1301. Fleabytes

Comment #135051 by MPhil on February 28, 2008 at 1:38 pm

But how do we decide what the right goals for our lives are? You say 'better with the ladies', but is that the goal? How do I even know whether bedding a lot of ladies is a good thing? It feels good, yes, but is it right? How would I know that?

How do you decide it when you are religious? Sticking exactly to the religious texts is going to be difficult, as all I know advocate conflicting moral views. So mostly, you will use your moral sense to interpret the religion.

Furthermore, the religious view of moral values as commanded by good are subject to a dilemma: Either God commands something because it is right independant of him, then ethics supersede god, and you don't need religion - or it is right because god commands it, in which case genocide would be right if commanded it (which he has done if you read the old testament, not to mention hell)

I suggest you read the excellent book "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" by John Leslie Mackie.

Even if there were objective metaphysical - how would we know? They would be metaphysical entities of a very strange nature - somehow conencted with actions and emotions and dispositions, yet unobservable, unprovable, uninvestigable. In addition, all we know about moral behaviour tells us that there are no metaphysically objective standards, but that peoples and even individuals have sometimes extremely conflicting moral codes.

But there are "moral" facts - such as evolutionary stable strategies (ESS), which as the name says describe which behavioural strategies are evolutionary safe, stable. Assigning metaphysical objectivity to them would be a naturalistic fallacy however.

Fact is, noone could know for sure what these metaphysical values are or even if they existed - so the hypothesis that they exist is superfluous, Occam's Razor takes care of it.

But this doesn't mean we can't act 'morally' - everyone knows that we can. And all that is needed for this is empathy, which can be explained as specific mirror neuron activity. But we humans have even more than that. We can conceptualize, modify concepts at a high level and implement them.

Ever heard of first order ethical theories like Utilitarianism, Kantian virtue ethics, prima facie duties-ethics and so forth? None of them require any deity, in fact all of them are far superior to theistic morality.

I suggest you read up on them, and I really suggest you read that book by Mackie.

-Mike

1302. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #135034 by MPhil on February 28, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Goldy,
Noone is called a "guest worker" in Germany anymore. The term has faded out of usage almost completely. It was used specifically to refer to the people from Italy, Greece and Turkey (mostly) that were hired during the late 50s to late 60s when the German population couldn't provide enough workers for the rocketing economy, the "Wirtschaftswunder" and its consequences.
Those people are now in their 60s or even 70s - some went back to their countries of birth, others stayed and had children, who are now mostly parents themselves.

That is not to say that there are no obstacles to integration - erected both by the German government and economy and by the immigrants.

1303. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #134979 by MPhil on February 28, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Oh please - the "original spirit"? The prophet's "original values"? Gimme a break! The guy was a deluded, megalomaniacal crook - the hadith and koran are full of misogyny and worse things.
This is like the modern, modest, central European christianity... far from its roots, reading part of the moral Zeitgeist into its holy scripture to avoid being left in the middle ages.... and then selling it as a return to the "original values" and a more "accurate" interpretation. Bullshit, it's just the opposite and these people are hypocrites.

Still, I'm glad Turkey is doing this... now if only they were to strengen their Laicism again, as Kemal Attatürk, the father of the modern turkish nation intended (and this we know for a fact).

1304. Fleabytes

Comment #134488 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I'm on my knees...although, that might be because of the extra strong Long Island Iced Tea I just drank :)

There you go and outwit us all in one stroke. Spoilsport!

:-P

1305. Fleabytes

Comment #134482 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Brilliant!

1306. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134480 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 9:26 pm

OK. So. Evolution provides a few explanations as why such complexity suddenly appears: an increase in the level of oxygen, fluctuations of carbon isotopes, small increases in genertic complexity. OK. All very interesting, but speculative.

Actually not speculative at all - at least no more speculative than the best theories any science can provide - and that means it's all we are justified to assume, and we're well justified to do so. The corroborations you mentioned are just a tiny fraction of the picture. All of modern science corroborates the story of evolution - everything we learn about the change in environmental conditions including continental drift for example. All of which is substantiated, not speculative.

I have a question, though. Before the appears of these multi-cellular life forms, all we have are soft-bodied worms. You can say that it is ebcause of the environmental conditions, or because the organisms did not leave fossilized evidence (due to whatever) - again, all very interesting, but specualtive.

