Monday, May 7, 2012

Peter Atkins vs William Lane Craig: Atkins should press charges for assault





Perhaps the most the most brilliant and devastating reduction of an argument that I have seen in a debate. Atkins says something really stupid-- that there is nothing that science can't explain-- and Craig rhetorically mutilates him. It was like a crime scene. I almost felt bad for Atkins. Watch his face as Craig replies.

You can see why atheists rely so heavily on censorship. Ignorance and arrogance are unattractive and remarkably ineffective-- and vulnerable-- when unscripted in public in real time in a fair forum.

New Atheists do poorly in debates. New Atheists do really poorly in debates with Bill Craig.

39 comments:

  1. Golly! The video is gone...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pepe:

    Fixed! Thanks, and enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know when this was filmed. It seems to be an edited extract from a longer discussion.

    The most recent debate I'm aware of between Atkins and Craig was in Manchester last November.

    In it Craig spends his initial 20 minutes arguing that God did something sometime somewhere for unknown reasons using unknown mechanisms, that he'd be running around raping as many women as he could if God hadn't implanted the idea in his brain that rape is wrong and that accounts of Jesus' life written by unknown Greek speakers outside of Palestine 30 to 70 years after Jesus had been executed by the Romans are reliable historical accounts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The video is at least four years old, since it contains William F. Buckley, Jr. as the moderator, and he's been dead since 2008.

      I don't think I've ever seen someone embarrass themselves in public quite as much as Craig embarrasses himself in this video. He's a buffoon, and not just a buffoon, but a buffoon who is also an apologist for mass murder.

      Delete
    2. "a buffoon who is also an apologist for mass murder"

      So you're still pissed off about the Canaanites. You sure hold a grudge.

      Are you still pissed off about the 100 million people you atheists murdered in the 20th century?

      Delete
    3. So you're still pissed off about the Canaanites. You sure hold a grudge.

      Craig is the one who is asserting that killing them off was a good an holy act and we should feel sorry for the traumatized soldiers holding the bloody swords.

      Are you still pissed off about the 100 million people you atheists murdered in the 20th century?

      Do you see me making apologetics trying to excuse them? I'm not sure why you are upset by them, since mass killings of people in the name of a cause is apparently a good thing according to your hero Craig.

      Delete
    4. Spare me your faux-outrage.

      You guys get your ass kicked whenever you debate Craig, so you feign outrage- OUTRAGE-- at his opinions on the Canaanites, and that conveniently gets you out of the debate.

      You guys are such cowards.

      Delete
    5. "spare me your faux-outrage"

      Just out of curiosity, Dr Egnor, I was wondering what the statute of limitations is on finding genocide deplorable? By your rationale, 3,500 years is enough time to stop blaming God for ordering Joshua's to use his army to destroy the Canaanites. So in the year 5500 C.E. any claims that atheists were responsible for the Holocaust or that such a mindset is a gateway to legitimizing such actions will be as equally trite?

      Alternatively, if people such as that anonymous poster should not be holding a grudge, losing any sleep or racking their brain daily over how the murder of six million Jews less than a century ago could have happened because it was not a personal experience or preventable by this person, then the same should apply to all of us and any reference to it by outspoken religious apologists as ammunition should be ignored.

      If this response seems puerile, childish, passive aggressive or wildly inappropriate, it's only because I'm following the communicative style of most every contributor (on both sides) as a means of fitting in on my first post.

      - First time caller.

      Delete
    6. "You guys get your ass kicked whenever you debate Craig"

      No one has ever gotten their "ass kicked" when they debate Craig. The video you liked to in this post shows Craig repeatedly embarrassing himself by making vacuous claims. The look on Atkins' face is the shock and disbelief that a grown man would make statements as puerile as Craig's with a straight face.

      Delete
    7. Is there anything that science can't explain?

      Delete
    8. @first time caller:

      Welcome!

      "spare me your faux-outrage"

      [Just out of curiosity, Dr Egnor, I was wondering what the statute of limitations is on finding genocide deplorable? By your rationale, 3,500 years is enough time to stop blaming God for ordering Joshua's to use his army to destroy the Canaanites.]

      Atrocities don't depreciate, so it's a good question about the Israelites and the Canaanites, just as it's a good question about each of mankind's atrocities. The problem confronted by theodicy is very real. The traditional Christian answer would be that God is sovereign and he is not answerable to us. Atheists of course have nothing to say about the problem of evil. The problem of evil presupposes standards of good that transcend Darwinian utility, and atheists have no such standards, by logic. So we theists will keep trying to understand the problem of evil, and we'll keep laughing at atheists who misunderstand the implications of their ideology so profoundly that they think there is a problem.

