1801. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119925 by MPhil on February 1, 2008 at 3:13 am

Artful Dodger, taken a look at the post on the topic ethics and values, metaphysically objective versus grounded in a materialistic worldview yet? The one's I directed you to? (On the "Six reasons to be an atheist"-thread, my contributions starting at page 7, post 304 and continuing over the course of the next pages... again, I advise you read them if you haven't yet) And concerning the Golden Rule. Of course it can be argued from a naturalistic premise. It has been shown that a "tit for tat"-strategy, or even "tit for two tats" is most stable in competitions of certain kinds, modeled after the competitions of agents in the real world. This doesn't mean that such tactics are actually universally applied, but it means that it is a naturally good strategy - and, it is evolutionary stable. No need for metaphysics.

1802. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119915 by MPhil on February 1, 2008 at 2:32 am

LorienRyan, I don't think we really need another term, because atheism (literally: "being without god/s") describes both the natural, default state of being without a theistic conception because one hasn't been told (or earlier, because a tiny baby has no conscious concepts) and the state of having rejected the theistic conception. But if you want a different term, I'd suggest "nontheist"

1803. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119523 by MPhil on January 31, 2008 at 4:40 pm

The mirror neuron thing - my thoughts exactly: Animal "morality" is empathy qua mirror neuron activity and the thereby effected further neuronal activity. Very interesting field of study.

But a "comeback of virtue ethics" in academic philosophy? Well, there was Anscombe in the 50s and since the 80s there's MacIntyre... and maybe Nussbaum. A few people jumped the bandwagon, but I wouldn't call it a "comeback". It's not "the" major movement.

1804. Belief in Belief

Comment #119271 by MPhil on January 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm

walk,

from what science has shown, the traditional meaning of free will really doesn't make sense. Determinism is true - you're actions are completely determined by the state your nervous system is in, the input it receives and the processes this input effects in your nervous system.

But the human nervous system is the most complex thing known to science. It produces consciousness, it can anticipate future inputs, it can abstract and deliberate. All these are determined, but they are no less real therefore.

A compatabilist holds that while determinism is true, there is a notion of "Free Will" that is compatible with it. This notion is very very much unlike the traditional notion of free will as something like "spontaneous, non-causal decision" (which is something I don't think is really imaginable). Basically, it means that what we really want from "free will", namely accountability a sense of being the originator of one's one actions, of having a "self" - can be gotten within a deterministic world.

The traditional view of free will as spontaneous, non-causal decision (uncaused causation) cannot exist in either a deterministic or a non-deterministic world (as I already said). For if determinism is true, the mental causation is not uncaused. If determinism is not true however, it is random, and thus wouldn't allow for responsibility or any sort of what we call "decision".

But if we modify our understanding of free will and what we want from it, this can be achieved in a deterministic world. Our minds are highly complex neurocomputational systems that can compute future inputs and take the necessary steps to e.g. avoid being struck down by a ball thrown at you. Instead - you catch it, or duck to avoid it. Without such intricate nervous systems with their faculties, you couldn't avoid that. So, in a sense, "avoidability" is possible. So is accountability - but that is a slightly more complex matter.

I do suggest you read "Elbow Room" by Daniel Dennett. It's very well written and not too long, though very dense at times.

Cheers!
-Mike

1805. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119245 by MPhil on January 31, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Honestly, I think it's got little to with the belief that one's own mind is the only thing in existence and the entire world is merely a construct of that immaterial mind (solipsism)... I think it's more that naive dualism is actually the starting point for everyone. Some never get over it.

1806. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119225 by MPhil on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 pm

De-he-hefinitely! What was the original? "You can't be a normal, rational person six days of the week, and on Sundays gather to think you're drinking the blood of a 2,000 year old space-god."

1807. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119216 by MPhil on January 31, 2008 at 12:06 pm

al-rawandi,

wait... that phrase is familiar. Bill Maher? "Religulous" isn't out yet.. is it?

1808. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #118789 by MPhil on January 31, 2008 at 1:35 am

What??? You're not being serious... please tell me you're not being serious! "Love of God"??? For the Love of Dog! That's a disgrace.

1809. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #118753 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Roland_F:

Absolut korrekt. Aber nach allem was ich weiß (und woran ich mich erinnern kann) sind die meisten kirchlichen Kindergärten sehr säkular. Als ich mitte 80er im Kindergarten war (katholisch, meine Eltern sind nicht-praktizierend, aber evangelisch auf dem Papier) - musste ich keine Indoktrination über mich ergehen lassen... zumindest nicht soweit ich mich erinnern kann. Heute scheint es kaum anders zu sein.
Zugegeben, das war in Franken, nicht in Niederbayern.

