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 10:47 am

And finally (concerning MetallicA)

"Leper Messiah":

Spineless from the start, sucked into the part
circus comes to town, you play the lead clown
Please, please
spreading his disease, living by his story
Knees, knees
falling to your knees, suffer for his glory
You will

Time for lust, time for lie
time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
and you'll get a better seat


Bow to Leper Messiah

Marvel at his tricks, need your Sunday fix
blind devotion came, rotting your brain
Chain, chain
Join the endless chain, taken by his glamour
Fame, Fame
Infection is the game, stinking drunk with power
We see

Time for lust, time for lie
time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
and you'll get a better seat

Bow to Leper Messiah

Witchery, weakening
Sees the sheeps are gathering
set the trap, hypnotize
now you follow

Time for lust, time for lie
time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
and you'll get a better seat

Lie.

782. Fleabytes

Comment #153987 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 10:41 am

If I may...

"Holier than thou" - MetallicA:

No more
The crap rolls out your mouth again
Haven't changed, your brain is still gelatin
Little whispers circle around your head
Why don't you worry about yourself instead?

Who are you? Where ya been? Where ya from?
Gossip burning on the tip of your tongue
You lie so much you believe yourself
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

Before you judge me, take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do?
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

It's not who you are, it's who you know
Others' lives are the basis of your own
Burn your bridges and build them back with wealth
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

Who the hell are you?

783. Fleabytes

Comment #153985 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

"The God that Failed" - MetallicA

Pride you took
Pride you feel
Pride that you felt when youd kneel

Not the word
Not the love
Not what you thought from above

It feeds
It grows
It clouds all that you will know
Deceit
Deceive
Decide just what you believe

I see faith in your eyes
Never your hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
Broken is the promise, betrayal
The healing hand held back by the deepened nail

Follow the God that failed

Find your peace
Find your say
Find the smooth road in your way

Trust you gave
A child to save
Left you cold and him in grave

It feeds
It grows
It clouds all that you will know
Deceit
Deceive
Decide just what you believe

I see faith in your eyes
Never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
Broken is the promise, betrayal
The healing hand held back by the deepened nail

Follow the God that failed

I see faith in your eyes
Broken is the promise, betrayal
The healing hand held back by the deepened nail

Follow the God that failed

Pride you took
Pride you feel
Pride that you felt when youd kneel

Trust you gave
A child to save
Left you cold and him in grave

I see faith in your eyes
Never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
Broken is the promise, betrayal
The healing hand held back by deepened nail

Follow the God that failed

784. Fleabytes

Comment #153983 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 10:37 am

and i forgot: "Holier than thou" :)

Yes, I love MetallicA

785. Fleabytes

Comment #153981 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 10:23 am

Zappa - yes, how about "The Meek shall inherit nothing"

and Al, since you mentioned Leper Messiah, how about "The God that failed"

786. Fleabytes

Comment #153865 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 6:55 am

whereas atheism provides no basis for condemning an atheist like Stalin.

groan, that's really old... to still believe that, you would either have to be really ignorant, stupid or simply convinced that it has to be so because atheists mustn't be able to be moral.

Also, did you not read my first post today on this thread - a page back... the one about metaethics?

787. Fleabytes

Comment #153862 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 6:53 am

No, gimlibengloin, you're misinterpreting me.

If god is necessarily existent and necessarily has these characteristics - it means that whatever laws make it necessary are prior or higher.

The logical truths are necessarily so because of the axioms and inference rules of logic. These are prior to or higher than the necessarily true statements.

The same would be true for god. Necessity requires laws (those of logic at least). Thus the laws of logic would be prior or higher.

But then, the idea that god must necessarily exist is quite ludicrous and unsubstantiated itself - and more so the idea that it would necessarily the god of your denomination.

This is so ridiculous that it almost isn't worth addressing... but okay: Triunity (another logically impossible concept), omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, having sent his son, who is also himself to earth, having given ten commandmends, having declared that it is a sin to wear clothes of more than one fabric, to eat rabbits etc.... Would you be so kind as to provide the logical proof (in whatever calculus you prefer, but including the inference rules) that this is necessary? Of course the premises must be unquestionable. Honestly, that's laughable.

