tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7121700289023431358..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Jerry Coyne can be damn good. Without God.mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14677776353289617152011-08-07T07:56:27.165-04:002011-08-07T07:56:27.165-04:00"If we want to have a fruitful discussion, we..."If we want to have a fruitful discussion, we have to agree on a set of standards."<br /><br />Remus, how can we agree to a set of standards with materialists who have none (but the subjective - IE moving goal posts). <br />You must apply your own shifting standards, I am afraid.<br />We (the non-materialists) can agree on objective standards when it comes to morality and mind, but they will not fit into your paradigm; they are beyond it's scope. <br />I understand your desire for common ground and some sort of intellectual consensus, but I do not feel it is realistic. The only way a materialist is going to gain common ground with those beyond their monistic world view, is to expand it - and thus no longer BE a materialistic. THAT is the common ground and standard to be met. <br />The best we can hope for at this stage is some discourse. An exchange of ideas that hopefully broadens the perspective of all involved and leads to tolerance. Hope is the operative word here. <br />There is always hope.<br />I personally have much more hope, for example, for an objectivist than I do for a Neo-Marxist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73875315853917338582011-08-06T14:28:16.626-04:002011-08-06T14:28:16.626-04:00Uncle Remus,
Nah. I am happy to lower the thresho...Uncle Remus,<br /><br />Nah. I am happy to lower the threshold for Mike. <br /><br />OK, maybe not to the level of appeals to common sense. I hope he can do better than that. Unless he wants to achieve the hilarity of the sort featured at this web site: <a href="http://www.commonsensescience.org/" rel="nofollow">Common Sense Science</a>.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77334201168678309882011-08-06T14:14:51.932-04:002011-08-06T14:14:51.932-04:00@crusader
Mike seems to have different standards ...@crusader<br /><br />Mike seems to have different standards of evidence for claims he is making and claims other people are making. If we want to have a fruitful discussion, we have to agree on a set of standards.Uncle Remusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80439144695327919822011-08-06T12:48:17.456-04:002011-08-06T12:48:17.456-04:00"If you were right, he wouldn't have to.&..."If you were right, he wouldn't have to."<br />What a strange leap of logic. Especially for a materialist! <br />If something is correct - no science required. Apparently common sense is objective!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53089812444615258212011-08-06T12:09:42.059-04:002011-08-06T12:09:42.059-04:00Skeptical Philosophy would just say that there is ...Skeptical Philosophy would just say that there is no truth XD .... or somehting like that.<br /><br />But common sense sometimes is wrong alright. It can happenEdwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84248819049193897392011-08-06T11:56:31.863-04:002011-08-06T11:56:31.863-04:00Oleg wrote:
'Common sense tells us that the su...Oleg wrote:<br />'Common sense tells us that the sun goes around the earth.'<br /><br />I would suggest that common sense tells us the sun appears to cross the sky, roughly East to West. Common sense tells us it provides warmth, light, and thus food.<br />As to what moves and goes 'around' what, there is required a lot of inference and speculation before EVER reaching that point. <br />First we have to assume the sun is an object, not a hole, being, or entrance point for energy into 'the sky'. That it is physical and measurable. Then we must assume there is only one sun (the same one each day), then we must assume the sun (as an object) is either moving or we are.... <br />ALL these assumptions must be observed, recorded, tested and proven BEFORE they can be applied in the deductions Oleg has described as 'common sense'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59434930248071406652011-08-06T11:53:15.084-04:002011-08-06T11:53:15.084-04:00Would you prefer modus ponens or a double-blinded ...<i>Would you prefer modus ponens or a double-blinded study?</i><br />Anything beyond assertions, desperate ad-hominems and insults would be a start.<br /><br /><i>When you have a chance, prove that you love your family. Modus ponens would be fine, or you could do a contolled experiment. Make sure your p value is <.05.</i><br /><br />What a weird challenge.<br /><br />If you define "love" as something objectively measureable like Oxytocin levels or willingness of self-sacrifice, we could find out if or how much love my family. <br /><br />You probably don't care how much I love my family, I assume you wanted to demonstrate that I can't objectively prove that I do or don't. But I didn't claim that I could. <br /><br /><i>"So your appeal to common sense does not strike me as a coherent argument.:<br /><br />Prove it, with careful experimentation.</i><br /><br />If you were right, he wouldn't have to.Uncle Remusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66124596342638675052011-08-06T11:48:34.869-04:002011-08-06T11:48:34.869-04:00No need for experimentation, Mike. I pointed out e...No need for experimentation, Mike. I pointed out examples where common sense failed badly. Back to the drawing board.<br /><br />And what about <a href="#c291045991611331943" rel="nofollow">this</a>, Mike?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28669022844086347412011-08-06T11:22:13.865-04:002011-08-06T11:22:13.865-04:00@oleg:
"So your appeal to common sense does...@oleg:<br /><br /><br />"So your appeal to common sense does not strike me as a coherent argument.:<br /><br />Prove it, with careful experimentation.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25431986614962343132011-08-06T07:44:42.810-04:002011-08-06T07:44:42.810-04:00Mike: The reality of objective law is demonstrated...Mike: <i>The reality of objective law is demonstrated by commonsense and by absurdity of its denial. </i> <br /><br />Common sense tells us that the sun goes around the earth, that it takes an effort to keep something in motion, and that time is absolute. It took some careful experimentation and a lot of thinking to establish the true state of affairs, which is otherwise. <br /><br />So your appeal to common sense does not strike me as a coherent argument.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73402258975007859942011-08-06T07:22:33.492-04:002011-08-06T07:22:33.492-04:00@Uncle Remus:
"Proving the existence of obje...@Uncle Remus:<br /><br />"Proving the existence of objective morality?" Would you prefer modus ponens or a double-blinded study?<br /><br />There's a whiff of autism spectrum in atheism. You guys seem to lack a certain capacity to make human judgements. <br /><br />The reality of objective law is demonstrated by commonsense and by absurdity of its denial. <br /><br />When you have a chance, prove that you love your family. Modus ponens would be fine, or you could do a contolled experiment. Make sure your p value is <.05.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27685693159677838322011-08-06T07:18:11.803-04:002011-08-06T07:18:11.803-04:00Remus,
The existence of Objective morality points...Remus, <br />The existence of Objective morality points toward a Divine (external) source. You may as well ask us to explain Attraction or Gravity while assuming there is no universal constant or laws of nature.Your little logic trap has no bait in it (or a spring). But seeing as we are asking philosophical questions here's a reciprocal one for you!<br /><br /><b>Why don't YOU explain the universal constants, Remus? No...not the 'whats' or even 'hows', we all get that, but rather the WHY. <br />WHY do we have universal constants in a chaotic universe? WHY are there 'laws' of nature? <br />Empirically PROVE your answer now. NO conjecture.</b> <br />Oh I forgot the foundation of all materialism and Atheism: 'Shit happens'. <br />Right?<br />Oh the profundity! (non-illusory sarcasm)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-99913968198859412011-08-06T05:45:25.705-04:002011-08-06T05:45:25.705-04:00@Bachfiend: I'd be careful with your definitio...@Bachfiend: I'd be careful with your definition of "objectively bad". You have to show that "bad results" can be objectively defined. <br /><br />@Mike: I'm still waiting for the blog post proving the existence of objective morality. I'd be interested in a non-circular argument for objective morality without assuming the existence of god.Uncle Remusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41012608880066510562011-08-05T22:27:32.527-04:002011-08-05T22:27:32.527-04:00Bachfiend,
Extramarital sex would include any...Bachfiend,<br /><br /> Extramarital sex would include any sex outside of marriage. Based on your writing here, I don't regard you as the type of militant atheist I am talking about. However, P.Z. Myers and his pack of know-nothing hyenas fit the description to a tee.<br /><br />I count at least six commandments that do not have to do with how one should respond to the deity.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7180114436729898352011-08-05T20:32:57.156-04:002011-08-05T20:32:57.156-04:00Matteo,
