901. 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.

902. 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?

903. 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

904. Fleabytes

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

and i forgot: "Holier than thou" :)

Yes, I love MetallicA

905. 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"

906. 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?

907. 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.

908. Fleabytes

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

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

909. 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.

910. 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!

911. 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.

912. Fleabytes

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

Glad to be able to be of service :)

913. 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.

914. 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.

915. 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...

916. 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.

917. 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?

918. 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.

919. 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...

920. 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.

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

Comment #153609 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I want to add that I do not single out the US here - many other countries have done that and still do that, and many have governments have done worse things (although a "collateral damage" of around 600.000 is quite an acheivement) - it's just that we're talking about the US now.

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

Comment #153606 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 4:34 pm

I don't want to continue on the other points... merely this one:

"2. How naive does one have to be to positively think that a country whose leaders furthered its interests by committing war-crimes can be trusted to prosecute and trial them?"

You haven't answered that. If leaders in the US government commit war-crimes (say for example order the bombardmend of civillian settlements, killing thousands and maiming thousands more - or when their actions in foreign policy result - and could have been foreseen to result - in the starvation and deth of thousands) and are not put on trial in the US, what shall be done? Let the slaughter go unanswered? Let the "victim country" do whatever it seems fit (what if that country is in possession of weapons of mass destruction?)?

The US have proven to be unwilling to recognise that such things have happened, unwilling to identify them and prosecute the war-criminals.

When a serious crime is engineered and ordered from another country, the country in which the crime was committed does have the right to seek extradition of the offender. If the crime is large enough to upset the whole political system and policy of the country in which the crime was committed (such as a war crime), an international court - whose judges are not bound by either the government of the country of the offender nor the victim - is the most just solution... such as has happened with Milosevic.

Recognizing that the country whose government (and/or military) is the offender cannot be trusted with prosecution of them (as even recent history has shown) and that therefore recognizing the authority of an international court for international offences is the only just solution is not giving up sovereignty, is not having the constitution subverted - in fact it is the only way to establish a just prosecution in matters of war-crimes (or crimes such as extortion, see Milosevic).

Would you have trusted Milosevic's government to prosecute Milosevic for the crimes he ordered, for the ethnical cleansings, violations of the Genever conventions and other despicable acts?

923. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153590 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Just a small addition:

2) what novelty does Dennett bring to the table in revisiting this "old hat" definition

He was the first (to my knowledge) to fully develop a theory of "free will" integrated into a scientifically valid interpretation of neurscientific data, constructing free will as evolved responsiveness to reason(s) of systems with complex self-monitoring and manipulation characteristics and complex processing of external information.

... in addition to what Steve said.

And I could expand on the topic that philosophy and theology are not at all the same thing, although philosophy can reach such lows and be instrumentalized for it - just as real science can be instrumentalized for pseudoscience.

But I don't think it's necessary.

and you are in no position to declare those uses inappropriate

Especially since the compatibilistic definitions work and refer to real faculties and attributes of systems, wheres your definition is only anymore relevant historically and as a naive, common-sense construct - which is widely considered impossible and therefore useless.

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

Comment #153574 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 3:15 pm

1. Nationalism is horrible. It's childish, arrogant, arbitrary generalisation - it's making a virtue out of being born within some arbitarily drawn borders. It's valuing the people who belong to a certain country more than those of others - that is basis for dehumanizing anyone not being a member of this country whose life or liberty may stand in the way of its interests... and thus to disregard the rights of others. It serves to make people more willing to infringe the rights of others - this has always been the case historically, from the wars between Greece and Sparta to that of the Roman Empire against the "barbarians", the crusades (well, here it was the equivalent to nationalism in faith: "We're good and righteous because we're Chrstians - the others, the infidels are subhuman and may be killed"), the 100-year war, the 30-year war (where the religious equivalent to nationalism was again part of the equation), Hitler's expansion to the east (where the inhabitants of Eastern Europe were classified as subhuman and their life, liberty and rights of no concern to Germans)...

You have essentially stated that this is what you do here:

I care about one thing in this world - the preservation of the US Republic. Nothing else disturbs me in the least. I abhor terms like universal manhood, humankind, brother's keeper, etc. I have no obligation to take care of others

You have an obligation not to tread upon their rights, and when a US citizen or official violates them (individually or as ordering a war-crime), they have to be held accountable.