If it were so that god would be necessary, it would be provable - and all such "proofs" have always been ridiculously easy to shoot down.

788. Fleabytes

Comment #153833 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 6:23 am

:D Yes - today is a good day to laugh!

789. Fleabytes

Comment #153829 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 6:14 am

If it arises rom nothing at all, it is arbitrary and we can't use it as a standard. If it doesn't arise from nothing, then it is predetermined, and not God's choice, so doesn't come from God.

I don't think "arises from nothing" is really an option.

I think the options (at first glance) are:

1 - god's character is neccesary or otherwise determined by something other than him

or

2 - god's character is determined by himself (which is impossible, but a position I have heard proposed). A thing is defined by its attributes. Nothing can thus predetermine its own attributes, because there has to be "something" which has to do the determination of the attributes, and that something would again be defined by its attributes.

...that is, did you identify either option with "arises from nothing"? Maybe I misunderstood.

Anyway, the consequence is still the same. Postulating a god gets you nowhere - it just postpones the problems that already exist and adds quite a lot more.

790. Fleabytes

Comment #153825 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

There might just be some kind of objective explanation for morality in terms of Natural Selection, which itself is a result of replicating patterns competing for resources. Replicating patterns which assist copies of themselves will tend to persist over time, whereas those which don't will tend not to. Perhaps, from this simple principle, we could eventually build up all the way to explanations of a moral "sense". Of course, this does not lead to what we really "ought" to do, but could explain why we have gut feelings about what we "ought" to do. In other words, what appears like moral behaviour in animals that don't reason could be founded on nothing more than very basic principles of physics and information.

Indeed - you will get no disagreement from me here. But as you correctly states this answers the questions of what determines our social behaviour - and that it is evolutionary stable. It does not answer the moral-justification question - that is where philosophical ethics can be of use.

Also, as cognitive animals, most of us (perhaps all) need a conceptual framework to integrate moral judgements into, including justifications. Also, (as I have experienced myself), having a certain first-order ethical theory can indeed modify our behaviour to some extent - I like to think that I am more morally conscious and act accordingly since I have thought long and hard about what first order moral theory I can adopt or construct and what second order (metaethical) justification there can be for this.

Anyway, this is a highly interesting field of studies. The psychological determinants of the details of moral behaviour of individuals and the evolutionary explanation for why certain forms of behaviour are prevalent, or even dominant.

I think both fields (the biological and the philosophical) are highly interesting and worthwhile.

The other issue is how some platonic moral standard of good could be of any use as a standard of behaviour. I believe you have mentioned something before about what a truly bizarre thing such a Platonic entity would be. However, I think it gets even more bizarre when you consider how it is supposed to influence the world. To use a poor analogy, Plato suggested the objective existence of geometric forms, such as a circle, but that doesn't provide any influence in the world that makes people want to become round (although the increasing spread of fast-food might be a counter-argument).

Absolutely - it's the old problem how something metaphysical can influence something physical. What would be the connection, the mechanism - and furthermore: how would that even be possible, since every physical event is either genuinely random or has a sufficient cause within spacetime.

That is part of the "queerness" of (metaphysically objective) moral values that Mackie criticized.

So, my opinion on your post 7445 - I agree wholeheartedly!

791. Fleabytes

Comment #153815 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 5:55 am

A rather interesting reponse but surely incorrect. To say that God is bound by his own nature and that his nature determines moral laws is NOT to say that he is dependent on a higher order. It is to say that he acts in accordance with who he is.

If god's characteristics are not determined by himself, they are either necessarily so or contingently determined by something else. In either case, since it is not god himself that determines his nature there is something either prior or "higher" (in order) that does. And if moral values are depenend on god's character, and he has not determined that character himself - they are in the end determined by whatever determines god's character.

Q.E.D.

792. Fleabytes

Comment #153803 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 5:35 am

Glad to be able to be of service :)

793. Fleabytes

Comment #153798 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 5:27 am

Peacebeuponme,

indeed - but that doesn't work, the same problem still comes up, for it hinges upon the question how god's character/nature is determined.