Aber die allgemeine Steuerfinanzierung von kirchlichen Organisationen ist untragbar!
_____________________

For those who care: Kindergartens in Germany afaik don't indoctrinate that much, if at all. I certainly don't remember any indoctrination, and I was sent to a catholic kindergarten, although my parents are protestants.

1810. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118749 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Yes, the Euthyphro Dilemma definitely is a huge problem for the theists. If they chose one side (arbitrarily of course), they are just obeying commands and morality becomes arbitrary, the values are not absolute, but dependent on the will of god, so if there was a god who commands murder and genocide - that would make such actions morally good. Oh, - Old Testament anyone?
If they chose the other side, then god is actually bound by absolute moral values that are therefore of a higher order than his will.

Concerning Nietzsche: Yes, Nietzsche wrote that nihilism has to be overcome - first you have to question the worth of all values, consider them from beyond good and evil - "destroy them" for you... then create new values. (See "Beyond Good and Evil")


And finally.... Artful Dodger,

I don't have time to get into this right now. But I've done this before... let me direct you to the discussion the people Peacebeuponme mentioned had with ADH on the topic of ethics and morality. My contributions (which I urge you to read in their entirety) start here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2108,Six-Reasons-to-be-an-Atheist,The-Little-Book-of-Atheist-Spirituality,page7#110065

1811. A Letter From Hell

Comment #118736 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 10:16 pm

MaxD,

...had the exact same thought when I first saw this video.

:)

1812. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118725 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Diacanu,

ah, good ol' technobabble... love this post!
Reminds me of an episode of ST:TNG

(from memory, something like this)
LaForge:"But how do we stop the asteroid from crashing on the planet, when we cannot produce enough energy?"
Q: "Easy: Change the gravitational constant of the universe."
Laforge:"What?"
Q:"Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby altering the mass of the asteroid."
LaForge:"Redefine gravity. And how the hell am I supposed to do that?"
Q:"You just DO it. GAHH! Where's that doctor, anyway?"
Data:"Geordi is attempting to say that changing the gravitational constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities."
Q:"Well, in that case... never mind."

:)

1813. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118714 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Hmm.... let me think... yes:

Your debate with Tennant will be regarded as the exam, and your future contributions here on this topic (and related ones) will enter into your final grade as well ;)

1814. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118704 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Steve,

the first part of the reading material is uploaded - just check your PM's for details.

1815. Belief in Belief

Comment #118696 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I know that "in any traditional sense", free will does not exist according to Dennett's view... as I said, his compatibilist conception of free will is highly untraditional. If the only way you can conceptualize free will and the self is the traditional one, then yes, these things disappear... but Dennett's conceptualizes them differently - and I agree.

1816. Belief in Belief

Comment #118684 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 8:51 pm

A classical, naive concept of Free Will cannot be realized either in a deterministic or in an indeterministic universe. If it's deterministic, causally closed, then free will cannot be an "uncaused causator" kind of thing. If the universe is not deterministic, then it is random, and the deliberateness of will would be impossible.

I personally am a compatibilist of the Dennettian kind. Everything we really really want from "free will", we can get in a deterministic universe. See Dennett's "Elbow Room" and "Freedom Evolves".

So basically I agree, but not entirely. Don't want to get into this any further now... busy somewhere else, just recommend the books, especially the former.

1817. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118626 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Truth-aptness is the quality of propositions like "My computer screen before me is an LCD display and not a Brownian tube display", "Earth is not further from the sun than Jupiter" that makes it possible to assign a truth-value to them, either 1 (or "true"), or 0 ("false). Sentences that express a proposition which can be either true or false are called "truth-apt". Sentences like "Hello there, how are you?" are not truth apt in that way.

1818. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118609 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Exactly, Steve... but that last part is critical, how can brain-states "be about" anything and have "content"... that's what the Churchlands are all about.

1819. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118592 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 7:23 pm

The old problem with the self-refutation:
Any arguments you forward have to be valid.
Any statements about states-of-affairs you make in order to make that argument have to be true, or else your argument fails.
If you argue for a position that does not allow for thoughts and sentences to be about anything, to be propositions, and generally for statements about states-of-affairs to be true or false - then even if things are as you say, there would be no arguments and no meaningful sentences, therefore you undermine your own position by in fact declaring that there can be no arguments for anything, as meaning does not exist, nor does truth or falsehood.

