51. Beware the Believers

Comment #152234 by Spinoza on March 30, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I don't understand this at all.

At least the South Park episode was making a rather salient (though perhaps blatantly obvious to some of us) point that religion is not a necessary condition for war.

Some "New Atheists" seem to forget that...

52. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #152188 by Spinoza on March 30, 2008 at 11:48 am

Small clarificatory note to robotaholic:

Spinoza's God is not worshipped. It's the infinite natural universe, of which we are modes (technical term, roughly meaning 'area' conceivable under attributes)...

Anyway, I guess I wasn't clear enough...

I meant we might want to consider the fact that people are just simply unwilling to let go of the WORD "God", and they don't REALLY care WHAT you let fall under the concept... they just want to hear the superficial "I believe in God." claim.

So my suggestion, following the lead of of the great 17th century philosophers, is to be as subversive as is humanly possible... USURP the WORD from the theists, redefine it, and slowly warp it to conform to REALITY.

Which really is what has happened in intellectual theological circles in some cases, at least in Judaism and Christianity, since the Enlightenment...

Process Theology, for example ( of people like A.N. Whitehead ... who was a good friend and colleague of Bertrand Russell)...

It's a separate issue from religion, of course, so we still ought to criticize deleterious components of that...


... sorry for the lateness of my reply...

53. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150052 by Spinoza on March 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Does everyone see why Spinoza (and Hobbes) vehemently denied being atheists, and why in their great works they utilized the word "God"?

Perhaps atheists should pipe up and simply say that they DO believe in one God, but that God is the infinite natural universe (Spinoza's use of the term "Deus").

54. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149729 by Spinoza on March 26, 2008 at 7:33 am

Lucas, I understand the sentiment, but ignorance, delusion, and stupidity are not fairly punishable by death.

55. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #149306 by Spinoza on March 25, 2008 at 12:36 pm

But when people like you and "Spinoza" jump in and dishonestly pretend the metaphorical, redefined interpretations of the bible that the moderates use are in fact the original "correct" meanings, you are getting in the way of that happening.

Is that what we did?

56. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #149224 by Spinoza on March 25, 2008 at 9:25 am

Rod, sorry, there's no reference that points out problems in the Quran for you, you've got to read the Quran for yourself to find them :-) !

Tips: Surah 4 = "The Women"... pretty much the easiest place to find ridiculous statements... But then, I'm pretty much a male feminist (LOL).

As well, something important to note: NEVER EVER EVER try to argue with a Muslim about a Hadith, unless THEY bring it up first. The Hadith(s) are interpretations done by scholars, and Muslims are not required to follow any of them, but if they do bring it up, you can question them that way.

The best (rather, only) way to go about questioning Islam is to read the Quran yourself (your best bet here is to find multiple translations and cross-reference, because Muslims will often ask you if you used a certain version and then try to write you off because you haven't read the original Arabic).

The idea, though, is to get a sense of what the Quran actually says, and to not just simply write the thing off... because it's not just about God... it is a prescriptive book, detailing legal and social affairs... and Muslims claim it is perfect in every way, and that it is only the interpretations that are problematic.

57. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #149012 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Nancy, that's an interesting question... is it because I complained about the submission method and mentioned JavaScript? lol...

... To answer: not really... I mean I "program" in the amateur sense, I've written fairly basic game emulations in Java, C, and Basic (stuff like old nintendo games, this was back in my highschool days though), done extensive database and server management stuff from the ground up in "LAMP" (linux apache mysql php), I attempted to learn Ruby On Rails... etc (have no time for that anymore though)... So I mean, I know my way around the dev side of the internet quite well... I used to mess around when I had time...

I think you've made some good points, by the way,... I just want to make clear that I wasn't decrying people speaking up about BEING atheists... I just personally would prefer that people who want to engage with THEISTS about THEIR beliefs wouldn't straw-man the arguments.

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148952 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm

MPhil, I am certainly rusty on my Nietzsche references, but if the quoted passage you gave is Aphorism 125, then that is the one I meant... and he DOES talk about the atheists there: "As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter."

No?

... I guess I just put words into the madman's mouth... and the atheists... (I guess I had constructed a dialogue to go with the scene, in my head... lol)

Honestly, it's been 4 years since I last read Nietzsche with any effort... so I was recalling from memory that famous passage....