      But of course all of the Canaanite/WL Craig stuff is b.s. anyway. It is merely a ruse used by Dawkins to avoid debating Craig, who would have kicked his ass.

      [Alternatively, if people such as that anonymous poster should not be holding a grudge, losing any sleep or racking their brain daily over how the murder of six million Jews less than a century ago could have happened because it was not a personal experience or preventable by this person, then the same should apply to all of us and any reference to it by outspoken religious apologists as ammunition should be ignored.]

      Evil is very much in need of explanation, and adherents of ideologies prone to evil ought to think a lot about it. The problem is that atheists deny transcendent standards of good and evil-- if there is no God, there is no Law-Giver, no "ought", only "is". We each may have our own notions of right or wrong, but there is no "evil" or "good" that applies to all. Atheists are stuck with that absurdity, which is one reason why they are so funny.

      [If this response seems puerile, childish, passive aggressive or wildly inappropriate, it's only because I'm following the communicative style of most every contributor (on both sides) as a means of fitting in on my first post.


      Your points are well taken, and all sorts of styles are welcome here. Please comment more!

      Delete
    9. "Is there anything that science can't explain?"

      None of the things that Craig brought up are unexplainable. Although that's not the claim Atkins made - Atkins asserted that science can account for everything. Craig does his sleazy dishonest routine where he mutates that to "science can't prove everything", and you followed along with him, demonstrating that you either weren't paying attention when he engaged in his sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand, or that you decided to join his sleaziness.

      Craig then throws out a pile of empty assertions while doing a Gish gallop and Atkins stands by with a look of disbelief that the "best" advocate that could be brought to debate him would say things as stupid as those that come out of Craig's mouth.

      Delete
  4. I finally have a few days to myself, to relax.
    So...
    Reading this post, earlier this morning, I found the video link dead and so a few minutes later searched for the debate on youtube. I found a 2011 upload of a debate at Manchester University.
    My take on that debate was as follows:
    Dr. Craig's case was very concise and presented in a fairly accessible language and style. His argument was a three tier one: Scientific, philosophical, and theological. Cosmology, a first cause, and miracles. He made a lot of common sense and logical connections, had the audience laughing and was quite charismatic in general.
    My biggest criticism of Dr Craig's argument would probably that he seemed tired (jet lag?), and was at time perhaps TOO polite in the face of insults for my taste.The worst thing he called Prof Atkins position was 'naive'.But he is Christian as am I.Perhaps the fault is in my tastes rather than his style.

    Prof. Atkin' argument s was a grape shot of philosophical and metaphysical positions that he seemed to believe were scientific facts. He also displayed a naked ignorance of matters historical, crediting Galileo with the modern scientific movement(?).
    He presented a kind of apologia for Scientism that all began with the concession 'I cannot disprove God.'. This was not a promising beginning to an argument at a debate entitled 'Does God Exist'. Worse than that he seemed to have been operating on a 'plan B'. He seemed to be REACTING to Dr Craig's intro from the start (even denying this in his intro!)
    Atkin's main argument hinged on the fact that there does not have to be a be and explanation of everything arising from nothing (ex nihilo), as nothing really exists. Nihilism squared, or perhaps cubed.
    Atkins claims that all energies (positive and negative) cancel each other out because of gravity, thus creating nothing out of nothing. But, Atkins says, this is an "interesting form of nothing" we call everything. [Note the use of the term 'form']
    To make matters worse for the Professor from Lincoln he was not in any way, shape, or 'form' lovable in some fashion; like, say a Magnus Pike type.
    Atkins came off as arrogant, insulting, and dismissive in sharp contrast to Craig's manners and wit. He complained he was offended by the argument that Atheism is some how contrary to objective morality, added the straw man that some people say Atheists may be not moral people - and then went on to describe theists and deists and ALL philosophy in general as 'lazy' and 'simple', 'simplistic', and 'anchors' to progress in understanding.
    In more than one instance Atkins shocked the audience with that arrogant manner, outrageous statements, and obvious contradictions.
    All in all, I would think that any reasonable observer would say that Craig thumped Atkins in this debate.
    It was a poor showing for Atkins who even at the very end of (a VERY limited) question period came off as a fanatic and a nut.
    For Dr Craig, it was a good presentation. Concise and to purpose.
    In all enjoyable and guaranteed to get the juices flowing.
    Anyway... here is the link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssq-S5M8wsY

    ReplyDelete
  5. Poor Craig, the champion of metaphysical Christian apologetics, reduced to fighting for a “little g” god hiding away in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and in our lack of understanding where beauty comes from. Sad really.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...our lack of understanding where beauty comes from...
      You should read the first two sidebars, the answer is there!