1820. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118569 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Steve
When I read the following passage in his opening statement, I concluded that you would need to address the problem I was alluding to:

None of this denies that our mental states may correlate to physical states in our brains. But we cannot reduce the mental states to these physical states, because we would then remove truth and intentionality completely, since they are non-physical things. Similarly, we cannot say that the mental states are caused by physical states, because then the only real causation would be physical causation while the mental states are just along for the ride, having no actual influence on what happens.

Although dualism doesn't necessarily imply theism, it opens the door to postulating metaphysical entities, and I'd keep that door shut if possible, so I guess you will have to show how intentionality and truth-aptness do not disappear with materialism.
Of course, what we can get is only something functionally equivalent, because these notions have been conceptualized as properties of mental entities irreducible to physical entities.

I would say take some good arguments from the Churchlands (Paul and Patricia) and Dennett. Of course there are no entirely conclusive arguments either way...(the debate continues), but they do have fairly good ones which I doubt Tennant will be able to take down completely.

BTW, just dropped you a PM.

1821. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118545 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Steve

I just read that you have expressed interest in the formal debate on God being a necessary precondition for reason. I would - if I may - advise you to take a slightly different route on the issue of truth and intentionality. That guy, Dominic Tennant, is essentially right that we need an account for truth-aptness of propositions and for the intentionality of propositions. The best way I know to deal with this from within materialism is neurosemantics (as I've stated somewhere else): Truth being a largely systematic uniformity between the (structure of) neuronal activation patterns and the structure of the state of affairs the corresponding proposition is supposed to described. Where the systematicity and uniformity is given, the neuronal activation pattern "being" the proposition can be said to be true.

This definition of truth (and the analogue for intentionality) is from all I have encountered very alien to people like Dominic Tennant who hold a metaphysical position on propositions from within a dualist view of the body/mind problem. All you need to show however is that you have a definition of truth and intentionality that accounts for the functions these concepts are supposed to fulfill.

I might be able to provide you with the Paul Churchland article on neurosemantics, in which he discusses this quite brilliantly in my opinion. Of course, if you can get access to it at a university library, that would probably be even better.

Anyway, just wanted to offer my assistance, if I can be of any.

Cheers,
-Mike

1822. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118509 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm

O how I wished I had had the time and energy to throw in a few comments in the last several pages. But I really must congratulate you, Cartomancer, brilliant posts! Admirably phrased - very elegant.
And yes, Swinburne is a champion of theists... but his arguments do at times reek of despair. (Not to mention that bit Dawkins took up in TGD)... all in all a good thinker arguing at times brilliantly, at times desperately inane for an indefensible position (full blown Christian religion, not mere theism).
At least van Inwagen has some modesty concerning this.

Say, have you heard any arguments pertaining to the existence of God we don't know already from that Professor you mentioned?

-Mike

1823. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117906 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 12:29 am

Artful Dodger,

studied European History a lot? Instituting human rights and basic liberties as codified law was neither explicitly based on Christian dogma or faith, nor was the church a driving force behind it. Movements to establish these were almost always opposed by the church. Same thing for United States history. Yes, the people had a broadly Christian faith... but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Read up on the history of the enlightenment... honestly. Then read up on the actual events and movements that lead to these rights being made into law... and concerning the ideological history of these liberties and rights - Brush up your history of philosophy - and include Kant.

1824. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117877 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Nah, didn't think you would hold that there couldn't be arguments against positions you yourself hold.... your tract at times just read like it. Not explicitly, but one might get the impression. Just wanted to have that clarified.

No hard feelings I hope.
Cheers!

1825. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117871 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Cartomancer,

I don't suppose you are saying that a priori, there can never be even somewhat considerable arguments against homosexuality or abortion?

Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with either abortion(before there's a developed neuronal system) or homosexuality... nor with atheism... but I don't exclude the possibility that there may be valid arguments against those positions which I myself take.

Still, I have never heard any conclusive arguments against equal rights and treatment of homosexuals or against legal abortion (with the qualification pointed out above)... and I do agree with your other points, especially about the religious pressure exerted on these children.

1826. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117856 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Defimitely, John Cleese, Stephen Fry(who has a wonderful blog) (and JK Rowling) should have done much better!

1827. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117829 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I agree, - quite well moderated. From what I know (I'm quite an anglophile and "americophile", though more out of interest than identification :) I'd say yes, there's little of that in the US, but sadly, there's as far as I know nothing quite like that in Germany. Some formats are quite well, but there's usually not much discipline among the participants of the discussion, even if and when they're politicians, professors, scholars etc... they will interrupt each other, raise their voices etc.... it's sad.