I've written so many papers on so many (imho more interesting) topics since that time so I was bound to recall it in a tweaked way.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148938 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Corylus, do you think these people do it on purpose? I mean, are they aware that they are being dishonest?

Why would people spend their lives invested in the lies like that?...

( I mean, I'm certain that they DO, I'm just honestly asking what kind of person DOES that?! )

... so weird to me...

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148932 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Nietzsche wasn't necessarily an atheist.

The famous "God is dead" was first spoken not by Nietzsche, but through the character of the MADMAN. (Nietzsche later says it, but it is not clear whether he means to imply that he himself actually is a literal atheist, or whether he is just talking about a certain KIND of God (the God that arbitrates morality), etc...)

The point of his saying it (through the madman) was to point out that social progress has made the traditional justificatory structure for morality obsolete.

The madman first says it to the atheists, and they laugh at him... they say "Why are you telling us something we already know?", to which he replies (paraphrased from memory... it's been a while, my Nietzsche is rusty): "You say you know this, but you do not know what follows from it... you cling to your morality more fervently than the believers do, and yet your beliefs have no foundation..."

He was saying that atheists (AT THE TIME, not necessarily now) were clinging to CHRISTIAN (specifically) morality even after rejecting the God hypothesis... often irrationally (i.e. most atheists at the time probably [fair inference given the era] proclaimed homosexuality deviant and immoral anyway, they also probably thought women's place was in the kitchen, etcetera]

Nietzsche was trying to point out the absurdity of holding non-foundational morality, or rather, morality in the face of the destruction of its supposed foundation.

The whole POINT of the Ubermensch is to progress from the inevitable apathy and nihilism the (FIGURATIVE) "death of God" brings to one's morality and joie de vivre, to a transcendent status... the Ubermensch, who has his own morality, independent of an external foundation (like God, or society).

Clearly the Nazi's and most Germans at the time misunderstood him.

The biggest reason for this is that Nietzsche's sister was married to a hardcore Nazi, and since he was ill and dying with Syphillis, SHE edited and published his works, with a significant modification to appeal to Nazism.

The works have subsequently been returned to their original status...

And no, it's not at all clear that Nietzsche was actually an atheist.

61. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148930 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Phil, thanks... good post! That distinction is a fine one to make. You may be right, but I do think there are quite a few issues being mixed up in all this (by everyone on either side, and by the "bystanders")...

(2), as you've put it, I mentioned earlier, and noted that it is a worthy goal, but is not restricted to non-believers. Believers like Ken Miller, or whomever else, I should think, would be welcome additions if all that matters is the fight against the transgression of (merited, or rather, true) rights.

I don't think I restricted discourse solely to (1). I agree that WOULD be a "pants" idea. (LOL!)

I just meant that if people are going to JOIN in on (1), I'd prefer it if they were not lazy, incompetent, fallacious, and/or ill-intentioned/rude/patronizing, etcetera.

You are right, the first task IS difficult... and that is why it pains me to see it bastardized...

A simple point, no?


Mitchell, glad to hear it! You can always start by reading Plato's dialogues in your spare time (they are all online!), some are quite easy! (say, Symposium, Apology, Mino, Crito...) ... I would save The Republic for an intro class with a good professor, and books like Theaetetus (my fav!) for later.

But above all, enjoy... and a good point to note: Kant is way harder (read: smarter) than you think he is. :P

62. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148921 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm

AllanW, you seem to want to start a *thing* over this... seems to me you're one of those atheists that annoy me for the reasons I've mentioned.

I'm just once going to explain to you why nothing you just pointed out is backtracking, and how you've somehow managed to systematically misunderstand nearly everything I've said, you can respond if you like, but I won't... you seem to be enjoying deflating this childish projection of "pomposity" too much.

1. The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Breaking The Spell, etc. are NOT pop-science books. Not in any sense of the word "science"... they aren't stocked in the science section of bookstores, and no one thinks they are... They are usually put in "politics" (Hitchens, Harris) or "philosophy" (to my chagrin, Dawkins, and Dennett)... the fact that you think THAT is me "backtracking" is just evidence that you don't have any reading comprehension skills.

I made it absolutely explicit... I like popular SCIENCE books... I own quite a few (in the post I lost, I listed a few of them... Ramachandran and Sacks and Damasio among them).