Did god "determine his own nature"/"create his own character" (which is logically impossible) or is it determined otherwise, maybe even necessary? In the former case, you have the one horn of the dilemma - in the end what is good is dependent on god's choice (in "determining his own nature"), in the latter case you have the other horn: God's nature is determined not by himself - whether necessary or not, then god is bound by his nature and the moral values are thus dependent on what determines god's nature - and thus of a higher order than god himself.

794. Fleabytes

Comment #153793 by MPhil on April 2, 2008 at 5:15 am

David Robertson,

regarding the question of ethics, and "where do our values come from" - this implies a historical or pragmatic question, but I think that wasn't what you were asking - what you are really asking seems to be "Why are the values we uphold 'moral', what makes them normative?"

The problem with this is that
1)There is no sufficient justification for believing that values are metaphysically absolute or intrinsic and
ii) even if they were, we wouldn't be able to know that they were, not to mention which of all the proposed values were.

You are (understandably for a theist) stuck with the idea that the only way moral judgements can be justified is by virtue of expressing absolute, metaphysically objective, intrinsic values.

This is not the case. Not only does it face the above, fatal, problems - there are three further points:

1.If you think hard about theistic "commandmend ethics", you will find that it is not an objectivist position, but a subjectivist position - since in this theory, moral values are dependent on god (see also Euthyphro-dilemma).

2. The idea of metaphysically objective values is in no way dependend on theism. In fact, metaphysically objective values do not require theism at all. Metaphysical entities need no causal explanation for their existence, since we cannot think how the laws of causality should apply outside of spacetime. So one can just postulate metaphysical values. Plato was the first to theorize in that direction.
(Of course, I stand by the view that metaphysical entities do not exist or at least need not be postulated)

3. Since we have neither sufficient (or indeed any) reason for believing moral values to be metaphysically objective, intrinsic, absolute - the question arises how moral judgements can be justified. The answer is that there are multiple ways... We can hold that moral judgements are either merely expressions of intersubjectively shared emotions, or prescriptions based upon these - where the intersubjectivity provides a justification.

Consequentialism in general provides answers. My favourite theory is contractualism - expressed e.g. by T.M. Scanlon in "What we owe to each other". But there are many more.
We can imagine what an ideal situation would be, in which the wants, needs and the nature of others in the society are taken into account - and from this derive the rules of conduct necessary for such a society.
All that is needed are commonly shared goals - from these, moral values can be derived and judgements are hence intersubjectively justified.

The fact that there are no metaphysically objective, intrinsic moral values involved does not detract from that. After all, those theories are based on the realization that we have no justification for claiming that they exist and no way of knowing which they would be if they did.

So continuing to ask for metaphysically objective moral values as justificatin won't wash... it would be missing the point.

The positions I have outlined have the immense advantage of not requiring the postulation of unprovable entities whose existence is improbable and whose nature could not be reliably known even if they existed. They depend entirely on what can actually be known about the subjects of the theory.

795. Beware the Believers

Comment #153689 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm

or might satirize exactly that sentiment :)

I'm still unsure...

796. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153678 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Just a quick comment by someone in the academic field of philosophy:

I really don't mean to insult anyone - but since the name and term come up again and again, I feel I might as well share my opinion and some facts.

Ayn Rand, and the whole "objectivism" is dreadful philosophy - in my opinion not even deserving the term. Sometimes more of a cult than a philosophical movement. Whily some serious philosophers such as Robert Nozick (whose political opinion I do not share completely, but partly) agree with the political conclusions of Rand and Objectivism - they disapprove of the reasoning behind it.

Especially "metaphysical moral truths" is quite laughable, and has been dealt with over and over again - especially by such people as John Leslie Mackie.

Also there is the cultive, 'dark' use of language, quite unbefitting the matter at hand.

The law of identity, and an entity being defined by its attributes - that's fine with me... but the conclusions she draws, and some other things, like "Existence exists" make me shudder. I feel thrust back to the dark ages of Hegel - only without the intellectual analytic rigour. You want philosophy about the question/problem of existence? Read Quine's "On what there is". Heavy stuff indeed - but full of clarity and analytic rigour... qualities that entirely elude Rand.