1828. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117824 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 6:25 pm

LorienRyan,

I think what you just wrote is much more true of the other video, "The Big Debate"... this one was shallow and poorly moderated... with largely note very well qualified participants, meaning that they didn't really forward arguments, but positions and stories without forwarding a justification for them.

If your comment just appeared on the wrong thread, I agree... if not, I'd suggest you watch the other vid and compare.

1829. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117809 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

As if "dogmatic and doctrinaire" Marxism and "unscientific" eugenics had nothing to do with atheism! The connection between these two twentieth-century ideologies and the recession of the Christian God in the nineteenth is nearly seamless

That was when the pain became unbearable...

1830. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117803 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm

notsobad,

add to that the enlightenment. I never tire of quoting Kant:

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity." That's when freedom of speech, press and assembly was given a strong political voice.

1831. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117792 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 4:47 pm

My head nearly exploded just from skimming through... so many fallacies. I feel the need to take a shower.

1832. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117790 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Well, the one thing I didn't like was when Prof. Dawkins agreed with Lord Carey that the freedoms and liberties of "western" societies is a basically a product of Christianity... definitely not!

1833. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117450 by MPhil on January 28, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Cartomancer,

Concerning the final sentence of your last post: "as a historian", I bet you are---and I'd say you'd have to be.

But don't conclude from that that there are no objective, or at least principally-universally-intersubjectively accessible standards of thinking.
That would be a non-sequitur (and a debilitating one akin to the postmodern aporia, leading to a position from which no judgements whatsoever can be made, unable to even be justified while accepting its basic premises)

Basically, what I'm saying is - a non-judgemental attitude is essential to historical studies, because you want to approach the ideal of finding out, acknowledging and making public anunbiased account (factual) about times and events past. Still, you need a certain set of axioms which you simply accept to be able to do anything.

An argument can always be judged at least from a point of formal logic, that being the structure of arguments - and ever since Aristotle gave us the precursors of formal logic do we have to tools to do so in a uniform, objective way arriving at incontrovertible conclusions.
("If [A->B] and [A], then [B]" for example)

I also acknowledge that my thoughts are largely the product of the society I find myself in - but still, I do think that there are some very very basic truths we know about humankind and the universe which are not relative to society, as they have been acknowledged either directly or indirectly in every argument, every forwarded position everywhere.... that being principally: logic.
Even the mystics and those denying the importance or universality of logic concerning thought made use of just that by virtue of forwarding arguments. Logic is the principal structure of language ("grammaticity"), even before it was employed consciously.

A complete relativism is just not even pragmatically tenable.

So, to sum it all up: I think we need to discriminate between a position and holding-that-position in judgement, and I think this can be done in an objective way, employing logic for judging the conclusiveness of arguments.

Of course, entire positions and statements about the world are always dependent on more than logic (which is principally methodological)... they also require assumed facts... and these are never objectively, verifiably true. If that was your point, I apologize for the rant :)

1834. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117446 by MPhil on January 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Sent2null,

I'm not sure you are entirely aware of the ontological implications of what you're saying. That is, you just implicitly denied materialism... of course you may be aware of that and actually hold the position that metaphysical universals exist as entities - but as for me, that position seems untenable.

Let me address each point on its own: I think it entirely possible that other civilizations (should there have been such things) have come up with something functionally equivalent to our mathematics. In fact, if those hypothetical civilizations deserve that name, I'd pretty much say they would have had to. But this does not mean that mathematics is not a conceptual construct!

While quantity is a natural category (IMO), numbers (or graphs etc...whatever) themselves are not entities. If they were, they would have to be metaphysical entities of a highly queer nature, as they would have to be linked to natural entities and the relations among them - as is evident when you consider that applicabilty of mathematics. This would be denying materialism, where a materialistic account of mathematics can be given (if at all, the most nonnatural entities you have to assume are sets, as was shown by Quine).

You seem to be making a category mistake. Mathematics is a conceptual construct, the things it is able to model aren't. Think of the axioms...they are unproven, assumed statements in a formal language (that being pretty much the definition of "Axiom").
I will continue on this, but I think this is the time to make another point: Logic is more basic than mathematics. Mathematics is impossible without logic, but logic is possible without mathematics. So when we come to more basic points about reality and its models, I will use "logic" where you used "mathematics"

So, the axioms are formal, unproven statements assumed to be true. If they are not a conceptual construct, what are they? They are not physical objects or relations between objects, so they would have to be metaphysical entities. They describe supposedly (and probably) necessary relations - they are descriptions of the way things are or have to be. BTW, this is another very basic reason why I think you "really" mean "logic". Logical axioms are assumed to be either "the necessary limitations on how we can think" or "the necessary limitations on the way things can be". A final, justified decision between these two is impossible, as the former will be true if the latter is true, but the latter must not be true if the former is. Therefore, accepting that we cannot (analytically true) know (think) something illogical, the decision between these two is impossible. The former is true from all we know, the latter is all we have justification to assume, because we couldn't coherently think otherwise, but that might just be a limitation of our reasoning faculty.

