1. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112205 by baal on January 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Dear Mr Scales

I'd like to wish you all the best for a speedy recovery, though I fear you might be getting bored by now :) Best wishes nonetheless and congratulations on at last receiving your silver-star Croix de Guerre.

Simon

2. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72282 by baal on September 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Oh, dear - Mary Midgley! I´ve found her analyses of evolution and ethics to be a bit of a mad jumble in the past; and, unfortunately, this article is no exception. What is she on about?

3. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70271 by baal on September 14, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Wonderful! Congratulations! I'll look forward to donating very soon.

4. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69470 by baal on September 11, 2007 at 11:32 am

An excellent project - good luck with it! I'm going to read the first interview now...

5. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63749 by baal on August 15, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Well, as the article itself states, knowledge of whether Bostrom is correct or not is impossible (although it is interesting that Bostrom appears to have ignored qualia or Searle's Chinese Room argument in making his initial assumption - perhaps it is not all that reasonable to assume that computer simulations could be conscious). Also, as many posters here have already stated, a "20%" probability he is correct (on his own estimate) is unjustified except by the theorist's own "gut."

As this is the case, and as Bostrom has left his theoretical doubt at that, without development (unlike Descartes), it seems no more than a coffee-table talking point rather than any serious philosophy. If I had a swear box, it would be rather full and heavy after reading that article.

6. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #60709 by baal on August 2, 2007 at 6:00 pm

One issue perhaps implied by the article but not explicitly stated is the gullibility of these three Presidential candidates. Assuming that they disbelieve in evolution because they are a priori convinced of the literal truth of Genesis, presumably because that is what they have been brought up to believe, I'd be very concerned over who would actually be running the USA were one of these candidates elected: the candidate himself, or a shadowy amalgam of his pastor, himself, and his pastor's particular interpretation of some ancient texts.

7. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59480 by baal on July 29, 2007 at 7:54 am

It seems as though this debate is largely between people who wear T-shirts with logos of allegiance on them anyway and don't really see a problem with them, and those (like me!) who don't and won't wear any such thing ever, unless forced.

However, I don't really understand what all the fuss is about either way. Although I find it a bit tacky, I don't see how anyone can get enormously upset over a T-shirt with a big, red "A" on it. After all, the idea is no more tacky than football or company logo shirts. I shrug my shoulders at you all!

However, I should very much like to donate to the RD Foundation for Reason and Science anyway, so initially I might as well donate the equivalent of the price of one of those T-shirts. I also rather like drawing attention to my secularism in less garish style, so I'm going to work out some other ways of visually expressing it (perhaps using the pansy, which I didn't even realise was an old free-thinkers' symbol until coming across this thread). And to those who object to the design rather than the principle: why not simply design your own?

8. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58370 by baal on July 24, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Nice to hear Richard Dawkins again, although the interviewer seems to be a bit thick - he isn't raising any good questions at all and seems to have a small grasp of logic, a bit like a school bully.

9. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58119 by baal on July 23, 2007 at 2:49 pm

...OK, apart from the seemingly ridiculous question about homosexuality, what do you think of the article? :-)

10. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54366 by baal on July 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Dear Henri

First of all, thank you for being the "gadfly" provoking so many interesting responses to your criticisms of morality. Secondly, I'm afraid this reply is far too long and I want to apologise for that right now; however, you've raised some interesting points and, as an ex-Nietzschean, I wanted to respond.

You seem to have accepted Nietzsche's anti-ethics entirely (and, I'm tempted to add, uncritically). I doubt that many people today would wish to argue for any idea of morality as consisting of mind-independent facts of any real universe. Many people may believe this because this is what they have been instructed by their religion, however this is manifestly not a rational argument.

However, I also doubt that either outright subjectivism or moral relativism (which would be an un-Nietzschean position, and which therefore I presume you don't hold) are either choate or maintainable in the face of increasing empirical evidence of "altruistic" acts carried out by many different species - sometimes to the material detriment of the altruistic individual (in the case of a dog rather amusingly adopting an orphaned duck, which might actually make a good meal).