Anyway - the above quote certainly is a contestor for the most horrible, despicable sentiment by a fellow atheist I have read on this site to date. I'm sorry to have to say this, but I want to be frank.

You make me despair for the world. It's so arrogant and arbitrary to think everyone who shares ones country of orgin is worthy of protection and nobody else's fate is of any interest.

Nationalism is so extremely childish. I may delight in the cultural heritage of my country of origin (and I do), but I have contributed nothing to the good or the bad things in the history of my country of origin - and thus have no justification for "taking pride".
Nationalism is so incredibly black-and-white. Nationalism downplays the fact that no country who has ever had any influence in the world is free from blame, that most have brought untold horror over the world at one time or another - and it certainly violates something you profess to hold dear:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - notice it does not state "oh yea - of course US citizens are by virtue of being such the crowning acheivement of mankind, and everyone else can go to hell for all we care".

Nationalism is so incredibly arbitrary - you have no obligation to your countrymen either, none at all except for those based on the delusion that being a citizen of the US is somehow a virtue.

The country's borders are arbitrarily drawn - none of the historic acheivements are yours or those of your contemporary compatriots. Also, none of the horrible acts of violence and violation of life, liberty and well-being of others committed by US governments are your responsibility.

What is your responsibility however is to realize that you cannot take the good and leave the bad. You have to take both - wholesale: the slaughter of native americans, the expropriation, slavery, imperialism, helping to overthrow democratically elected governments in soverign countries (remember Allende?), violating the souvereignty of countries and violating the same standards which the US in one of its greatest moments established to judge the crimes of the Nazis - if you identify with your country, and think it to be the greatest invention since the wheel - you have to identify with that, too.... or, of course, you learn from history, develop some real ethics that are not confined to people born within arbitarily drawn borders and get a grip on the reality that being a US citizen is no more a virtue than being Swiss, Polish, German, Sudanesian, Congolesian or being a citizen of any other country.

2. How naive does one have to be to positively think that a country whose leaders furthered its interests by committing war-crimes can be trusted to prosecute and trial them?

3. Defending the proclaimed interests of the US and "Trade with all - War with None" (an almost admirable sentiment) are demonstrably in conflict sometimes.

4. It shows the naiveté and black-and-white thinking to think of recognizing an international court as "another country forcing their laws upon us"... It's (I'm repeating myself) recognizing and accepting that one is subject to the same standards according to which one judges others, and the same standards other countries reasonably subject themselves to. This is not imperialism or enforcement - noone has the right to inforce the recognition of international law upon a country (though that is one of the thingst the US did to others - by invasion), what is asked is that the US freely recognize these standards and the power of the international court.

I'm sorry for the tone of this comment - but I do react strongly to nationalism - any nationalism. And with good reason, too.

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

Comment #153524 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Since the passage of the law in 1999

...aaannnd, that means that before 1999, stating (truthfully) that the you committed homicide/manslaughter/child abuse because of religious beliefs would get you a "Oh alright then. There's a good, god-fearing citizen. You may walk free." ?

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

Comment #153153 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 6:02 am

most important document in the history of mankind

Magna Carta, anyone? The writings of the European Enlightenment, anyone? These were the inspirations and historic precursors of the US constitution.


Subvert the consitution? The constitution doesn't cover international law - what you write there can be interpreted as equivalent to "the US uber alles". I hope I'm wrong.

Honestly, you talk of "subversion" of the constitution when what this is about is persecution of war-criminals? About laws and regulations that hold between nations? Or are you really such a nationalist that you think international laws do not apply to the US? That there should be no international law becasue the US "can do no wrong"?

I think the US constitution is great, really! But it is extremely arrogant to think that the US should not be bound by international law, allowing for persecution of war criminals.

Either there are standards to which every country, and every countries leaders ought to be held - then Hussein, Khomenei, Milosevic, Hitler would be guilty - but also Kissinger and Bush... or you think that the national constitution should be the highest level and that there shouldn't be international laws and regulations - in which case the Nuremberg trials should never have taken place, nor the trial of Milosevic - and there would be no basis for condemning the invasions by Iraq against other sovereign nations under Hussein and many many other things.

Recognizing that international regulations (such as the Genever convention, the Declaration of Human Rights etc) are binding for nations and that you cannot trust a country who violates them to persecute its own offenders - and that thus an international court needs to be established and recognized. - This is not subversion of the constitution. This is recognizing that the US can do wrong as well and should not be exempt from having perpetrators of war-crimes persecuted.