The approach to epistemology is entirely worthless, so is the metaethics (a deeply flawed misuderstanding of general principles here, as evidenced in her ludicrous comments on the is-ought problem) - and if you want modern political philosophy, read Berlin (eg "Two concepts of Liberty"), Rawls (eg "A Theory of Justice", "The law of peoples", "Political Liberalism") and Nozick ("Anarchy, State, Utopia").

Her "criticism" of some of the great philosophers - almost her entire comments on the history of philosophy show gross misreadings and a flawed understanding of the works she aims to criticise (but failes to strike any blow agains).


Anyway, academic philosophy generally does not consider Rand's objectivism worthy of attention or even inclusion - and rightly so in my opinion, which is really all I wanted to state.

Too much cultism, too little analysis (mostly faulty) - dreadful language, imprecise meanings - a few good positions on politics and applied ethics. Altogether entirely forgettable, where it recognizes truths unoriginal, mostly based on faulty reasoning and integrating them into more of a cult than a philosophy, not worthy of attention in academic philosophy - quite like a laymen's take on Quantum Theory... popular among some outside the field of academic philosophy, and hardly anyone within.

797. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153639 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Dr Benway,

I share your concerns - in a good world, it would be possible for the United States to admit to the war-crimes and crimes against humanity, acknowledge the authority of the Hague and still taking a strong stance against islamic extremism.

But you're right - the "machine", the mindset that allowed for this would have to change... but can it change without taking a step in the direction mentioned above?

798. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153631 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Okay, I just came up with what I think is a good analogy, so I will make this one further contribution:

George H.W. Bush can be held accountable for the deaths of Iraqis because Saddam Hussein was a dictator who starved his people? That's a ridiculous proposition.

So if parents were abusing their children, and the people who feel responsible to deal with that throw a grenade through the window - killing the parents, 2 of the 12 children whom they sought to protect and 6 of their friends - shouldn't be blamed, because after all all of this is the parents' fault?

As I said, the quoted statement by you is tantamount to declaring intellectual bankruptcy... and that's it from me on this.

799. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153628 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Fighting Falcon,

I didn't address this position of yours because its absolutely ludicrous. George H.W. Bush can be held accountable for the deaths of Iraqis because Saddam Hussein was a dictator who starved his people? That's a ridiculous proposition.

I'm not going to waste my time addressing this. You aren't bringing former American presidents or officials to the Netherlands and prosecuting them. It won't happen so you might as well drop the subject.

I think you have just declared intellectual and moral bankruptcy. I've got better things to waste my time on...

800. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153626 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

I think we can work toward a system of international law and enforcement. But we have to sort several problems along the way. This UN Human Rights issue might be one of them.

I agree wholeheartedly, we can and we should.

Is the Hague neutral ground? I notice the pressure Islamic groups can bring to bear upon politicians in the Netherlands.

The judges in the Hague international court are not subject to political pressure from the Netherlands' government or political groups. They aren't necessarily from the netherlands either. As with all genuinely international institutions, they are merely situated there.

Should Clinton be brought to trial for bombing that aspirin factory? If Bush was negligent in assessing the WMD danger prior to the war, will Blair also be rounded up for similar charges?

An international court could rule that reparations should be made for bombing that aspirin-factory.ö Maybe Clinton should be put on trial (or whoever was responsible for designating that target).

Without wanting to state anything about the Clinton case, there is of course a difference between genuinely believed-to-be-true false information leading to an action that can thus only retrospectively seen to be against regulations, or having misinformation manufactured deliberately. And "negligent in assessing the WMD-danger" is hardly the appropriate term.

There is a case to be made for trialing Bush for the "supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression [not defence] against a sovereign nation"... and a chief prosecuter (Benjamin Ferenccz) from the Nuremberg Tribunals agrees with me.

The subtelties and problems of the Iraq-case have been discussed before... but the facts are all farily well known by now (at least most).

But I'm nervous about how power is managed at the international level.

Count me in, but the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Den Haag court in the case against Milosevic have shown that this can be handled justly (IMO). And having people who are responsible for thousands upon thousands of civillian casulties in a war of aggression walk free and be the leaders of one of the world's most powerful nations is positively horrible to me.

Anyway - I generally agree with your comment.