Instead of asking whether any moral statement can be "proved" (unfortunately, yours cannot be on empirical grounds, and Kant's attempted logical basis for morality is unsound), I believe it would be better to ask what we together (as social creatures) want to value. Your echo of Nietzsche's critiques of "herd moralities" etc implies a morality based on venerating the "strong" as opposed to the "weak" - but this seems somewhat shrill and too black-and-white. For example, it is easy to see why many altruistic acts are considered good: while I do not need the altruism of others when I am prospering or flourishing, I may require help to survive when I am not; as one's own prosperity and well-being is usually a fragile thing, and as we all have a personal interest in our own survival, it makes sense to encourage altruistic behaviour that will help me if and when I need it. Furthermore, from the above article (along with reports of some other recent studies), it seems that altruistic acts are intrinsically rewarding, as one might expect due to our status as evolved, social creatures (Nietzsche was opposed to what he understood to be Darwinian evolution on ethical grounds, because he thought it was too deterministic - I presume you depart from him here).

I do not believe I am caught in the middle of the is/ought gap here; rather, I'm saying that the idea of a mind-independent good is untrue, that morality consists in the way we think and act towards one another when we are not being selfish, and that moral value comes from our own minds, with many such values being shared trans-culturally (for example, against intra-group murder or stealing). These values are important to us, maybe because of their survival or utility value, but we also feel them to be important in themselves. We are human, but it is absurd to add "all-too-human" without some idea of species-transcendent value, which I can't see how you can hold.

11. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #53145 by baal on June 29, 2007 at 4:23 pm

While I like the general tenor of this article, the follow paragraph is just horribly lazy pseudo-philosophy (as an example - when did "force" become a logical concept?!)

"The result is perhaps the strongest challenge yet to the worldview summed up by Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who divided the creatures of the world between humanity and everything else. As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," loses its force."

12. Messiah

Comment #52947 by baal on June 28, 2007 at 4:23 pm

To Nastikananda:

This book is quite a good one, and interesting to boot: it's called "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading"
http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html

13. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51420 by baal on June 22, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Oh yes, you can also ask Christopher Hitchens questions here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/6229344.stm

14. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51419 by baal on June 22, 2007 at 7:27 pm

For anyone interested in watching Hitchens major and minor (as well as Tony McNulty, Shirley Porter and Boris Johnson) on Question Time - although it is largely off-topic apart from the initial debate about Salman Rushdie's knighthood and cries of "blasphemy!" from the Islamic authoritarians - the link is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/

15. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49616 by baal on June 12, 2007 at 3:11 pm

What a beautifully-written article! This is my favourite so far - it is both sensitive and articulate - and one I shall definitely return to.

16. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48847 by baal on June 9, 2007 at 7:23 am

Dear Misha


I have to disagree with you about your comment that "atheistic theology" is not an oxymoron!

Maybe the best way to explain the contradiction is to use other, equivalent terms.

If "atheism" is equivalent to either "belief that there is no god" or "knowledge that there is no god," then it is the same as "godlessness." And surely "godless theology" is oxymoronic because "theology" is the study of "god" and his/her/its/their relationship(s) to the world (you can look "theology" up in the dictionary if you like). So "atheistic theology" is oxymoronic, too.

Sorry for my rather tortuous explanation - I might as well have been brought up by Jesuits... :)

17. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47135 by baal on June 3, 2007 at 5:23 am

A theocratic argument for Enlightenme...

You can't proclaim aAmonism without affirming Amonism. This is shown by the phonetic similarity of "a" and "A". Therefore, God exists.

I call this the Argument from First Vowel and this is perhaps the first (and only) time it has appeared in public... :)

18. Man to die over insult

Comment #47132 by baal on June 3, 2007 at 4:57 am

Thanks, Logicel (and to Stephen Weeks for posting the article) - I've emailed my protest to the addresses you gave and forwarded an unfortunately rather lengthy email to my friends and family asking them to do the same. Hopefully, this appeal will spread rather quickly over the internet and a deluge of protests-by-email will follow. I hope this will have some effect, though it sounds like blasphemy laws are a good people-pleaser for the brutal and backwards Pakistani government.

19. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46548 by baal on May 31, 2007 at 3:54 pm

"Atheistic theology" - what an oxymoron!

20. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46262 by baal on May 30, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I've just started reading "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser, so found this article particularly interesting!

Although I think it's important to remember that knowing how different parts of the brain create moral feelings doesn't necessarily lead to knowing how one ought to act when confronted with moral conflicts (and the reporter seems quite credulously to confuse these two things), the research seems extremely important - not just as a possible challenge to Moore's "naturalistic fallacy," but much more importantly as another potentially great answer to anyone who believes that, unless you embrace authoritarianism (religious or otherwise) you are automatically doomed to - gasp! - moral relativism. If Hauser's theory holds, then moral relativism itself (at least in its strong forms) might be empirically disproved; although, of course, a lot of exciting research needs to be done.