2. The phrase "weakest sense" means "broadest", or "least strict"... there's nothing wrong with what I said there. It looks like [but it may be that you're just mentally unstable and enjoy picking fights for no reason on the internet] you just don't have a large enough vocabulary to understand my posts.

3. Are you insane?... In the first case I was talking about some of the PEOPLE who COMMENT/POST on richarddawkins.net and Pharyngula... THAT is the issue... that the people I have a problem with are the ones who are knee-jerk defensive to possibly valid criticism, and/or unable to THINK for themselves. It looks like you're one of those people... you seem fully incapable of understanding clear language, but you seem to enjoy picking fights for no reason.

In the second case SteveZara had recommended that I read Pharyngula to get a sense of the supposed "war on science" being fought politically in the United States... which IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE from the one I brought up.

I mean for fuck's sake... are you really so stupid and/or confused that you think because I used the name "PZ Myers" twice in two different contexts I must be "backtracking"????

No wonder you're amused!

4. Do you not understand the difference between a personal desire for something and normativity?

A normative claim is a claim about what one ought to do... regardless of personal preference. i.e. "You ought to help people." or "You ought not to rape children." are normative claims.

"I would prefer that people thought before they spoke." is not a normative claim, it's a claim about my personal preference. I'm not saying that it's a MORAL issue...

Christ on a fucking bike... you're dumber than most theists I know.

But, as I say, it looks like you're just trying to pick fights and probably don't really care to understand what I'm saying.. (no doubt you will deny this... people in your position always do), and I'm not into debating people who aren't willing to improve (or capable even)... so this is my last response to you. Do with it what you will.

I have no doubt that those of sound mind will be able to grasp what I have said...

63. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148884 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 1:14 pm

It's amusing to see Spinoza backtracking from the extremity of his initial position as well.

What on earth are you talking about?

What was the extremity of my initial position?

What have I backtracked on?

Why is that amusing?

64. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148860 by Spinoza on March 24, 2008 at 10:21 am

Man... I wrote out a substantive reply to all the points made with regard to my posts... and because of the overloading of the servers the past couple days... I lost it :|

... it's this embedded (JavaScript I presume?) submission process that is the problem... if it had been a regular form/submission page I would have been able to hit "Back" and get my post back... but no :(...

Oh well... I guess to sum it up as quickly as possible:

1. I like pop-science books.. I never said anything about them... I was talking about potboilers in particular, with the caveat that the intention of the authors may or may not have actually been to write a potboiler... and it may or may not be the case that one or more the the popular atheism books is such.

2. I was using "intellectual" and "academic" in the weakest sense possible... I just meant people who actually spend time and effort (and MONEY) developing their natural gifts... I don't mean the ones who suck (there are so many crappy/insane people CALLED intellectuals or who are in the academic professions... but I didn't mean them, of course).

3. I do read PZ Myers site, SteveZara, but I think that is wholly separate from what I was criticizing (which is mostly just incompetence and knee-jerk defensiveness on the part of what could be called "born-again" atheists, or rather, atheists with chips on their shoulders).

4. To "the great teapot": I wasn't making any normative claims about what you should or shouldn't read or know... But, in some sense, it's your loss... in the same way that your English teacher in highschool might've said "All you kids SHOULD read Shakespeare."... of course you don't HAVE to... what on earth would that mean?... But your view of literature WILL be impoverished...

If your only mechanism for determining what you will or won't read is whether it is PRIMA FACIE (look that one up if you don't know it) useful to you, or seems to conform to something you already agree with, or because it's on the NYTimes bestseller list... then of course, don't bother, you're too stupid for it to be worth your time.

If you just don't like the word "God", then fine, but that underlies my whole criticism, which is that the WORD itself has different referents when used by different people... and Spinoza's "God" is just Nature. ("Deus sive Natura", a salutation).

Hitchens and Hrsi Ali have BOTH read and loved Spinoza... Einstein too ("Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mensch"... look it up)

So perhaps you're missing something ;-)

... but by all means, don't read it, you'll get on in life just FINE without it.

65. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148777 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 10:45 pm

And why stop at genes?. The late physicist Heinz Pagels wrote in his book "the dream of reason" that Dawkins had it all wrong, the genes were themselves only the play things of DNAs, I don't remember how the argument went, but will look it up when I have a chance.

Because genes code for proteins that actually do things (that is, on the level of the organism).