So, since Axioms are propositions, they themselves are conceptual, not physical or a relation between physical entities. With them out of the way, lets turn to theorems. Theorems are arrived at by drawing inferences from a set of axioms. All mathematical sentences (meaning provable propositions) are arrived at by drawing logical inferences from the set of all axioms or a subset thereof. Thus, they - as propositions - are still conceptual.

There is nothing within mathematics that is not conceptual - by virtue of mathematics being a set of propositions (axioms, theorems and simple statements). However, the things mathematics is principally able to model are not. This is not the set of intended or actual applications, but what the construct in it self is able to model of reality, whether or not we ever find out. That is why I said that mathematics (and more so: logic (including set theory), as mathematics is an extension thereof) is such an extremely powerful tool, more powerful probably than we can imagine.

With my position explained that far, I think you might see why in this case "tool" is definitely not derogatory or demeaning in any way. There is simply nothing in the human mind more powerful than logic (I don't mean motivationally, just in case anyone was tempted to mention emotions), and its most powerful expansion, mathematics.


I also think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you might be thinking that without mathematics itself being something "more" than conceptual, we couldn't account for the success we had in applying it. I for one think this is utter rubbish. I think it is pretty much natural that a species evolving in an environment (universe) where the entities behave in a certain way will find a way to model that way things behave conceptually, given enough time. Also, an account of "truth" of a statement can be given within such a naturalistic account (note: what is meant is the truth of a proposition, not 'knowing that a proposition is true'): truth can be described as a systematic and largely uniformity between the structure of the neuronal activation-pattern and the (structure of the) state-of-affairs described by the proposition. It is also natural to assume that a species evolving in a world where things behave according to certain patterns would have a means representation of the structure of these patterns, whether conscious or not.

I really do think you confuse the way things behave and the systematicity of relations among things with our way to model these ways-of-behaving, these relations and their systematicity. Yes, there is such a thing as the systematicity, but it is not an entitiy, nothing which can be properly said to exist alongsinde the entities whose relations it governs... but mathematics is not that, it is the way we model this. Thus, and thus only can we say that

Mathematics is

... and the view I was deconstructing and contradicting here is irreconcilable with materialism, as it requires genuinely metaphysical entities.

If you're interested... read up on the problem of universals and the philosophy of mathematics and logic.

Hope you don't mind this post being so long.
-Mike

1835. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117440 by MPhil on January 28, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Cartomancer,

I agree with pretty much all of what you say. Just some small things bother me:
-The church really did do disgusting things, and oppression is just one of them
-Considering the literacy levels and living conditions, I don't think most people were really concerned with the arguments. The thinkers were, ie the people who had enough economic and social security to have time, energy and liberty to deliberate about those things... guess that makes about point something percent of the population, or maybe even a one digit percentage.
-I definitely do agree, as I already said, about the "product" of the time thing. But that just goes to show... had there been as much liberty of thought and speech etc as there was in Greece of Aristotle's time (add a sufficiently liberal mindset... unlike the one that lead to the death of Socrates) the philosophy would have been a lot more interesting. But that's just idle speculation.

-The reason why I am judging the ideas from the standard of critical thinking rather then as a historical product is because they are forwarded to be "eternally true" and objective, they are meant to be judged that way. It's important to know the historical circumstances in which they arose, but that is not relevant in judging how true or viable they are.

I for one would feel pretty insulted if my philosophical ideas were discussed merely as a product of their time and shown the courtesy of not judging to harshly because I couldn't have known any better.... let me, my actions and my holding those positions be judged that way - but not the positions themselves.

I just hope you don't lump me in with those people who are ignorant of the historical circumstances and judge the people and their holding these opinion without taking these things into account.


Anyway, yes - public understanding of medieval thinking, that would be nice. Of course I'd want to have the same for classical Greece, Rome, Renaissance, Baroque, Pre-classicism, Classicism, Romanticism etc etc... I just happen to think historical knowledge is interesting and important. (Okay, I admit I have yet to find a major field of study that I don't find interesting :)

1836. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117372 by MPhil on January 28, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Cartomancer,

you're principally right. But I don't belittle those thinkers. They were brilliant people attempting to applying rational thinking to irrational doctrine in the hope of getting at some "deep truths". That's what I belittle. Surely there was an "evolution" of thought - and no Ockam/Ockham/Occam's thinking wouldn't exist in that way without Duns Scotus.