You've got something mixed up. We have substantial evidence of the changes in environmental conditions, not only speculative assertions. The composition of isotopes and general elements in very old layers of ice, in glacier ice, in trees, in strata etc - they all tell us a lot about the changes in environmental conditions.
It is furthermore not speculative that these environmental conditions effect a certain selection pressure, it is a self-evident truth - let me demonstrate it through a thought experiment.

Imagine you have a bright green environment with predators and prey - they prey are green as well, so as to have a chance to reproduce while under the pressure from the predators. They avoid being seen by the predators that way.
Now imagine the environment turns red. What is going to happen?
The prey-species is going to be seen by the predators far more easily.

The pressure has just increased. They will go extinct.... But there's random mutation. One of these mutations causes red skin/fur/scales/feathers... what will happen to the individuals that don't have the redness-gene? And what will happen to those who do? Exactly - the green ones will decrease in frequency of occurance, the red ones will increase.

This is nonrandom natural selection in combination with random mutation. We know it's there - we see it happen (think bacteria developing immunity against antibiotics) In short: evolution.

But there's much more to it than that. Combine Darwin and Mendel and you've got neodarwinism - we can predict the frequency of traits! The Mendelian laws tell us how!
But there's still more! We know about DNA and RNA. Mendel supports Darwin, and DNA evidence supports both and actually provides us with a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms that make up Mendelian inheritance. All of these scientific discoveries are mutually supportive and together make up the modern understanding of evolution. Our meteorological, geological and chemical knowledge explains even what the environmental conditions were and how they caused the fosselization we find, the strata we find the fossils in and even the geological distribution.

We have what we have. So, all of a sudden, we see this. And then, with each successive layer, species start disappearing. How many species are said to be extinct today? I forgot the actual number, but somewhere in the 90s.

Doesn't this seem kind of suspect? Evolutionary theory says that we are all descended from the primordial soup. So, billions of years of bacteria, not much happening, then poof! All these complex creatures, and then they start disappearing. Doesn't the evolutionary tree posit a gradual progression, from the past until today? The progression we actually see is a sudden rise in complexity, and then a gradual disappearance.

Yes and no - it is gradual, we observe no leaps, but there are variations in the "speed" of mutation, environmental change and thus extinction and fosselisation. These are not assumptions made simlpy because they fit the theory of evolution - these are individually corroborated findings of other fields of science, such as chemistry together with meteorology and geology etc. The evidence is mounting up and mutually corroborating the respective theories in the fields - without being circular, because the corroboration is not ex hypothesi and contained to each individual theory, but mutual, inter-theoretic. The theories of other fields that corroborate the theory of evolution do not require or assume evolution, their inquiry is different... yet their predictions and findings corroborate it to an extremely high degree.


The theory of evolution is an integral part of modern science. You cannot just pick and chose, because they are mutually supportive. In fact, the theory is so successful that it revolutionized all understanding of biology.
We need only assume what we observe and know to be true - random mutation and nonrandom selection... and it all follows. Things that wouldn't make sense otherwise suddenly do.

That's the beauty of science. Much like Newton's laws revolutionized our understanding of the way objects behave: The movement of the stars, of apples falling from trees, of thrown balls - are all goverened by the same mechanism: Gravity!

And the same is true for evolution: The large-scale behaviour (where selective pressure is not self-controled, as humans in first world countries do) of individuals are outlined by the behavioural-disposition-controlling genes, which survived through evolution because they were able to withstand selective pressure... because they produce behaviour that maximizes fitness (chance of having surviving descendants).

1307. Fleabytes

Comment #134468 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Do you think it is a satire that Christians want Harry Potter banned?

As a Harry Potter Fan myself, I'm all too aware that they do. But this is coherent with their ridiculous opposition to perceived 'promotion' of witchcraft. Believing that Jesus spoke English however is a matter of real-world fact, with the entirety of history and common sense actually providing positive evidence against it.

The Youtube link was scary, and I know that law (although I don't remeber its name either). I must say it did look staged, which wouldn't be a first for that kind of show. I may however just be completely unaccustomed to that kind of behaviour as it is almost (or even entirely) unheard of in nowadays Germany. But since having seen "Jesus Camp" and "Baby Bible Bashers", it seems to be possible.

Non of which would explain the blatant stupidity of believing that Jesus spoke Enlish though :) I mean there's being deluded, there's being ignorant and there's showing behaviour that (if taken seriously) would rank your IQ right below that of a cucumber.