They're the lowest level at which there is something meaningful to say that isn't just chemical or physical (meaning, particle physics).

Also, the way you've worded it doesn't sound quite right (I could be wrong though)... it seems to me that "DNA" just IS genes... to talk about genes is to talk about your DNA...

SO if anything, what Pagels might've said was something about genes just being the "playthings" of the nucleotides... which would just be playthings of the smaller sugars and esters and phosphate groups...

But that just kills all usefulness whatsoever...

66. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148772 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 10:09 pm

... did anyone else notice the blatant irony in this statement from sarah95 above:

We are attacking ideas, not people. Only oversensitive pricks see it the other way around.

... you are forgiven, Sarah, if you were born in 1995. If that's the case, please be more careful not to put your foot in your mouth...

... this is what I mean, by the way, about taking criticism... It's not as if suddenly atheism becomes false if I point out how moronic the above statement is...

67. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148757 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 9:04 pm

I don't think it needs to be dumbed down.

I think what needs to be emphasized is that if you want to open your mouth as a proponent of a view (and against another view), say, in a debate, you better know what the hell you're arguing against... and you better be able to do more than just parrot stock responses...

I think it's the politicization (or perhaps the democratization) of "the truth" of "Atheism" that makes people a bit wary (including many of us fellow atheists)...

I think it's a bit crazy to portray this as a "war"... where both sides are out to either win converts or make their enemies look ridiculous (by any means necessary). And certainly this is not some kind of universal rule of the "New Atheists" but it does seem to be a significant feature of a not-insignificant proportion of them... this idea that any criticism must be ridiculed and avoided at all cost, lest we lose traction, or face...

I mean, it all seems quite childish really...

What ever happened to just taking the arguments as they come?

... I recently spoke with some Muslims who were trying to promote tolerance and knowledge of Islam to us non-Muslims (the Kufar)... and it became apparent that they were purposefully avoiding difficult questions... so the tactic there was as follows:

I asked, "What do you make of the verse in the Quran that says that a woman guilty of lewdness should be locked in a house until she dies?"

They said "That isn't in the Quran."

I said "Yes it is."

They said "You must be mistaken, maybe that's an interpretation in the Hadith."

I said "No, it's definitely in the Quran, it says you need 4 witnesses."

They said "What passage?"

(I, of course, knew exactly what I was talking about, and replied:) "Surah 4, verse 15".

Which we then looked up, and their response was:

"Oh, that, um... that is very difficult to enforce... do you know how hard it is to get four reliable witnesses to such an act? And it is only for when a woman commits adultery in a public place!"

To which I said: "What?... What has something being difficult to enforce got to do with it's being right or wrong to hold as a rule?... You claim that the Quran is the perfect Word of Allah... unchanged through time, and you think there can't be any errors in it... so what on earth is Surah 4, verse 15 supposed to mean? Why on earth should the punishment for "public adultery" (it says lewdness for fuck's sake... they were LYING to me) be for a woman to be given a life sentence??? What kind of a retarded God says something that sick, demented and chauvinistic?

To which they really had no reply... they essentially just gave up... I could tell that what they WANTED to say was "Well, we just don't really follow that rule anymore." but of course they CAN'T vocalize that, because that would make their religion (and by extension, themselves) look utterly foolish.

But my point is, you have to KNOW something about what you're up against... you can't just declare things silly, false, ridiculous, without knowing what it is you're talking about...

Which is NOT to say that the stuff should be taken seriously, or that you have to be a theologian before you ought to be allowed to comment on it...

But I'm just saying... that it serves no purpose to go around telling people they're wrong, when you have no idea what it is you're telling them that they do is wrong...

It's that sort of thing that I think is a real issue.

Of course, I also separate the issue of god-belief from issues of religion.

There might BE some kind of "god" and all religions could be utter SHIT.

And vice versa, there might not be any kind of "god" (there isn't, except Spinoza's, which as Schopenhauer notes, isn't really a god at all!), and yet religion might serve some purposes that while not necessary or vital, are so intrinsically tied in with the human experience that we ought to take that into account in our criticisms of religion, PER SE. (Dan Dennett makes this very argument, by the way, in Breaking The Spell).

68. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148721 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 4:37 pm

50. Comment #148641 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm


Ah! Sorry, Spinoza, my bad. Please forget I asked the questions; I thought you were a regular person not the elitist intellectual snob you appear to be in your last comment.