And yes, of course a philosophers criticizes abandoned areas of his own discipline.

The point I was trying to make was that in contrast to Plato's and Aristotle's intellectual achievements the one's of scholasticism are quite frankly largely embarrassing - just for that reason that they were applying Aristotle's thinking to irrational dogma. As I said - I am counting Ockam's philosophy as probably the one great intellectual achievement there.

Yes, you are right - from a historical perspective. No question. But I am criticising the ideas, not the genealogy or the thinkers. I am thinking as critically about the ideas Aristotle and Plato as I do about Quine and Mackie... and Duns Scotus, Aquinas, Canterbury and Eckhart (okay, that last one is mysticism)... and I have to say, the latter four's thinking doesn't stand up nearly as well as the others'.

____________________________________
Please excuse the orthographic mistakes - it's late and I'm not entirely sober :)

1837. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117313 by MPhil on January 28, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Cartomancer,

I study philosophy, and I must honestly that from the end of classicism with the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle (and their altogether worthless Roman "refurbishments") until Descartes and Spioza - there have been almost no worthwhile contribution to serious philosophy that I know of (With some exceptions, the most major one being Ockam). Why? Because it's all been "theosophy" basically - exploring the doctrines and attempting to rationalize them. Some nice Ideas were there, as in Ockam... but nothing of the magnitude of the greats of classicism or renaissance (and after).

1838. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117031 by MPhil on January 28, 2008 at 5:57 am

jeepjay,

I strongly disagree here. Mathematics, like logic and set theory are a conceptual construct. We have "found" in logic (which is also the basis of mathematics) an immensely powerful tool. Through the axioms of mathematics, which can be called "structural science", we have constructed a system of which we haven't even discovered some of its consequences. This kind of mathematics is simply "exploring the boundaries of conceptual space".
As with predicate logic - mathematics is an incredibly powerful tool with so many applications that we can never hope to find all of them. It is a tool too powerful for a single mind to understand - but it reflects the fact that humans have the power to conceive of self-contained, highly structured conceptual systems that can be used to model the world around us.

Think of string theory with its hidden dimensions. Geometry and topology within such multi-dimensional curved space was probably also seen as pure mathematical speculation without any application or connection with reality. Don't dismiss logical exploration of concepts simply because there are no applications. Even if there are none to come, this is still information about our conceptual space.

The Banach-Tarski paradox is surely contradicting common sense... but that's why it is so interesting to explore, because it is a logical consequence of the axioms of set theory, topology and general mathematics, all of which we accept.

I agree that there were and are mathematicians who overstep the boundaries and think what they're doing has deep or "mysterious" metaphysical consequences. Well - it does have consequences for our view of the conceptual capabilities of the mind and logical (hence "metaphysical" in a broad sense) possibilities of existence.

1839. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116797 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I think it is only necessary to dismantle a governemnt when a dictatorship is in place, but even then you should work in accordance with the main opposition group(s) within that particular nation so the transition from dictatorship is smooth.

I think that's a slippery slope right there.
This kind of reasoning has been used (especially by the US and the USSR in the Cold War)to overthrow "dictators" (some of which were elected leaders) and help establish their capitalism/communism-friendly regime, thereby sometimes helping a worse dictator take power or even being an accessory to genocide. You'd have to have a singularly precise definition of the required conditions, be sure that your actions actually will help, that you don't destroy the culture and in general have no more averse effects than positive ones - and as I said that is such a huge call to make that I seriously doubt anyone can ever really live up to the responsibility... which is not to say that there are no cases where intervention is a viable option, as long as precise limits to the influence-to-be exerted and force-to-be-used are defined and observed.

Furthermore - what if there are no local oppositional forces strong enough to be representative of a widespread movement, or none that even closely conform to the values one seeks to establish there? ie where intervention would have to amount to "forcing our values down their throats at gunpoint"? But on the other hand - what if the people are kept in a dependent state and are so subjugated that there is a widespread mindset and mentality among them to be liberated, but no movement? The latter would be the case in the warlord-ridden parts of Africa, I guess.

1840. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116773 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 11:18 am

You're right - my original post did seem a little black-and-white. Thanks for calling me on that.

1841. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116762 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Keith,

First, that "no false bravery" was a cheap shot. I'm not simply against the Iraq invasion. I just used it as an example.