1308. Fleabytes

Comment #134463 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Bible like Hollywood - we're filled with apocalyptic visions of blood 'n' fire, then go buy a bag o popcorn during the intermission. (think Terminator)

Too true.
As a favourite German political comedian (and yes, contrary to what Stephen Colbert says, they do exist) of mine likes to say:

"You've got to realize this: For the faithful muslim, the presence of infidel soldiers in the Lands of the holy places of Islam is like having Taliban stationed in the Vatican for catholics. Just think - MUSLIMS!!! People who take their faith seriously - unimaginable for catholics. It's en vouge to make fun of Islam nowadays: "I'm cracking up! 72 virgins? Holy shit!"... well, I don't know what you believe in. How about virgin birth? Transsubstantiation maybe? Like to nibble on the saviour?"

1309. Fleabytes

Comment #134462 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Bonzai,

ad hoc maybe, but they've got the wording of "their book" on their side. It's consistent with "I believe that everything in this book [not the ones it's based upon or translated from] is true".
Not that this makes their claims any more substantiated.

" If English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!"

Please tell me you're joking! Those bumper stickers must have been meant as satire - which noone could be so thick as to take seriously. Sure this is not an urban myth? My goodness.

1310. Fleabytes

Comment #134457 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Got another one:

The Bible is a lot like Hollywood - There's much ado about nothing, in the end someone gets nailed and everybody blows it way out of proportion. (think American Pie)

1311. Fleabytes

Comment #134452 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Bonzai,

fair point. But a metaphor is useless unless you know what it was meant to describe (insert a rant about religion and it's undefined concepts). This intended meaning would be inaccessible to all but native speakers of the original scripture, which in turn means that to avoid arbitrary interpretations, believers have to rely either upon tradition or upon close-to-the-text interpretation. Mostly it's both I guess.

Anyway, it means there is no justification for simply asserting ad hoc (and mostly ex post facto of being made aware of the cruelties) "well, it was meant metaphorically for x".

1312. Fleabytes

Comment #134447 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:52 pm

...it's fucking close to water.

Yes, I went there.

The Bible is a lot like Hollywood...

Most of the plots are quite shallow and revolve either around murder, "knowing one another" or both.
nudgenudge winkwink saynomore saynomore

1313. Fleabytes

Comment #134445 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Oops, that beer comment was directed at Lorien... the monty python reference.

1314. Fleabytes

Comment #134441 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:44 pm

The bible is a lot like Hollywood...

The mainstream stuff is mostly boring - and the interesting stuff borders on psychopathic?

1315. Fleabytes

Comment #134440 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Brian English,

nah, I don't drink american beer... or any beer for that matter :)

1316. Fleabytes

Comment #134439 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I wonder if a high dosage of THC would make wooter seem reasonable?

I doubt it - THC does not cause neural damage :)

Furthermore I've never been one of those who get all spiritual and mystical when high. I just tend to enjoy the ride, or even analyze the polyphonic and metric structure of music I listen to... or write songs, or write essays...

1317. Fleabytes

Comment #134435 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Man, now I want to get up and mix myself a nice cocktail... what will it be?

Mai Tai, Touchdown, Long Island Iced Tea, Sex on the Beach, Zombie, Pina Colada, Hurricane, Cuba Libre, Caipirinha or Moscow Mule?

Think I'll go with the Long Island...

1318. Fleabytes

Comment #134433 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:33 pm

I could seriously use some tetra-hydro-cannabinol in my bloodstream when I read posts from wooter or get into a debate with theists... from past experience, I think it would really help to calm me down :) And reading wooter's posts while being high would make for a hell of a trip!

(note to self: plan vacation in Amsterdam - bring laptop)

1319. Fleabytes

Comment #134426 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Oh, and please not how the authors of that site use the term "know" in the last sentence... I just thought: "Reeeeaaallly? Do ya? Well, do ya - punk?"

1320. Fleabytes

Comment #134424 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 7:08 pm

LorienRyan,

no, I hadn't been aware of Atkins' view on that matter. Richard Dawkins would disagree, I'm glad to be able to say. I will have to watch his speech at Beyond Belief... many people just don't realise that a) most sciences originated in philosophy and b) once you move to the meta-level, you're doing philosophy. Some don't think that these important meta-level questions can be studied rigorously, but I have found that the opposite is true.