Please, return to your ivory tower and forget I ever mentioned anything. Thanks.

Allan, it's just that sort of anti-elitist bullshit that gives intellectuals the shivers... What the FUCK are you talking about?

It's not SNOBBY or ELITIST to want people to THINK before they speak, or to be AWARE of what it is they disbelieve in or are speaking out against.

As the great elitist intellectual Homer Simpson once put it to a parrot he was having an argument with: "It's not enough to WANT a cracker, you have to EARN it."

That is all I am saying... the pop-culture phenomenon that is the "New Atheism"... the sales of pot-boiler, easy-reader books (note: Dan Dennett's great book "Breaking The Spell" has sold fewer copies than Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins... BY FAR...

Why? Because his book is LONGER, better thought out, and much more conciliatory and well reasoned.

Probably the former has the largest effect on sales... why would anyone want to buy a book written by a philosopher unless it's been dumbed down so they can understand it?

Oh, wait, hold on, if you ask philosophers, and maybe even Dan himself, he HAS dumbed it down in that book... and yet he has retained a level of intellectual rigour that the other books are far from matching (I am saying this after having read them all...)

No 'man on the street' (as we call you from up here in the ivory tower) is going to be AWARE of the difference between a well-reasoned book and a pot-boiler though... and that is what is so irksome.

Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are FAR smarter than their recent books let on, their positions are infinitely more nuanced... and yet, the plebeian masses who have constructed a cult of personality around these figures (one has only to search briefly on youtube to find such nonsense) are ruining the integrity of a justified disbelief.

I think it symptomatic of the very problem I have pointed out that when the "movement" is criticised the person doing the criticism, regardless of the validity of their position or their position on the spectrum, is castigated or ostracized out of fear of exposing weakness, or of somehow "detracting" from the spirit of the movement.

But that IS a tactic taken right from the fundamentalist handbook.

Call me names, write off what I have to say, ignore the criticism, and soldier on indefatigably in the face of blatant problems...

What a great movement this has become.

I'm an atheist, and I always have been, but I am certainly no "New Atheist"... instead of parroting arguments constructed by your heroes and chasing Quixotic targets, maybe WE (yes, WE, I include myself), should be listening to at least SOME of the criticisms leveled at us... since it is at least possible that regardless of our veracity, some of the criticisms might ring true.

That is all I was saying... the "movement" smacks of a sort of Ayn Rand-esque following... (another extremely popular cult of personality that ended up totally RUINING a couple of GREAT fiction books, making it so that those who read and enjoyed them have to explain themselves to others, to distance themselves from the cult, and to risk becoming a pariah for no good reason other than the stupidity of the mass-zeitgeist phenomena.

69. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148637 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I didn't say intellectuals are saddened by it... I said the pop-culture "movement" "The New Atheism" causes them chagrin, which is to say, embarrassment/annoyance, not because atheism is untenable (it certainly is tenable), but because many of the vocal people involved are often quite stupid, or just assholes.

I don't include Dawkins or Myers or Hitchens, etc., themselves in this, and I often have to explain to fellow academics that the writers that have raised the public consciousness about religion/god-belief hold vastly more well-thought out positions on all counts than is apparent from the meat of their pop-books (some might say "pot-boilers"), or any particular interview/talk/debate they've given...

It is the "followers"... the "converts"... the people who look at the academics as icons, who cause the chagrin of academics...

It often looks, quite clearly, like the followers are ignoring the most important things their "leaders" are saying... not least of all on THIS website, and on PZ's, and among people I have met at "atheist" meet-ups on university campuses...

I find that more than a little annoying... and certainly I am not saying that stupid people shouldn't be atheists... but it's more that I'd prefer it if they thought before they spoke, or paid more attention to details... (this is just to say that I'd rather not have to differentiate myself from the damn "New Atheist movement" every time I mention to someone that I'm an atheist... Which is, it is true, a necessary act to avoid being caste (castigated) as a charlatan.

70. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148614 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Yet led by Richard Dawkins's bestselling The God Delusion, a New Atheism has boomed in intellectual circles.

No it hasn't.

The New Atheism is a wholly plebeian movement... to the chagrin of most intellectuals.

71. The atheist delusion

Comment #144138 by Spinoza on March 15, 2008 at 7:28 am

Well, as much as I am chagrined to admit it, it would be a lie to say that most major post enlightenment philosophers have been at least agnostic.