      Delete
    2. You should really watch the whole debate, KW.
      That is not Craig's stance at all.
      His argument works on the premise of causation. The universe has a beginning, things that exist have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause.
      The God of the gaps stuff is a straw man introduced by Atkins to no effect.
      Ditto goes for all the little boxes and new-speak names you folks attempt to give these OLD arguments.
      HINT: The reason you cannot refute the argument is you DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

      But you make a point by way of your own comment, KW. One that had been eluding me.
      It seems that one thing that can be made clear by watching a few of these debates: The Atheists have NO argument against God or creation. Rather they seek to shift the Onus of proof onto the believer. That is absurd for many reasons. Those who see do not have to prove colours exist to the blind. They may try... but the blind cannot see them, and some will refuse to even imagine them.
      But these poor Atheists - philosophically disabled souls - still think they have won, even when they have been trounced.
      They have arguments against carefully constructed straw men, but none against the real opposition. Further each one of them seems to base their entire premise on three principles that are self refuting: Evidentialism (some times incorrectly called Empiricism), hard eliminative materialism, and their personal religious devotion to Scientism.
      Evidentialism is obviously self refuting. Even the statement 'Nothing is worth believing without evidence' is an assertion (without proof/evidence), and there for refuted.
      Eliminative materialism is a little more complex to reduce and refute, but it is still rather easily done. The argument for this form of materialism relies on immaterial abstractions for expression, for example. And finally Scientism which is again reliant on philosophical and metaphysical assertions and assumptions - thereby reducing science to a SECONDARY role in truth finding, when it claims to hold the prime position in that faith.
      So what are we left with as opposition to Theism? A 'nothing' argument for nothing (no purpose) by people who understand nothing about nothing.
      The best one I have seen so far was when some Ecologist ('population ecologist') at the University of Liverpool who suggested that people who believe in assertions may be dangerous...then showed pictures of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc.
      I don't think he understood the irony of his choices.
      Further, I would note that twice while watching these videos I had observers comment (as they passed) 'whose the crazy guy' when referring to Atkins.

      Delete
    3. crus: The Atheists have NO argument against God or creation. Rather they seek to shift the Onus of proof onto the believer. That is absurd for many reasons. Those who see do not have to prove colours exist to the blind. They may try... but the blind cannot see them, and some will refuse to even imagine them.

      That's pretty weak tea, crus. Both you and I are blind to ultraviolet light. It is not absurd, however, to ask for evidence of its existence. And such evidence exists, of course. So indeed, the burden of proof is on the believer. As an unbeliever, I do not need to prove that God does not exist. In fact, I think it is impossible to do so because the concept is too vague. And of course one can imagine God who makes himself invisible and undetectable.

      Delete
    4. Oleg,
      LOL Like the tea ref. Was actually having a cuppa as I write. Strong as HELL, though. Wish it was a bit weaker.
      Funny coincidence is that it is in a 'Moscow' (tourist) coffee mug from our collection here.
      Anyway...

      "Both you and I are blind to ultraviolet light."
      Naturally, yes. But we can both imagine what it 'looks' like, and even simulate that with cameras. We can also measure, and isolate then project it.
      Not an analogue to my example.

      "It is not absurd, however, to ask for evidence of its existence."
      Surely not. More practical, however, would be to use this form of light in technology. The existence of this form of radiation long since determined.

      "And such evidence exists, of course. "
      As it does for all of creation about us.

      "So indeed, the burden of proof is on the believer."
      No. The burden of proof is experiential.
      You CANNOT possibly understand what a colour truly is unless you have experienced sight. You may understand aspects of it, uses for it, even theorize about the nature on the role of colour - but you will never get it until you see it.
      So you become the blind man demanding evidence for the reality of 'orange'. How do we know that Orange does not look different to each other (my blue?), how do we know it does not look different to a dog? What if no one could see that fruit. No eyes to behold it? Does orange exist any longer? Where is the hard EVIDENCE for Orange?
      Yet we all KNOW it is real. Immaterial, but as real as you or I. (and often tasty too!)
      This kind of futile madness is the result of 'evidentialist' thinking.
      Orange is a real colour. I do not have to prove that, and you cannot prove otherwise. Worse still, to paint any such attempts as 'science' would be NUTS! Such attempts would, at best, be self refuting in their very nature. Employing the very logic they seek to undermine.
      But hey, that is the very nature of 'A-Theism', isn't it?
      That shadowy un theology and anti-philosophy philosophy that requires the opposite reality to cast it's pallor.