It's strange that of the 10 commandme...Matteo,<br /><br />It's strange that of the 10 commandments, only 3 of them deal with things that atheists and Christians would all agree as being wrong, the other 7 being largely proscriptions as to how the believers have to respond to the deity.<br /><br />Of your list of 'evils' I'm certain that you'd find plenty of atheists who'd agree that certain items on your list are objectively bad (I'm using a conventional definition of 'objective' to mean that they predictably lead to bad results). Most people would think extramarital sex, if you mean adultery, is bad because it destroys trust in a marriage partnership. A lot of atheists are libertarians who disagree with forced appropriation of property even with compensation. I don't regard gay marriage as much of a need, so I don't have any opinions on it. You have a strange idea as to what evil is. I personally think contraception is good because it prevents children being born into poor circumstances to die miserable lives in poverty and also prevents large numbers of abortions. Pornography? Not much interested in it. It's about as interesting as watching racing cars doing laps on a track, although a lot of people find that fascinating too.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11125524729662405312011-08-05T16:45:06.252-04:002011-08-05T16:45:06.252-04:00I bet if I read the chapter... I will have a sligh...I bet if I read the chapter... I will have a slightly different idea from Oleg about the phrase XD.Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74684938683060040832011-08-05T11:51:59.332-04:002011-08-05T11:51:59.332-04:00Given that they violate the Greatest Commandment b...Given that they violate the Greatest Commandment by definition, then, no, atheists cannot be good.<br /><br />Even aside from that, they don't tend to be against abortion, "gay marriage", extramarital sex, contraception, masturbation, pornography, theft of their neighbor's property via socialism, and other such evils. Beyond that, the militant ones carry a burning hatred for just about everyone.<br /><br />The sum total of all this isn't something that should be named "good".Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2910459916113319432011-08-05T11:49:54.154-04:002011-08-05T11:49:54.154-04:00Mike: The easiest way for me is to consider this: ...Mike: <i>The easiest way for me is to consider this: is an atrocity (killing, raping, whatever) intrinsically evil, or is it just a matter of opinion? If everybody believed it was ok, would it really be ok.</i> <br /><br />Let's apply this to the killings at Jericho. <a href="http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/20-17.htm" rel="nofollow">Deuteronomy 20:17</a>. Was that intrinsically evil? Justified? Thoughts?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32842081482805145592011-08-05T11:32:18.182-04:002011-08-05T11:32:18.182-04:00@oleg:
The same way you figure out most things. C...@oleg:<br /><br />The same way you figure out most things. Common sense, reason, reflection, making assumptions and considering the implications of the assumptions... you know the drill. <br /><br />The easiest way for me is to consider this: is an atrocity (killing, raping, whatever) intrinsically evil, or is it just a matter of opinion? If everybody believed it was ok, would it really be ok.<br /><br />My commonsense tells me that the Moral Law is objective. If it's not objective, then ridiculous and obviously wrong consequences follow (e.g. that the Holocaust wasn't wrong in an objective sense, it was just a difference of opinion between us and Nazis).<br /><br />When you apply your philosophy to the real world and it produces obvious bullsh*t, then your philosophy is, to that extent, bullsh*t.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-81337189213635048592011-08-05T10:49:47.504-04:002011-08-05T10:49:47.504-04:00Good. The question is then, Mike, how do you ascer...Good. The question is then, Mike, how do you ascertain that absolute morality does, in fact, exist and is not a figment of imagination?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1538879808161529052011-08-05T10:42:28.757-04:002011-08-05T10:42:28.757-04:00@leg:
[Great. You agree then that the process of ...@leg:<br /><br />[Great. You agree then that the process of figuring out morality involves a heavy dose of human interpretation, which is of course a subjective element.]<br /><br />Duh. Of course interpretation is subjective. But the Moral Law exists independently of human opinion. We have an instinctual sense of it, and we also have to learn the details. <br /><br />It's quite analogous to laws of nature. We can intuit them, to some extent, and we can do science and learn them in more detail. But those laws of nature exist independently of man. They aren't just figments of our imagination, mere opinion.<br /><br />Neither is Moral Law.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11400500962886627822011-08-05T10:18:42.410-04:002011-08-05T10:18:42.410-04:00Mike: "Religious people" as a rule don&#...Mike: <i>"Religious people" as a rule don't "pick and choose" morality from Scripture. Morality is discerned through conscience, prayer, and thoughtful contemplation of Biblical teaching, in context, including all of the Bible, not just isolated passages out of context.</i> <br /><br />Great. You agree then that the process of figuring out morality involves a heavy dose of human interpretation, which is of course a subjective element.