That would be to ignore greats like G.E.M. Anscombe, P.F. Strawson, etcetera...

Yes, the PROPORTION of agnostics and atheists among philosophers is probably as high, if not higher than among scientists... So far as I can tell.

There is something to the idea that as a philosopher one must be "technically" agnostic about anything one has no solid logical proof for...

But at the same time, there are tons of great Jewish and Christian (and maybe some Muslim, though not many in the Western tradition, so far as I can tell) philosophers living today who just happen to PRACTICE their religion, but as philosophers their God-belief is mediated by philosophy.

It would be an oversimplification indeed to equate the practice of a religion with necessary theism.

72. In Defence of Selfish Genes

Comment #140544 by Spinoza on March 7, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Sauronlord, when was the last time you saw a NUMBER (and not a symbol for a number)?

... It's that kind of simplistic thinking that is the problem... it seems that some people are unable to distinguish the mundane from the abstract.

Which is not to say that some kind of modal realism is true, or that the platonic realm is real...

But just that cognition doesn't operate in such a dumb way. We can consider hypotheticals with ease, we can ask "What would be the case IF...?" or "What would have happened had we done...?"

Analogies are meant to convey relations, not equivalencies.

I think the SATs and (I know) the GREs test this sort of ability to understand analogy, in those questions that go like this:

Choose the best equivalent relation:

(where the form is "X is to Y as...")

Glove : Hand

A) Gold : Jewellery
B) Hat : Head
C) Glasses : Eyes
D) Pants : Dry Cleaners


... elementary... That's all Dawkins' "Chicago Gangsters" analogy was doing... comparing the relation between gangsters and their success to genes and their success (both in competitive environments).

As in the above "SAT" example, it doesn't matter if the gloves are leather or cotton, or who wears them... that's not what the analogy is concerned with. Likewise, it doesn't matter WHAT Gangsters are... or what city they're from... what matters is that the relation between successful gangsters and their environment is THE SAME SORT OF THING as the relation between genes and success in their environment...

It's that simple, and it's SCARY that Mary Midgley couldn't/can't/won't understand that.

73. A New Pope

Comment #140485 by Spinoza on March 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Aye caramba.

74. In Defence of Selfish Genes

Comment #140480 by Spinoza on March 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Professor Dawkins (if you read this),

It is interesting, to me, as a philosopher, to see your work published in the journal "Philosophy". (it actually saddens me that this is even necessary!.. which it certainly appears to be... though I realize this is a 27 year old document...)

I find it amusing and painfully frustrating that Midgley is incapable of understanding what an analogy is.

That is an ELEMENTARY thinking skill. Three year olds understand that an analogy compares RELATIONS (often quite abstract ones), not the CONTENTS of the example used.

As I say, it is just painful to acknowledge that someone who proclaims themselves a member of my field of expertise is as stupid as Mary Midgley. (I mean not to insult her, but to accurately describe the status of a failure to understand a SIMPLE analogy).

*** Oh, at #7, there is a TYPO, not a misspelling, in the main post. "Since it was my book, The SelJish Gene".

But it is petty and stupid to call a typo a "misspelling", and then to claim that it this is somehow detrimental to "marketing" (why on EARTH would Dawkins care about marketing this BEST-SELLING book, 30 years after publishing it?)

75. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132242 by Spinoza on February 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Spinoza would be smiling if he were alive today.

As would Einstein.

Bonzai, that's because non-philosophers are content to misunderstand others without realizing it.

You're also just rehashing a debate that went on in philosophy 100 years ago. Check out "Ordinary Language Philosophy" (Austin, Ryle, Strawson, Wittgenstein, etc).

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


As for this: "In the absence of any context words are the only tool for philosophers to convey "meanings""

That's nonsense. There is no such thing as "meaning" independent of context.

76. Moral thinking

Comment #131856 by Spinoza on February 23, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Spinoza,

I agree. Actually, I've made that point above - although you're wording is a little careless: "What people CALL ethics and what IS ethical" - sounds as if you're presupposing moral realism and a priviliged insight into first-order moral statements by philosophers. I'm a philosopher and I would doubt both :)

You're right, interestingly, I am an anti-realist (of the quasi-realist persuasion, actually, Blackburn is a genius!).