      "As an unbeliever, I do not need to prove that God does not exist. In fact, I think it is impossible to do so because the concept is too vague."
      But you do, because you have chosen a CERTAINTY of un-belief. If you were agnostic... sure. The answer is 'who knows'? But you say you DO know.
      KNOW, mind you. To person such as yourself that means EVIDENCE.

      "And of course one can imagine God who makes himself invisible and undetectable."
      LMAO!
      You missed my entire point. Talk about not communicating my ideas.
      Was it in an UV font?
      Let me be very frank: God is not JUST reasonable and logical, He is self-evident.
      Just as you believe in your own existence, and are sure of it - you may also find that presence with God.

      Delete
  6. Egnor: The problem confronted by theodicy is very real.

    That depends on your perspective. For those who believe in God, it is a rel problem. For those who don't, it is an imaginary one. :)

    Theodicy is a reflection of an inconsistent nature of the ancient beliefs, which becomes more apparent as time goes on. The more we know about the world and ourselves, the less perfect the "creation" looks.

    A designer who came up with the idea of birth pain was either incompetent or malicious. And while theologians are wrecking their brains trying to come up with a more palatable alternative, the scientific explanation (the designer was blind) is much more elegant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So evil in the world isn't a problem, from your perspective?

      Delete
    2. No more than phlogiston is a real substance. It's a cute idea, but it doesn't work. In the case of evil, all you have is a subjective judgment but no objective ground to call something evil.

      And often it is a wrong question to ask whether something is evil. The plague catastrophe of the 14th century, which took away the lives of tens, if not hundreds of millions, wasn't evil. It was a consequence of poor hygiene.

      Delete
    3. Oleg,
      At least you're honest.
      Here is a question to pose to you.
      If a man comes into your (or anyone's) home and violates your wife and children before horribly killing them, then sets about to make you look like the culprit in order to cover his tracks - is that Evil? Would it be evil even if HE thinks it is not. Even if NOBODY thought it was evil?
      If you answer YES then you believe in objective morality: Good and evil.
      More correctly, you SENSE objective morality (ie sense of decency). People who are healthy and sane SENSE morality. They detect it, as one detects light, sound, the tactile or scents.
      If you answer no, you are denying the existence of the senses of others as illusory. Whether you can sense it or not, only you can answer.
      If you think, as you seem to, that morality is a subjective illusion brought on by biological factors, then why should anyone on my side of the debate believe ANY of your side to be intellectually honest (another illusion) and not simply agenda driven propagandists and tools for ideologues?
      Why should we believe you seek 'truth' and not just the facts that suite your purpose?
      One good reason would suffice.

      Delete
    4. "People who are healthy and sane SENSE morality."
      unless you're a Platonist, that's nonsense. morality is abstract, so it's very different than light or sound; you can't "sense" or "experience"it anymore than you can "sense" the number 7 or an eq. like c^2 = a^2 + b^2. That doesn't mean morality is subjective, though, on the contrary. As for the idea that you need God in order to have objective morality makes just as much sense as the idea that you need God to have the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter- the number pi.

      "If you answer no, you are denying the existence of the senses of others as illusory."
      you don't need to deny the existence of the senses of others as illusory, in order to deny their experience as illusory. see people suffering from schizophrenia. but again, that's irrelevant to the question of morality

      Delete
  7. crus,

    In the example you give I will certainly be hurt and I will say that the man who committed the crime was evil. And pretty much everyone will agree with me on that. We would have a consensus of personal opinions that his actions were evil. No more than that. This looks objective.

    There are other cases when the notion of objective morality gets a bit fuzzy. Is it objectively moral to marry off daughters at the age of 13? It used to be OK in the medieval Europe. It would be considered child abuse today. Did "objective morality" change? Ponder that, crus.

    And as to "intellectual honesty," I say to you this: if you come to the table without assuming that the other side does not argue in good faith, there is no point in talking to me. You already assume that I am wrong, that I know I am wrong but continue to argue just to make up for my wretched nature. Which would mean that you are not arguing in good faith and you are simply looking for an excuse to trip me up. I hope you are not doing that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scratch the word without in the last paragraph.