I hope I am misinterpreting you - but it does sound an aweful lot like "the US uber alles".

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

Comment #153140 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:36 am

Fighting Falcon,

that first comment is beside the point. This is about keeping to UN resolutions and politicians actively discouraging compliance with international law and refusal to play by the rules of the UN which they helped to establish. That is called hypocrisy and arrogance.

The seconds comment reeks of nationalism. Dear me, it would be madness for an american citizen to be tried for war-crimes! After all, Kissinger is AMERICAN - the orchid of the human race! Having a US citizen tried for crimes he committed as an official against other countries and their populations - according to the rules of the UN declaration of human rights and general Charta. Utter madness - oh the injustice!
EDIT: In that case, I guess the Nuremberg Trials should never have taken place either, as these people weren't tried by their own laws (according to which their conduct would have been lawful). Also, it was at these Nuremberg Trials that the US upheld some of the standards which later became international law, and according to which, Kissinger would be guilty as well. Hypocrisy again.
Honestly, what you wrote sounds very much like what Milosevic said.

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

Comment #153125 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 5:05 am

It's still performing well in some areas, such as UNESCO, the WFP and UNICEF... it's not doing as much as it SHOULD be able to, but still there is a lot of good being done here.

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

Comment #153116 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 4:23 am

So you don't support the World Heath Organisation or UNICEF, or the International Court of Justice, or the UN Peace-Keeping forces?

There have been major failures, but I don't think it is reasonable to describe those activities as a "joke".

I second that - absolutely. While the US and China tend to ignore and belittle the UN - thus 'creating the reality' they supposedly describe - the UN has been a force for good in the past. UNICEF, the International Court of Justice, the Blue-Helmets and especially (IMO) UNESCO have contributed positively.

I'm also with Russell Blackford who said that we do need supernational organisations. I think they should have an entrenched constitution (unchangeable, not even by 3/4 or totally unanimous vote) based on the orginal Charta of Human Rights and a revised organisational structure (rethinking the power and constitution of the granting of veto-powers and permanent seats in the security council) and with more power for binding statements and powers. For example, the US shouldn't be able to not recognise the Den Haag court (Kissinger should be brought to trial, among others).

Anyway - UNICEF, Den Haag, UNESCO, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme - overseeing elections etc) and the WFP (World Food Programme) alone make the UN something better than a mere "joke".

Some links:

http://www.undp.org/about/

http://www.unicef.org/whatwedo/index.html

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3328&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://www.wfp.org/operations/introduction/index.asp?section=5&sub_section=1

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

930. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152692 by MPhil on March 31, 2008 at 11:03 am

Of course free speach does have it limits - when it is conflicting with other rights and duties.

For example, shouting your political opinions with a megaphone towards your neighbour's house is not protected by free speach, nor is telling people you will kill them, and neither is telling people to kill other people. Why should it be protected to do this on a grand scale... in this respect, I find it absolutely correct that in the German law there is an article on "Volksverhetzung":

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

Now I do find restrictions of basic freedoms as worrying as the next guy - but when a practice or a doctrine does indeed cause severe harm, the rights have to be weighed against one another, and it may be the case that a certain practice has to be forbidden - just like you can't lawfully order people to murder others by hiring them to do it or trying to convince them to do it.

Historically, the Bible and the Koran have incited unimaginable violence - but I'm not for banning them... banning certain religious practices or political practices (of neo-nazis for example, like trying to get at kids at school and "win them over"- which is what they do in Eastern Germany for example)on the other hand... all for it.

931. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152667 by MPhil on March 31, 2008 at 10:10 am

I agree with ThoughtsonCommonToad... and would like to add a little something:

"There's no justification for taking pride in something one has not acheived oneself"

Pride without own acheivement is arrogance.

932. Beware the Believers

Comment #152157 by MPhil on March 30, 2008 at 9:25 am

What would that even mean?

Indeed, though someone might construct it as a reference to
a) being a cultural Christian (singing carols etc)
or (maliciously)
b) the old accusatio of atheists being dependent on religious morality and culture.

933. Beware the Believers

Comment #152152 by MPhil on March 30, 2008 at 9:16 am

What fish-sign? The one on Prof. Dr. Dawkins' cap?
At least that one has feet, and is thus a classic atheistic evolution-parody of the religious ICHTHYS sign.