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just don't want to get into that discussion again :)
__________________________________________

Bonzai (and others):

I have found this interesting site on "What the bible says about hell", complete with unimaginative but hilarious apologetics:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=400

1321. Fleabytes

Comment #134413 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Thanks, Bonzai.

This does look interesting indeed. Kuhn was mentioned - I was hoping they'd at least mention Popper and/or Lakatos/Feyerabend as well, but lets see what the programs will bring. I guess I will have to get a download manager to DL all those files.

Again, thanks.


Back on topic:

Late last year, Dawkins made an appearance on German television in a talkshow together with three theists, one of whom was a catholic priest, the other a lutheran, and the third a politician. The politician was (unsurprisingly, the guy has always made sense) actually the one theist in the room who was rational and remained calm.

The point about hell was raised - and the two priests downplayed the entire matter, stating something akin to "A Christian may be compelled to believe that hell exists, but not that there's anyone in it" - which, given the bible is of course bogus. They also said that hell plays almost no role anymore in the christian education in schools (yes, in Germany religious education is a required subject, although you can chose to take ethics/philosophy instead - but only if you or your parents if you're under 14 formally declare that you don't want to participate in religious education... practically a social impossibility in some highly small, extremely christian).

Dawkins said he was delighted to hear that. I would have added that this doesn't detract from the inhumanity of the dogma of hell at all, it simply shows how an ethical person cannot actually believe all the dogmas without compartmentalisation, marginalisation or severly selective interpretation.

1322. A Pragmatist and a Lobbyist on Atheism

Comment #134399 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Gag me with a spoon!

(sorry, had to be done :)

1323. Fleabytes

Comment #134398 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Deepthought,

yes, I've heard that too - especially in context with "God doesn't want you to end up in hell, he wants you to be saved! But some people don't want that. For some people, the gates of hell are locked from the inside" (paraphrasing Dinesh D'Souza).

Of course the problems with this view are numerous:
-If good is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, couldn't he save me nevertheless, couldn't he establish that connection between me and him in the afterlife, when I've come to know god?
-The bible is very specific on what hell is, and there's much more to it than seperation from god. Real torture and pain, not just metaphorically via the absence of god, is mentioned.
-"for some people, the gates of hell are locked from the inside" (aka, "they have seperated themselves from god"), now that's just like having someone point a gun to your head and a bystanding friend of the person with the gun saying "It's your choice, you're free to acknowledge his greatness and follow his commands. You decide and you are entirely responsible for what will happen to you.

I actually screamed when D'Souza made the "locked from the inside" comment during the debate with Dennett...

1324. Fleabytes

Comment #134383 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Peacebeuponme,

don't get me wrong, I do fulfill the cliché - I love classical music as well :) But I do have long hair, play electric guitar (okay, classical and spanish guitar as well, and piano) and listen to (progressive) metal, (prog)rock, and electronic prog (and a whole lot of other stuff, but metal is where I come from)... and I've been known to headbang a lot.

And thanks for the compliment - right back at you.

G'night then.

1325. Fleabytes

Comment #134380 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Peacebeuponme, Brian English

I do like thrash as well, and I love all kinds of music in "boring old 4/4 time", it's just that as a rule of thumb, the more complex, the more interesting it sounds to me - odd meters, polymeter, strange scales and harmonies and instrumentalists that can play all this and still have amazing control over phrasing, voicing etc (Fripp, Vai, Holdsworth, Satriani, Petrucci - Myung, Levin, Gunn - Rudess, McAlpine - Donati, Bozzio, Portnoy, Minnemann, Colaiuta, Wackerman)... that's what I like best, but not exclusively.

And I've listened to the tunes - I think they're good, but would benefit from proper production in a studio.

1326. Fleabytes

Comment #134369 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm

You can always rely on the Swede's for that kind of action. I'm afraid there is only a certain amount of death grunt I can handle. I did like Misery Loves Co.' though.

At first, I couldn't tolerate grunting/grinding/screaming at all... then I learned to tolerate it (because the music was so great), finally I was able to see it as a form of art perfectly befitting the music - and believe it or not, it can be done melodically, just listen to Devin Townsend's "Deadhead" or "Deep down into the pain" with Steve Vai.