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31932290690974445512011-08-05T10:07:16.288-04:002011-08-05T10:07:16.288-04:00Mike: Objective morality has a simple meaning. It ...Mike: <i>Objective morality has a simple meaning. It means that moral law exists independently of human beings. <br /><br />The test for it is simple: is it possible for something to be wrong, even if all human beings thought it was right?<br /><br />If so, then morality has a source (Source) outside of man.</i> <br /><br />If only that were as simple as you suggest, Mike. You and I can <i>imagine</i> that an objective morality exists out there. <i>Testing</i> that hypothesis is a whole 'nother story. <br /><br />I see a nice parallel with Newton's concept of absolute space. Newtonian mechanics was built on it. However, the resulting laws were consistent with the Galilean principle of relativity: Newton's laws apply equally well in frames moving steadily relative to absolute space. In fact, that made it impossible to detect which inertial frame was stationary relative to absolute space. So absolute space was abandoned. <br /><br />Absolute space was later resurrected as the frame of the aether. If light is waves propagating in a medium (the aether) then, according to classical physics, one should be able to observe the motion relative to the aether through the Doppler effect. Alas, all attempts to detect that failed. After some period of turmoil, physicists came up with theory of relativity, in which no aether is necessary. <br /><br />So it is with objective morality. Sure, you can come up with a theory that relies on it, but that is not the same as actually learning what it is. <br /><br />Furthermore, numerous examples show that human morality evolves in time. That can hardly be squared with the existence of an absolute moral standard. Unless, of course, it evolved along with humans. This reminds me of an old Soviet joke. One of the questions in an official form asks "Did you ever vacillate toward the party line?" Answer: "I have vacillated in accordance with the party line."oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70595141828404268422011-08-05T09:50:04.867-04:002011-08-05T09:50:04.867-04:00*sorry for any syntax etc. Reduced to a TINY scree...*sorry for any syntax etc. Reduced to a TINY screen once again :@Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1845613258888103152011-08-05T09:48:23.760-04:002011-08-05T09:48:23.760-04:00'No true Scotsman' writes Oleg? Where does...'No true Scotsman' writes Oleg? Where does he read that? Is it in Mike's response to nonsensical comparison of the Thirty Year war with the 20th Centuy's 'modern warfare'? <br />If so, I could only suggest Oleg reads it again. He seems to somehow have misinterpreted it. <br />I would only add that Mike is being charitable to the idea of religious motivation on the parts of the powers at work, who regularly hired opposing mercenaries, switched sides etc. <br />I see the Thirty Years war as a Machiavellian style struggle for political power via Religious pretensions. Religion appears to me a tool in this war, not constant or true motive for the Elites in control. I am not suggesting there were no 'belivers' in this war, or trying to dodge the roles of the various Churches, but I think the real motive lies well within the material world. <br />In fact, I find it strange that Atheists try to forward such a metaphysical argument in the first place. A non existent God and a bunch of deluded cretins to blame for the Thirty Year war? How superstitious of them! <br />This is why I really enjoye Oleg's comments. They are such food for thought; so juxtaposed to my own in so many ways...<br /><br />I will concede, as a historian and student of history, that Religion has been used as a mass-motivator and bent to suite warlords through out all of our recorded ages. Entire heretical cults formed to wrestle or usurp power from established religions and so on.<br />These realities I will not dispute. But, I will ADD that the reason for these repeated attempts at control (and resistances / counters) relates to the extreme importance of these issues, such as objective morality. <br />If a leader or Cabal of men can control the tennets of morality and render them subjective, they have ULTIMATE control. There is two apparent ways to attain that level of control: <br />1) Assume the mantle of religious orthodoxy and bend scripture/holy writ to your purposes with political means (carrots / canes). "God given right to rule ABSOLUTELY' <br />2)Destroy ALL objectivity by denying ANY transcendent (IE Objective Morality) power beyond that of the _____ (insert: leader, state, party, Academe etc) <br /><br />So, as a student of history I see it like this: tell that you ARE/SENT BY God; <br />OR that there is NO God, and I am IMMEDIATELY suspicious of the motives of the speaker, regardless of their almost universal promises of 'liberation' and 'freedom'. <br />'Work sets you Free' (Arbeit macht frei) being one that I reluctantly recall from the 20th century.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.com