Sorry, you're right, I have to rephrase myself. I'm not against having a standing army - but against using it in violation of international treaties. And I've (happily) conceded the genocide case. But as I said, it's much much more complicated where the case is not so clear.
And even with Hitler and the holocaust is wasn't that clear because everybody (in the UK and the US) had known what Hitler said in his speeches, and nearly everyone praised him (see Churchill eg). But it seems they either didn't take it seriously what he said about Jews or didn't care. Add to that of course that they didn't know for a long time exactly what was going on in these concentration camps, or even that there were such institutions for genocide.

1842. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116759 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 10:49 am

I agree that no person is a property.
I agree with permission of intervention in the case of genocide.
And I also agree that people's rights should not depend on accident of birth - but there are still problems.

Who gets to be world police? Where exactly do we draw line? What precise criteria must be met? What is to happen after we went in and got their ruling elite? Will we determine how the country is to be run, will we insert a new ruling elite to our own liking?

I'm not a complete moral relativist, but I'm a moral antirealist (in the sense explained in my discussion with ADH on "Six Reasons to be an atheist"). When you simply want to describe morality, then you have no right to insist on prescriptiveness, and therefore no justification to impose your values on others... when you want prescriptive values, you get all the problems of relativism, in that you would have to justify why you think that your values are better (which of course leads to a regress).

Surely, I wouldn't want a regime abusing its people. But sovereignty is an important thing. Imagine some country or assembly of countries deciding that because of the corruption of American politicans, their acting not in the best interest of the people they are supposed to represent, that this constitutes systematic abuse. Have they a right to invade? Surely not, that's ludicrous.

Also, I think a people has to sort of "grow into" being able to handle the responsibility of being a collection of political agents, the responsibility this entails for everyone. If you just "extract" their leading elite and let them vote for representatives, this will not always lead to better government and a fair distribution of primary rights and goods. If you just impose certain values by instituting a government, you are basically making them your playthings, your property, since you don't give 'em a say.

This is not being condescending - merely acknowledging that with freedom comes responsibility which one cannot just develop overnight. Surely sometimes it might be necessary to intervene (genocide) for example. But should the US have been invaded during the time of segregation but after slavery? Or during the time when they held slaves? Should a hypothetical powerful foreign country which recognizes that slave holding is such systematic abuse have invaded and imposed their values, their culture?

That's another problem: You run the risk of destroying culture, and not only those parts that don't conform to what we think are human rights.

I think it's far more complicated than your post suggests (but I think you are aware of that). And I think it would be such a tremendous responsibility, such a huge call to make that I am not sure anyone can ever have the right to claim to be able to handle it.

1843. 'Telepathic' Genes Recognize Similarities In Each Other

Comment #116738 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 10:05 am

I can already hear the theists trying to squeeze god in that gap. Prepare for it, if this is ever to be widely known.

1844. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116737 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

Okay, I'm probably going to be bashed for this one, but here goes.

I know that there can be have been and sometimes are situations where the country one lives in is being attacked by an enemy army, creating battlefields in one's one country. To defend oneself against that - that's absolutely legit. And whoever does this is to be commended. But enlisting in the armed forces is nothing commendable in an by itself.

Let's face it: Mostly (though as I said, there are exceptions), armies have been and are being used to shove one's way of life down other peoples' throats at gunpoint, to secure economic and political interests that infringe the rights of sovereign nations as laid down by several international conventions.

And enlisting when one knows or should know that this is what one is being used is not a commendable thing and deserves no respect IMO.

Iraq is just one example... but a particularly clear one. It doesn't matter whether you think "we're the good guys, they are ruled by a very bad guy, that has to stop"... as long as that country/state/nation qua political body and military machine doesn't attack you, you are committing the "supreme crime", a "crime against mankind". No matter how bad, they're still a sovereign nation. When they really do attack, defense is mandatory and commendable.

1845. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116394 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 11:47 am

The real problem is that in some countries there is codified law to prohibit offending "religious sentiment"... As for example in Germany, where I live. This law has been used even in very recent history to ban the enactment of critical plays, to legitimize the breaking-up of unauthorized demonstrations or to confiscate critical leaflets and fine those distributing them. It's a sad, sad story... in the Bavarian constitution it even says that the "highest goal" of education is to instill reverence for god. And in Germany, loud music is forbidden to be played (even by bars, discotheques etc) on high Christian holidays.

When I said (while having a drink with some largely non-religious friends) that this is in principle the Christian equivalent of sharia, they were outraged. - As I said, what a sad, sad story.