Now this might sound weird, but Meshuggah by now isn't complex enough for my taste. I love to listen to it now and then, and it's definitely energetic and original - but it's mostly predictible: a 4/4 on the cymbals layerd over some odd-numbered meter on the rhythm guitars and bass drum, like 23/32. Sounds nice, but it's not the pinnacle of sophistication in rock/metal. For that, listen to King Crimson, Hacride, Dream Theater, Planet X et al.
____________

I apologize for the sidetracking.

1327. Fleabytes

Comment #134362 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Or if you're into polymetric subdivisions, I suggest Meshuggah:

New Millenium Cyanide Christ

(P.S.: Has a really great, jazzy guitar solo)

1328. Fleabytes

Comment #134360 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Hell, I'm headbanging to that one like a metal tune

Given the nature of the issue, I'd suggest death metal... but make it progressive death metal (sophisticated, interesting, fucking awesome), like this:

HACRIDE: Perturbed

And don't forget to turn it up really loud, preferably with a huge subwoofer :)

1329. Fleabytes

Comment #134357 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Next time any Christian mentions hell, just say:

"So, hell is like a celestial Auschwitz, only infinitely worse... That means God is infinitely worse than Hitler. Wow, and you actually worship someone like that? Scary!"

1330. Fleabytes

Comment #134353 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

When theists talk about these things they very much have a materialist worldview in mind and human response to certain stimuli (hence all the fire, boiling water etc).

Very true... credo quia absurdum indeed.

1331. Fleabytes

Comment #134344 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Brian English,

Not necessarily their loved one's - they will mostly only love their family and close friends, which are probably christians as well. That is, unless they take "love thy enemy" seriously.

And it's not only Aquinas who said that... it's in the Bible, Matthew 13, 42-43. Hell truly is the most disgusting invention of fiction ever - and I simply cannot understand how anyone could worship a 'loving' god who created such an celestial Auschwitz - only that the terrors of Auschwitz ended with death, whereas in hell they last forever.

There is no way around this for Christians (except for Anglicans, but they would have to justify why they ignore the pertaining sections in the bible).

Of course, this shows beyond all doubt that Richard Dawkins was right in calling David Robertson a walking oxymoron, given his statement that "I accept that Dachau was wrong" while loving a God who provides something even worse, far worse, infinitely worse to be exact than Dachau or Auschwitz for the people that don't meet his standards of worshipping the celestial Fuehrer.

1332. Fleabytes

Comment #134329 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Peacebeuponme,

And I give them some credit for having a go at helping since they really believe we are going to burn in everlasting fire.

Agreed. I must say I'm glad that noone tried to save my soul via the "or else..." approach yet (moderate central-European Christianity - glad the fundies are still a fringe-phenomenon)... it's always the "But god loves you, and don't you want to see your family again when you die..." approach - emotional bribery rather than blackmail, not much better.

I usually don't even go into the issue of "save me from what" to point out the most disgusting side of their creed, I'm mostly too busy pointing out that the whole idea of an interventionist deity is nonsense.

Just while we are on the hell topic, do you ever wonder if the fire and brimstone people ever sit back and consider the absurdity of the proposition? Its just not even logically sound. Just in terms of feeling constant extreme pain forever: most people black out when something really bad occurs.

But losing consciousness from too much pain is a neurochemical process... only our ghostly-spirity-eternal souls are going to be punished... the idea of which is even more ridiculous.

1333. Fleabytes

Comment #134320 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm

However, for a theist to act in such a way, they are not only trying to wind the atheist up but (in their mind) actually saying "Fuck you, go to hell" and truly beliving that to be the consequence.

I must say, sometimes I'd prefer that approach to endless attempts to "save my soul" which are boring at best, obtrusive and insulting at worst.

1334. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134318 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:21 pm

My hope is that someone who hasn't yet heard of, for example, the "snowball earth" idea will look it up on wikipedia and get that "wow!" feeling.

And I thank you for yet another wonderful piece of information I wasn't previously aware of!
And I have to return the compliment you made somewhere else - your posts are a major reason why I love RD.net. Truly inspiring.

______________________________

Sorry, can't help it...
"Snowball Earth" sounds like an interracial porn film.
EDIT: Did I really just write that. Wow, I must be really bored. I apologize.

1335. Fleabytes

Comment #134312 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Comment #134292 by Fedler

I asked him where are church scientists seeking to verify their claims or where are the reports investigating alleged miracles.