But, there is a purposeful equivocation there... not a fallacious one.

You took me to mean "morality" as philosophers talk of it, whereas I was using it in the ordinary language sense.

Even presupposing anti-realism, there is still something (else) wrong with saying that homosexuality is "wrong". It's not JUST that Mackie is right that people who say that are in error about what they think they're talking about, it's that even an anti-realist like myself can tell them they're idiots for thinking that.

Science will need to wait for philosophers to get clearer on a few things before they start making pronouncements of having taken over the field of Ethics...

Or else we'll end up with cultural relativist post-modernist gibberish.

77. The coming religious peace

Comment #131842 by Spinoza on February 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Looking at that graph.. I don't think you can say that religion and GDP are all that connected.

It looks way more like there are huge other factors creating clusters of countries on that graph based on historical injustices... (just look at eastern Europe on the DL over there, and Africa up at the top in the same section... no connection whatsoever).

Just goes to show that correlation doesn't equal causality... and just cause we'd like something to be true, doesn't make it true. :)

78. Moral thinking

Comment #131366 by Spinoza on February 22, 2008 at 10:49 am

There's such a fundamental confusion here... it's ridiculous.

First of all, biology is not "invading" philosophy's territory.

I'm a philosopher, and I WELCOME all and every biological datum I can find.

In the field of ethics, the confusion is between what people CALL ethical and what IS ethical.

There is a further component, the metaethics. The anti-realism/realism debate hasn't been hashed out yet...

Scientists are jumping the gun if they think their research is doing anything more than simply describing the process by which people make judgments we are wont to CALL moral (regardless of whether they are or not).

We better watch this carefully... we don't want morality reduced to biologically conditioned bullshit. That would make so many things "wrong" that modern secular liberals don't think are wrong (even if they think they're gross).

There is a big debate going on between say, Cornell Realism and Quasi-realism, and I urge biologists to look into that before treading on territory they're not even aware they're bastardizing.

79. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130808 by Spinoza on February 21, 2008 at 10:07 am

... It is indeed a very interesting discussion, but I found Venter's personality annoying... that and his inability to answer questions directly... he seemed to be just repeating the same things over and over...

80. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130485 by Spinoza on February 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm

@ #14: You said you didn't know what this meant: "Schicke dieses Video an einen Freund!".

It means "Send this video to a friend." lol

81. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126501 by Spinoza on February 13, 2008 at 11:25 am

I've never been able to understand how people can utter/believe blatant contradictions like "the poltergeist was bombarding them" or "the poltergeist was contained in the room"...

That's a fucking CONTRADICTION IN TERMS... a poltergeist is BY DEFINITION non-spatiomaterial. That is, not made out of STUFF, and NOT IN SPACE.

Fine, as Kant put it, space and time are our forms of intuition - the only way we can know the world around us... that ENTAILS though, that one or the other of the claims has to go out the window. EITHER poltergeists really ARE spatiomaterial, in which case, they are natural, not supernatural (this is obviously false) OR no one REALLY experiences them, or anything related to them (this is obviously true).

So tired of unthinking bullshit... it just never ends does it?

82. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122598 by Spinoza on February 5, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I love when Hitchens mentions Spinoza.

His interlocutors don't even know who that is!

Ha~! (and you'll catch Mr. Jackson's explicit ignorance of Spinoza... who THEN SAYS HE WENT TO GRAD SCHOOL FOR PHILOSOPHY. What a moron.)

83. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122181 by Spinoza on February 4, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Life is everywhere

... uh, we don't know that .

84. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120356 by Spinoza on February 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Gilbert Ryle's seminal "The Concept of Mind" (1949) debunked this view [Ghost in the Machine] 59 years ago :)

(and technically, Spinoza debunked it 350 years ago... but no one listened to him).

Good stuff PZ!!!

85. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117675 by Spinoza on January 29, 2008 at 11:08 am

Imogen Heap is a singer/musician (originally in the group "Frou Frou") who has this really neat track on Youtube where she creates all these layers with her own vocals... called "Just For Now"... That's probably where she gets #1 on that list from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSIbfzK2spg

86. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117480 by Spinoza on January 28, 2008 at 11:30 pm

I am SOOOOO not REALLY a pantheist!

87. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117467 by Spinoza on January 28, 2008 at 10:49 pm

To be perfectly honest, the point about "atheists" turning to neo-paganism and superstition is a fair point... not about ALL atheists, but about the kind that "convert" or view atheism as a cause... the ones who don't care about it, intellectually speaking...

I know SO MANY people who say "I don't believe in organized religion, but I do believe in a higher power, but I don't know what it is... Gaia, or Nature... whatever." ... which annoys the hell out of me, because they're just not thinking clearly enough... but of course, we can't expect the majority of people to be capable of the sufficient amount of thought required for intelligent ANYTHING...

Such is the world we live in...

Ah well, I remember when I first showed up here and I said that I really did wish that Atheism were still an Ivory Tower, academic, esoteric phenomenon... one that could afford to be righteous because it was so well thought out and well argued...

I admire the sentiment of the whole movement to get people to own up to their atheism... I mean, I really do agree with it, I do think a lot of people are just afraid to say it out loud or in public...

But it really does scare and annoy me that with larger numbers, atheism will inevitably have to deal with a lack of intellectual rigour amongst the majority its proponents.

And most don't seem to care (of course, why would they?!)

... you can lambaste me for this post... but I think it always needs to be said...

88. Vatican slams California firm's cloning experiments

Comment #114051 by Spinoza on January 21, 2008 at 9:24 am

I don't get it...

89. Honour Killings

Comment #113694 by Spinoza on January 20, 2008 at 10:49 am

There are hundreds of state schools where Muslims are in majority. Such schools may be handed over to Muslim educational Trusts or charities for their management.

We can all see through that one... "Muslim educational Trusts or charities" = "Fronts for brainwashing/terrorist training." (obviously not in EVERY case, but given the bent of this letter, it seems clear that we Kafirs are being manipulated by pious-sounding language...)

It all goes back to the insistence of Spinoza that we NOT mistake superstition for piety. (and yet, 350 years later, we're still doing that!!! WHAT THE HELL!?)

LOL.

90. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109786 by Spinoza on January 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Just going to clear something up. Someone said mathematics is "a formal system based on logic".

Which isn't exactly true.

Logicism failed (at least in part because of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem... if I recall my philosophy of mathematics lectures correctly).

In any case, mathematics certainly involves logic, but it is, at least, apparently, impossible to reduce all of mathematics to logic.

91. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108037 by Spinoza on January 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm

There's only one good reason to be an atheist.

1. Because it's true.


*the upshot of this is that if it turned out atheism were false, there would be no good reason to be atheist... even if there were good 'pragmatic' reasons for "acting atheist".

92. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105614 by Spinoza on January 1, 2008 at 8:41 am

John, well sure they could try that, but we didn't teach kids Zahavi's Handicap Principle (I'm pretty sure they don't teach it now either) until it was proven...

And since ID isn't even a scientific theory, it's not scepticism, but blunt obviousness that allows us to rule it out.

93. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105205 by Spinoza on December 30, 2007 at 10:05 pm

AtheistJon, your dad was exaggerating about the bucket and cane.

The first paragraph is true though, and disgusting.

94. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101716 by Spinoza on December 20, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I'd either break that guy's confidence in 5 minutes, or he'd just ignore me.

95. This Week's Flea

Comment #100515 by Spinoza on December 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm

the_blur, unfortunately Dennett's book, the best of the bunch, is also the most intellectually demanding, and has sold the least copies.

Ergo, the fleas are incapable (intellectually speaking) of providing a response to him (it would require them to be able to understand the book).

96. Jumbo shrimp, creationist astronomy

Comment #99208 by Spinoza on December 15, 2007 at 11:50 pm

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much dumber for having actually watched that.

This is aggravating, not so much because it's ignorance... but because these people DON'T GIVE A SHIT!

If it were mere ignorance, at least one could argue that they could be given some basic astronomy lessons.

97. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98926 by Spinoza on December 14, 2007 at 11:14 pm

It is interesting to note the STARK difference between these four men and the majority of their "followers"... on this website and youtube at least.

98. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #98493 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 6:56 pm

3PD > 1PD

QED

99. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #98489 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Atheists are loners.

100. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98477 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

At this point it's a combo philosophy/neuroscience question.

And it's not looking good for libertarian/incompatiblist free will.

That is, my namesake, Spinoza, was probably right when he said it thusly:

"In the mind there is no absolute, or free will. The mind is determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is likewise determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so ad infinitum."

:)