1846. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116389 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

I just recently found out that a cousin of one of my fellow students with whom I am rather friendly is responsible for antimatter-creation at CERN. I immediately asked if he would take me to visit his cousin at work :)

1847. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116380 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 11:06 am

Steve Zara
The problem is - everyone can find himself in the position of having accepted a false statement. The only way to minimize the possibility is to accept a standard of reasoning and evidence before one accepts a proposition. But if the believer has been indoctrinated and then later on seeks to rationalize his belief by defending the totally insufficient conditions for believing in a proposition (which he has to do, because short of abandoning his belief, he has no other choice), the identification with that is being made explicitly when confronted with reason and logic.
I would even venture a guess that a theist who is capable of reason and finds himself in this position knows that he's standing on extremely thin ice... but he makes the choice to defend his position and identifies his whole "spiritual" life with this defense. So when it gets attacked, he will feel attacked personally.
Thankfully, in my conversations with believers I have found that there are a lot of people whose belief is not that essential to their lives - and the reasoning gets a little easier. But there's still the conditioning.

Still, this doesn't stop me from agreeing with you that identifying oneself with irrational positions one holds which leads one to be personally offended when these are criticized makes it very much the believer's own responsibility.

1848. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116378 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 10:57 am

Of course if no one tells you about Jesus you're going to hell.

This is a good tactic for the religious meme.
When passed on to principally kind-hearted people, they will not want anyone to go to hell, much less people they care about even somewhat. So in such a case, the meme gets the carrier to try to convert them for their own sake, so they will not suffer, because surely that would be undue. Sadly, the meme also prevents them from realizing that this suffering is mandated by the same god they hold as most just, most honorable, most holy.

1849. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #116366 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 10:16 am

Oops... did I write "Is there a bright side to religious weapons"? In the original it says, of course "religious madness". Freudian slip of the keyboard?

1850. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #116353 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 9:53 am

So, I sent this letter (or rather, the German original) to the editor of my local newspapaper... let's see if they will publish it, or at least contact me about it.
If it gets published, I'm sure some unfriendly replies will be printed as well. Probably, either from a local follower of the churches, the local superintendent of the protestant church (and father of an atheist with whom I went to school) or dean of the local catholic church.

This is the letter I sent:

"In the issue of January the 25th, there was an article concerning a showing with subsequent discussion of the documentary "Jesus Camp" at the local cinema. Was the title of that article a faux-pas of the person responsible? I certainly hope so: "The dark side of religious madness" - is there a bright side to religious weapons?

Luckily, the mindset depicted in this rightly alarming movie is still a fringe-phenomenon here in Germany, and coming out against such madness, as some German ecclesiastics do, is definitely a good thing.
How sad that, as far as I one can tell from the article, the real problem was not addressed in the discussion:

To accept as true a bronze-age myth which explains nothing and for the truth of which there is no more evidence than for the truth of any other myth; orienting one's life and morality after a book whose protagonists, as becomes evident when reading without bias, also (and largely) demonstrated and preached more cruelty and contempt for mankind than altruism and kindheartedness. And not only in the still valid OT. Even Jesus is not exempt (vid. e.g. Lk 11, 23; 10, 11; Mt 25, 41; 18, 6; 13, 41-42; 11, 22-24). Add to this the unspeakable cruelties of the OT and the misogyny of the entire bible, the effects of which can still be felt today. The pleasant fact that European Christianity today largely adapted to the moral zeitgeist and barely takes these terrible things in the bible seriously anymore does however not mean that one has gotten closer to a "true" interpretation of the scriptures. On the contrary, interpreting-away or marginalizing all these atrocities is a magnificent feat of repression and selective interpretation - although in all likelihood I will be accused of just this in return. The missionary fundamentalism, as displayed in "Jesus Camp" and as was rampant even worse in the history of Europe is more legitimized by the bible than the philanthropic and watered-down version of nowadays Christianity in Europe.

Without question, the absolute majority of Christians living in this country today are good and decent people. But let's be honest - one does not gain morality from ficticious figures in a book, especially a book that provides justification for unspeakable atrocities. One gains morality through emotional and intellectual understanding of the needs of one's fellow human beings and living creatures. One thing is required above all for this - enlightenment, "man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity"(Kant).

Clinging to an antiquated myth is certainly neither necessary nor particularly helpful - and this is a point that should have been addressed in the discussion. The underlying problem is not the "how", but the "that" of belief without sufficient evidence. For where this is the case, anything becomes justifiable."


Thanks for the help guys. Let's see what the reaction will be.

Wish me "godspeed"!

-Mike