934. Beware the Believers

Comment #152149 by MPhil on March 30, 2008 at 9:08 am

Of course, to someone like me, who studies philosophy, the whole nomenclature of "Ph.D." or "D.Phil." is a little strange - being inferior to a D.Sc. or Sc.D. and containing the term "Philosophy" in an academic setting to refer to something other than philosophy.

Of course I know there's a historical explanation - but it still seems strange somehow to me.

:)

935. Blasphemy

Comment #152145 by MPhil on March 30, 2008 at 9:04 am

Being an addiction, any sort of extremism does not become less extreme if ignored, tolerated, accepted, understood, whatever ...

As someone who has suffered through a psychological addiction - and has had quite some experience with addicts, I feel I cannot let that stand.

Now I'm not saying nothing should be done about addiction, but in my case, and in many cases I knew and know understanding and a special form of tolerance is essential to overcoming it. In many cases, complete rejection with no dialogue or even attempt to understand will only trigger a blocking reaction, which doesn't help at all.

The "tolerance" I was speaking of is that of realizing that addiction is not something that can be just turned off. There may be only very few, complicated routes to remission and treatment, and one has no choice but to tolerate the effects of the addiction along the way if one does want to treat the addiction.

I am not sure whether the "addiction"-analogy hold in all respects, but in some essential ones it might, and there - the above aspects remain true.

936. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #152114 by MPhil on March 30, 2008 at 6:40 am

... I forgot - our influence is basically growing by the year, or at least the decade. Compare the environmental pressure of, say, people living in Ireland in the mid 19th century with people living there now. Compare the situation of medical treatments possible or potential today and a decade ago... it's quite astounding, and all through reason and communication.

937. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #152109 by MPhil on March 30, 2008 at 6:31 am

Well, we do differ from other animals in a way that our faculties of planning, designing technology and cultural artifacts does lift a very large portion of the selection pressure from us that our immediate ancestors had. Through no change in nature or genome, at least people in first-world countries have overcome some very serious elements of selections pressure - accessibility of food, of shelter, certain otherwise fatal diseases etc.

And now genetic technology is on the march... we do shape our own evolution or lack thereof to a very large degree.

938. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151001 by MPhil on March 28, 2008 at 1:34 am

Of course we can't prove that the Christian God does not exist

Of course we can prove that the Christian God does not and could not exist.... there, fixed that for you :)

Some supposed attributes of the Christian God are inherently or mutually contradictory... therefore nothing that supposedly has these attributes could exist.

The Christian God is also an interventionist metaphysical God - which would violate the conservation of energy and momentum, and in extension the 1st law of thermodynamics. For all we know these hold... therefore the Christian God does not exist.

939. Expelled Overview

Comment #150976 by MPhil on March 27, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Good post, Jon. And most definitely true. Sadly it wasn't only Dresden... think of the expulsion of everone with German heritage who lived in eastern prussia, pomerania and silesia after the war, people whose families had lived their partly for hundreds of years - with hundreds of thousands killed in the process.

Also, not only Dresden was unneccesary - so many civilian targets, so many cities were destroyed that there is literally almost no single city in Germany that wasn't bombed.

Don't get me wrong - I abhorr the Nazi crimes and the mindset that allowed for this to happen. But you're right - that doesn't mean that serious war crimes weren't committed by those fighting the Nazis.

940. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #150617 by MPhil on March 27, 2008 at 7:22 am

I find it quite insulting to put philosophy on one level with theology... truths can be learned in philosophy - do not underestimate that. Also, do not assume that philosophers are not scientists. Read a few papers by Paul Churchland, "Consciousness Explained" by Dennett, or something by Sneed, Suppes or Stegmüller - and then tell me that that's not science, that there are no truths uncovered here.

What science does -among other things- is construct working interpretation-models for the available data. That is also what good philosophy does.

The free will issue is one of definition. If and only if you have a working definition, you can investigate scientifically whethere if something actual corresponds to it. And with compatibilist free will, it does. So if you want to claim that the burden proof is on "us" - there is proof.

But you don't seem to accept that it is a valid definition, which is dogmatic on your part. It is I fear immature to proclaim "you have failed to prove that x exists" when you dogmatically do not accept the working defenition that is known to refering to something real.

Anyway - I am really somewhat offended by your comments on philsophy.

941. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149621 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 2:20 am

Same here. And now I have to relax my mind a little :)

942. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149614 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 2:15 am

Can we now let white smoke rise up through the chimney?
(sorry for using a religious analogy :)

943. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149612 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 2:11 am

That is a good compromise!

Indeed!

A deterministic process "unfolds", so there is something there which makes it possible to generate deterministically... that which makes it possible to extract (generate a description of) the state at any time of the system by having a complete description of the system in one state (for example at time t₀) and the "inference" rules... and that would be what I would call the information that is already there...

Yes, I think that is quite concise. And I don't think it's useless to identify that property that does this (by whatever name, I use 'information' - but I'm open for any other name)

EDIT: Comment substantially edited.

944. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149609 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 2:05 am

Your "generating it deterministically" is actually very helpful to me. That would be what I would call "unpacking" of information that is already there (by virtue of the generation being deterministic)

I guess in this sense, I am using "information" entirely independent of epistemology.

945. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149608 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 2:01 am

I still think math is a construct - but one which explores that actual, factual, uniform structure of constructs themselves - which itself is something universal. It is thus "there for all to discover" while still being a construct, an abstraction.

At least that's how see it.

EDIT: As for your last post (#149606), I entirely agree.

Information is surely supposed to provide a short-hand to understanding. It should allow prediction.

Being aware of that specific part of the information you have and being able to use it allows for prediction. The fact that there are a few cases (a small class of types of cases) where it is inaccessible before unpacking does not invalidate my point - "doing the math" was meant as refering to the same thing as "constructing the proof" in the case of the socrates example, where beforehand you already have "Socrates is human", "All humans are mortal" and "(If P then Q)(Now P)(Therefore Q) is an admissible operation".

That would be equivalent to knowing "2", "2", "4" having a definition of "=", of "PLUS " and knowing that it is admissible, - AND considering ONLY the this.
That from my use of information also already contains the information that 2PLUS2=4

But as I said, my point was reducibility (meaning that there is nothing more to a specific tornado than the specific strucure and behaviour of the system on the lower level). And I really do think the halting problem and cellular automaton examples do detract from that specific point.

946. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149604 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 1:47 am

The insight I have gained is that reducibility as being fully 'implemented' (I'm not sure if that word is correct - with all its connotations) does not mean predictability in all cases. A valued one... I might have to write a paper for philosophy of science about that.

947. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149603 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 1:44 am

Anyway - my main point remains. The lower level (and this has nothing to do with "doing the math"/"constructing" the proof", ie "unpacking" or accesibility of information in general) has the higher level phenomena implemented in them - ie they are reducible - such as that the higher level object "tornado" is reducible to the specific nature, structure and behaviour of the lower level particles.

948. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149598 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 1:38 am

Damn, I just can't let it be.

For one thing - I abhorr platonism. It is the "essence of redness" thing... universals again. Abstract entities as "really existing entirely objectively, completely independent from the construct and abstraction".. nah, that just doens't work for me. As you know, I'm a materialist. But I get your point and I don't think it necessitates platonism.

Anyway, I think the analogy is incorrect:

I would suggest it (may) make no more sense to say that the information the behaviour of the automata or programs is present in the starting states than to say that the information you will find when you explore a fixed landscape is somehow present in your starting point and direction. What information you find is determined by those, and is entirely reproducible, but it isn't really useful to say that the starting point and direction contain what you will find.

Not starting point and direction. That would not be analoguous to the Socrates example I used to give the definition of how I use "information", as from information about starting point and direction alone, you cannot "unpack" the information of what you will find.

My point was made in the analogy, that the information "Socrates is mortal" is contained in what I have listed above.
These elements by themselves already contain the information that is contained in "doing the math", in "constructing the proof", ie in

" 'P1:All humans are mortal; P2:Socrates is a human; C:Socrates is mortal' is sound."

949. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149592 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 1:29 am

Bullshit. It is you two who mark precisely what this site is about.

Having off-topic discussions? :)

Nah, I get what you mean - thanks. But it's not just Steve and myself... I feel the same way about so many people and contributions on here.

Mabye not all is right with the world - but at least something is still right in all the corners where the valued contributers on this site reside :)

950. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149588 by MPhil on March 26, 2008 at 1:17 am

Aaaargh! 2-dimensional space!!!
Aaargh!

With just a touch of sarcasm, I wonder if he would make sure that they be forced to stay there until they've worked it all out?

Now we've done it, Steve... we've become a menace to the RD-society :P