      Delete
    2. Last things first, then.
      If we are both being honest, we share at least that one hope: Honest dialogue.
      My intention is not merely to trip you up as some form of demonstration. Logically, you're already on the ground. I am offering to help you up. To show you a way out of the maze you're in.
      My intention is to drive a point across to an unwilling recipient.
      Simply put: If your position is that morality is subjective and illusory, thus banishing moral conclusions such as 'truth' to the same rings of unreason. Then, why should we expect you to seek the truth and not some simply convenient facts that, when assembled just so, prove some point that furthers your own goals?
      This question is rhetorical, Oleg.
      I will concede that you must seek the truth to be bothered with engaging (as you have noted above) in this conversation with any more investment than 'tripping me up'. I suggest you DO believe in morality, and most likely sense it too. You have to, in order to stand for a position. ANY position you believe to be 'true' and not merely useful 'fact'.

      The reason this little thought experiment was raised is that I DO believe in moral absolutes and clear moral objectivity. So to me evil AND truth exist independently. So to seek truth would be only natural, if my intentions are good (as opposed to evil).
      You argue that evil is subjective. But to defend evil (and therefore all morality) as a subjective value, is to self refute ANY argument you make - as they all rely on moral premise such as that of TRUTH.
      You can not morally argue that there is no morality. You can only collect facts, but never reach truth. Without morality argument simply becomes conflict, and conflicts prove who are stronger - not necessarily who is right or better.
      Having posited that, I would suggest that morality is further metaphysical evidence for a designed and purposeful existence.

      Delete
    3. Crus, if you're gonna declare victory and leave then I won't be very impressed.

      By saying
      Logically, you're already on the ground. I am offering to help you up. To show you a way out of the maze you're in.
      you are talking down to me. I am an arrogant bastard myself. I can say the same thing to you. But just saying it does not make it so.

      You can wax poetic as long as you like, but you avoid answering my question about the nitty-gritty of "objective morality." That's a copout, crus.

      So, once again, what do you think of marrying off 13-year-old girls? Were the medieval Europeans objectively immoral? Or perhaps did the moral norms change as time went on?

      Delete
    4. CNTD
      (first things last!)

      You note:
      "We would have a consensus of personal opinions that his actions were evil. No more than that. This looks objective. "
      Consensus does not equal objective.
      If all the people who knew the truth were of the of the vile position that 'they deserved it, Russians all do' would that make the killing moral? No. It would still be evil, as would their position be an evil one.
      You SENSE the evil in this hypothetical, as do I. It is like a cold draft in a room. It exists to our senses, but cannot be properly measured by scientific means.

      "Is it objectively moral to marry off daughters at the age of 13?"
      Thirteen isn't even that bad. It is common for girls of 9 to be mutilated, then married off in some parts of the world where I have served. That is TODAY, not thousands of years ago. This is protected behaviour, by religious doctrine.
      But to the point: Morality is amorphous and flexible to a degree. It is also contextual, like all things. You may as well compare the morality of innocent children with that of jaded adults.
      Marrying off children is a savage practice, and belongs to the moral world of the bronze age. It comes from an era when morality was less understood.

      If morality is objective and real, why should it shock us to learn we are slowly discovering it, or perhaps uncovering it - just as we have with the maths, sciences, or arts? We discover more and become focused in our search.
      If, like with all human endeavours, this moral venture is a cyclical or arced/curved discovery - then lapses of morality and reversions to immoral and amoral behaviour are also easily understood; especially during periods of decline.
      Illusory or holographic morality are much harder ideas to swallow than the common experience of discovery of an objectively real morality.

      "It used to be OK in the medieval Europe."
      It used to be the norm. It was sanctioned. It was legal. It was never 'OK'.
      It never will be.

      "It would be considered child abuse today."
      In the nations in which we inhabit, yes, thank God it would be. Children are permitted a long time to grow up in our culture. A luxury I have fought to protect.
      It would, however, be perfectly legal in much of the world to marry off a teenage daughter.
      It would be morally wrong in ANY place or ANY time to marry off a young woman not ready or willing to be wed.

      "Did "objective morality" change? Ponder that, crus."
      No. Absolutely not. Our understanding of objective morality, our ability to interpret it into action changed. Some for the better (as above) some for the far worse....

      Delete
    5. crus: Marrying off children is a savage practice, and belongs to the moral world of the bronze age. It comes from an era when morality was less understood.


      But it was considered moral back then, wasn't it?