On a side note, it is actually true that the Vatican investigates (don't ask me how though) claimed miracles, and only a very small number are actually found to meet the criteria (don't ask me what these are either, though I suspect something akin to 'witnessed by a sufficient number of people' and 'showing god's greatness').
So it seems that the roman catholic church does have certain standards - altough I doubt they would meet scientific criteria for being (even currently) inexplicable from within methodological naturalism.

1336. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #134024 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 6:35 am

Nah, that's not what I meant - I was thinking of something akin to a program. An 'Explaining the World' software where the mere acquisition and integration of information is enough to keep it going and looking for more, without a need for emotional gratification.

The question I was asking myself was if emotional gratification is always necessary. In us, it is most probably always present, but I don't know if that's all there is to motivation. I was wondering if intellectual achievement couldn't have some motivational power on its own.

1337. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133949 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #133934 by Richard Morgan:

Exactly!
At the end of the day, that's what it's all about, I supppose.
Feelings.

Interesting. I think such feelings play a huge part in motivation for educating oneself, as well as in valuing these achievements - self-conditioning if you will. But I also think that the knowledge of having gained a certain intellectual understanding can have a certain motivational power as well.
This seems to be a difficult subject however, since generally it is thought that only beliefs desires constitute motivation, and desires are usually conceived as purely emotional.

I wonder if it would be possible to conceive of an intellectual 'state' that can fulfill a functionally equivalent rôle in the motivation-equasion. Knowledge of intellectual acheivement with the specific, nonemotional goal to acquire more for the sole purpose of increasing one's understanding, without further need for justification.
Of course, in the 'real world' emotions will always be involved, and even play a major part - but still, I wonder if an emotional gratification is always absolutely required?

1338. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #133744 by MPhil on February 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm

MeIM,

Is this work documented in such a way that researchers could check his data? "Meticulous, irrefutable" is just what we need.

His work is extremely well documented. He is a serious historian, not a conspiracy theorist. His facts are all checked - and many, if not most of the historical facts are even documented by church scholars- they just aren't keen on promoting these facts. His sources include books by old and new testament scholars, other historians, the UN archive etc..
The bibliography of each of his "Christianity's criminal history" is very extensive. It's all there.

Church officials in Germany have (of course) decried him as biased (he's passionate, but he's factually completely correct as far as anyone knows)... he has been accused of selecitvely 'picking out' the bad things in Christianity's History and ignoring the good things. Well, what do you know - he's writing "Christianity's Criminal History", duh!
Christian hisorians have read his works - if he hadn't gotten the facts right - they would have made that public for everyone to hear and see. Yet, some minor details aside, noone has ever been able to produce evidence that his sources are unreliable (since many of them are Christian, that wouldn't be a good thing for the church either) or that he hasn't gotten the facts straight.
Of course there's no shortage on accusations of being rude, or being hateful etc... the usual blather, since they have nothing substantial to say.

Wikipedia states that none of Deschner's books have been translated into English; do you have any idea why not?

I really don't know - but I would hazard a guess that it's because his magnum opus is really a collection of rather 'dry' (by comparison) historiographical books (although IMO he does write vividly and with great style) - mountains of facts upon mountains of facts - with dozens of pages of bibliography. I doubt there's much of a market for that in English-speaking countries (nor for that matter in Germany - his works are hard to get). Just imagine having to proof read the translation of about 8-10,000 pages, not to mention to translate this in the first place.

And since he has set out to document and raise awareness of the Crimes of Christianity, 'serious' academic historians may think that he has too much of an interst in the matter to be objective - which isn't true, but I understand the reservations. As I said, his facts are all checked, but his 'interpretation' is found wanting by many - of course mostly by Christians (who would have thought).

However, my statement still stands - his books on the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches' affiliation with Nazi-Germany as well as his magnum opus (lets hope he'll manage to write the last two books, though I seriously doubt it, given his age) are a real treasure when it comes to debunking Christians' claims to the 'good Christianity has done throughout history'... as well as simply raising awareness.
(And German is a beautiful language anyway, and has some of the most wonderful poetry, dramaturgy and narrative literature I have ever known - so there are incentives to learning it ;-)

P.S.: Did you have a look at the "press resonance" section on his page? It includes statements by scholars, including even professor doctor of theology.

best,
-Mike

1339. Fleabytes

Comment #133530 by MPhil on February 26, 2008 at 9:54 am

You think that sketch was the best of Not the 9 O'Clock News concerning reilion? How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN-00i7VVs&feature=related

1340. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #133515 by MPhil on February 26, 2008 at 9:25 am

I feel Karlheinz Deschner deserves to be mentioned among the great people who fought and fight the good fight for enlightenment, atheism and anti-clericalism.