      And how can we be sure that your current understanding of "objective morality" is correct? Just like you have declared the ancient practices "savage," perhaps people in the distant future will say the same things about us? Doesn't it undermine your premise of absolute morality? It may exist but we may not ever know what it is. And what you claim to be absolute morals happens to be your subjective model of them. Doesn't that bother you?

      Delete
    6. It's a bit like Newton's notion of absolute space. He built his mechanics using the aether as an absolute reference frame. But Galileo's principle of relativity showed (well before Einstein!) that things work out the same in other reference frames that move at a constant velocity relative to the aether. The upshot of that was that it was impossible to determine the reference frame of the aether.

      So an absolute reference frame of the aether may exist but we can never be sure which one it is. So physicists have long abandoned that concept. It's unobservable. And so is your absoute morality.

      Relativity is so evil! :)

      Delete
    7. "But it was considered moral back then, wasn't it? "
      If you mean within certain regions and periods of history, sure. I'll concede that.
      It was considered acceptable, and I supposed it was not considered immoral, even if not the optimal. So we could deduce it was thought of as more or less a moral decision if it served a purpose of sorts; a 'greater good'.

      "And how can we be sure that your current understanding of "objective morality" is correct? "
      We cannot be sure. On the contrary. We should always be attempting to understand our morality better.

      "Just like you have declared the ancient practices "savage," perhaps people in the distant future will say the same things about us? "
      I've very little doubt your wrong there.

      "Doesn't it undermine your premise of absolute morality?"
      No. The absolute stays absolute regardless of the change in the understanding of the observer.

      "It may exist but we may not ever know what it is."
      We sense morality, and it is in our nature to seek and understand it. Traditionally, this is through God, who is the source of that objective guiding principal.

      "And what you claim to be absolute morals happens to be your subjective model of them. Doesn't that bother you?"
      It does to a degree, yes. I am constantly on guard to sift my own personal prejudices, biases, and dislikes from my moral decisions. I realize I am capable of real objective moral sense, but also of judgemental and subjective personal ethics. I try to do my best to follow the moral sense and stem or harness the subjective ethics.

      Delete
    8. **Sorry Typos - check on this microscopic tablet is awful**

      CNTD

      This is why I like chatting with you, Oleg.
      You are a deep river, even if there are a lot of rocks in there :P

      "It's a bit like Newton's notion of absolute space."
      No. Although I can see the analogue you're reaching for.
      [...]
      "So physicists have long abandoned that concept. It's unobservable. And so is your absoute morality."
      EXACTLY. No you're back on track.

      Physics - and ALL the physical sciences - are NOT the tool by which to measure immaterial truths or absolutes such as morality.
      So a different, extra-physical mental tool is required to observe and understand: A Metaphysics.
      Just like science and theology, Metaphysics is a child of philosophy.
      The big brother, actually.

      Delete
    9. "Relativity is so evil"
      Nah! Not evil. Don't be so subjective :P

      It's just useless in it's current form, and when it comes to working with absolutes, the immaterial, and certain types of abstractions. Relativism, as with reductionism or empiricism CAN work well. The problem is when it becomes monistic and all encompassing.
      There are things that lay beyond the realm of physics and science.
      Morality is one of them.

      Delete
    10. "Crus, if you're gonna declare victory and leave then I won't be very impressed.[...]"
      I gather you did not realize there was more coming.
      No cop out. So long as you're honestly discussing this with me, I am with you.
      I may pause here and there - but I am working and making calls in between my quiet spells (it is a SLOW day here).

      Delete
    11. It's just useless in it's current form when it comes to working with absolutes, the immaterial, and certain types of abstractions. ***

      Delete
  8. Crus, it was nice talking to you. We could continue, but I am in a bit of a bind. I am preparing to visit the left coast of your country. Flying out tomorrow. We'll continue later, I am sure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have a safe trip, and a pre-emptive welcome to Canada.
    We shoot the proverbial when you get back Oleg.
    Enjoy that BC springtime :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. In a recent article, William Lane Craig talks about how people can avoid Hell and enter Heaven if they choose to become a Nazi.

    In Craig on Nazis William Lane Craig writes 'Paradoxically, being a Nazi may have been the best thing that happened to Heinrich, since it led to his salvation.'

    Craig continues 'Of course, one may wonder about those poor people who suffered in the death camps because of Heinrich.'

    But I'm sure that Heinrich will take heart from Craig's recommendation that the best thing that could happen to him was to become a Nazi.

    ReplyDelete