His 8,000 page magnum opus "Christianity's criminal history" is something every historically interested atheist ought to have (ok, so you'd have to read German - but at least there's a digital edition). The late great Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Stegmüller was definitely right when he called Deschner "the most significant church critic of the century". His works have really opened my eyes for the historical crimes of Christianity.

1341. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132955 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Thought so... I only have the boring, regular edition, the one that comes without the package of dope. Knew I ordered the wrong version...

1342. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132945 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:35 pm

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual uses the term 'smurf'?... now which edition would that be?

1343. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132928 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm

...or a burning, talking Bush. Although, with the popularity ratings that low - who knows what might happen? Let's hope for the best (*giggle*)

1344. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132923 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm

44kg? Unless you're no taller than 1,4 metres - that's a bit worrying.... You really need to start eating if you want to be taken seriously as a threat to life, the universe and everything... or was that something different? Oh well - sorry if that was inconsiderate, but since you mentioned it.

1345. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #132830 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 8:55 am

Yeah, I don't know what they were thinking, voting in a former Hitler Youth.

Now that's a bit of a low blow. Pretty much everyone was in the HJ back then, including many that grew up to be good and decent people. Some of them were deluded, some just didn't care and thought it a nice activity. Generally, criticising someone for that is like criticising someone who was baptized as a baby and brought up in the church community but then saw the error of that for once having belonged to that organisation.
As much as I dislike Ratzinger, he definitely isn't a Nazi. In fact he was partly responsible for some of the liberalisation of the catholic church in Vatican II. He only became a hardened conservative when the '68-youth revolt got to the universities and disrupted seminars, even using physical force - and later supported extreme left 'revolutionary forces', some of which were genuine terrorists.
To be sure, the 68-university revolution had a lot of good effects, but I have no problem seeing how it could have driven Ratzinger to be a conservative. The RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion, German extreme-left terrorist organisation from the 70s to the early 90s) proved that the movement was to some extent dangerous. Of course I don't support Ratzinger's decision.

As recently as last week, a German Catholic archbishop criticized celibacy as outdated and scripturally unnecessary. So far, I haven't read of any call from Rome to retract this statement.

Another catholic archbishop made a public statement that celibacy isn't open for debate at this time. I think that was the Vatican's answer.

1346. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132696 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 6:14 am

On a not entirely unrelated note, I think the postmodernist challange is a real one - one we have to face, as it questions our (by 'our' I mean the rationalists') most basic assumptions. We might conclude that such universal skepticism is pragmatically unfeasible, and that rationalism is pragmatically the best option. And for all I know this would be true, but that is not an answer to the postmodernist challange.

Of course there is just the self-refuting postmodernism which in virtue of its being self-defeating we needn't address - but the real challange comes from someone like Paul Feyerabend. His "Against Method" is something that should be taken seriously - in my opinion something we should find a satisfactory answer to.

1347. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132683 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 6:01 am

Herman Hesse - The Glass Bead Game

Guess I could or should have included that, too...or for that matter all of Hermann Hesse's books. 5 books are just by far too few.

1348. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132608 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 3:25 am

Well, in that case - I think I can't help it. I couldn't possibly chose between the 7 parts, since I see them as one unified (if quite long) story - as it was set out by Mrs. Rowling. Much like Babylon 5.

1349. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132596 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 2:54 am

Man, there are really far too many to chose from, but five of them surely would be

-J.K. Rowling: The Harry Potter Series
-J.W.v.Goethe: Faust
-D. Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Series)
-P. Auster: City of Glass
-S. Lem: Solaris

...I've excluded nonfiction, poetry and dramaturgy for reasons of simplicity... and am still left with far more than 5. These are just off the top of my head.

1350. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132070 by MPhil on February 24, 2008 at 4:53 am

Richard Morgan,

very nice stuff. What software do you use to compose? Sibelius, Cakewalk or something else?
I always end up composing something that nobody could actually play - too many threads, too complex, polymetric, atonal... technically interesting but not very aesthetically pleasing. I have always wondered how people like Zappa, King Crimson or even Karlheinz Stockhausen managed to be aesthetically pleasing (in some way).