Comments by MPhil

Comment #174217 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:39 pm

I was - but I'm sober by now :)

Comment #174215 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:37 pm

I also need to do my doctorate at whichever uni she's going to choose... in which case the last two comments of mine are going to get deleted beforehand! :)

Maybe I do some introductory courses and intensive personal training in logic and propaedeutics for her :)

503. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174214 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:34 pm

No I'm not - I'm entirely serious, at least about me and my girlfriend liking the thought of that :)

But I have to go to uni in two hours (have to leave here at 9:30 am local time) - and since I woke up at 8pm last evening and haven't slept since then, the 4 hours in uni are going to be torture. Oh well, I'll get through somehow.

504. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174212 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:29 pm

No, Brain - I won't... but I might just construct a barrage of ontological and a posteriori arguments for why a threesome between her and my girlfriend (who would approve) and me is at least the best thing to do if not absolutely necessary...

... did I just write that? Seems I did :)

505. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174209 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Emma Watson is indeed very beautiful... but much more beautiful in the pics from her shootings than without makeup. But still, very beautiful - and just turned 18...

... and what's best (for me), she plans on studying philosophy at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?).

506. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174173 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 7:58 pm

That's wonderful Styrer...

but calling this thought of mine contemptible is a bit harsh...
There is nothing contemptible in a lack of imagination. I in turn hope you will withdraw that particular gem.

What I meant was that witnessing something first hand is emotionally different from witnessing it from afar.

I have never doubted the immense power of empathy. But I have - I admit - failed to phrase the above thought correctly. It is a psychological fact that closeness and remoteness are a significant factor. That is what I meant.

I have misspoken, phrasing my thought in a way that has connotations and implications which underrate the empathetic capabilities of others... and for that I apologize.

I do hope you will withdraw the "contemptible"-judgment however.

507. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174161 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 7:23 pm

I thought "vile" was a bit unwarranted, but rereading I see I misjudged some of the comments... so I remain by the statement that calm and rational, without ad homs is the way to go, but that except for al's usual -let's say- aggressiveness :) there was little to none of this.

508. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174153 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm

often mentioned in the same breath with Hitler and Stalin

I don't quite get what this is supposed to mean... seems like you see Hitler and Stalin as cartoonish villains, and Mao as having committed nothing of the sort.

Putting everything into a historical perspective is fine, even necessary, so long as it is not apologetic. An explanation is not an excuse.

Anyway - this statement seemed wierd to me.

509. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174151 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Brian, - sadly, no I didn't... though I would have loved to :(

510. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174150 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm

As I have already said, I am always a little sad when someone gives up rationalism.

But all I want to say now is that whatever criticism Richard Morgan may deserve, he has not resorted to direct insults - and I feel criticizing him should be done in a rational and clear-minded manner.

I am not one of those people who believe that swear-words should never be uttered... but I believe that we ought to try and be kind even to people with whom we disagree, or whose actions we don't condone.
When someone posts like DickDawkins did in his first posts, throwing insults at everyone, go ahead... but Richard hasn't done this...

... and he hasn't displayed vile behaviour. He has abandoned rationality for fuzzy non-sequiturs and cozy feel-good religion, mysticism etc.
The god-shaped hole business, the "god loves you" is all unsubstantiated, the "to ask for evidence is almost impertinent" and "have shown me the limits of rationality and materialism"...

Hogwash, irrational nonsense.

But I don't think the personal insults here are entirely appropriate.

Just my opinion...

511. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174146 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Brian,

comment to your blog-entry delivered :)

__________________-

Concerning freedom and liberty - just a small anecdote:

I remember when the Berlin wall fell. I cannot imagine the emotional significance can be felt by anyone who has only heard of it from afar.

I remember that my parents asked me, tears in their eyes, if I had toys I didn't need anymore, because there were people coming to our town, people who weren't able to buy their children such toys, who would be very happy if I would give them toys of mine I didn't need anymore... we packed them up and drove to the inner city.

The people came, their eyes glazing, many of them with tears of joy in their eyes. And we gave them the presents, my parents talked to them, thousands of people were there.

When I grew up, I became friends with some people from the former GDR - one even became my (now ex-) girlfriend.

We were taught about this history in school, visited the important places, listened to people telling us their stories, stories of families torn apart by the Wall, stories of parents unable to see their children, stories of oppression and injustice, of totalitarian control, but also stories of courage, of love and inseparable bonds.

At least every 3rd of October, (German Unity Day), I watch the video of people climbing the wall, of the borders being opened, of people tearing down the Wall with their own hammer, of tags sprayed on the Wall "Every wall falls some day", of people crying, falling into the arms of their relatives after long, long years - of thousands of people standing in the streets, shouting "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!"... and every single time I watch this, or think about this, my eyes water.

There is a video of these events, set to the song "Freiheit" (freedom) by Marius Mueller Westernhagen... it was played at the wall back then... an immensely powerful song, and immensely powerful pictures.

For hundreds of thousand of people, perhaps millions, the day they got told that the borders are now open, that they are free, was the most important day of their lives.

The importance of freedom cannot be underestimated...

If you'd like to watch the 2 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BhtyNFrlwc

The song's lyrics lose all their poetry in translation unfortunately, but for those who are interested nevertheless:

The contracts have been made,
and there was much laughter,
and something sweet for dessert.

Freedom, freedom
The band played 'rumtata'
And the pope's been there as well,
and my neighbour up in front,

Freedom, freedom,
is the only thing that's missing
Freedom, freedom,
is the only thing that's missing

Unfortunately man is not naive,
regrettably man is primitive
Freedom, freedom
has been canceled again

All those who dream of freedom
shall not forget to celebrate,
shall dance even on graves
Freedom, freedom
Is the only thing that counts

Freedom, freedom
Is the only thing that counts.

512. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174130 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Goldy,

from what I have seen, I agree with Bonzai. Talking politics seems to be dangerous. No freedom of information (no free access to the internet for example), to books etc.

Brian,

It's alright, I'm already drafting a comment :)

513. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174120 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Brian - I'm a little drunk right now, and I think I would have to check with Quine's essay, which I have in my home-town... I'll try, but don't be disappointed if I cannot answer until Saturday :)

514. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174117 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 5:00 pm

This "War on Terror" is the biggest load of personal restrictive hogwash I have come across.

Of course in China civil liberties aren't further restricted... they're sufficiently marginalized already. :/

Anyway...I agree. Only rivaled by the McCarthy-era when it comes to restrictions of civil liberties. There is a priority of basic liberties and freedoms, which is also supposed to be the defining barrier between the society that is supposed to be protected and the ideology that is supposed to kept at bay.

McCarthy saw to it that the barrier got blurred, driving the US into an autoritarion, almost totalitarian state... and the Patriot Act (the name also should tell everyone that this is nothing else than 1984 newspeak), torture and detention without due process - doing it again. Farcical, really... and that's only leaving foreign policy aside for now.

Wanna be a symbol for freedom? Don't deny the basic rights and liberties to your citizens - or indeed to anyone else that you're dealing with.
The now active "inter arma enim silent leges" and almost religious "we're good by definition, so nothing we do can be wrong" mentality... won't help that. And the world takes notice.

515. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173586 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Well, I've hear it used in English before... and yes, be Gemütlich about your beer, don't rush it :)

516. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173584 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Night Podaar.

Just two very minor points:

-the correct grammatical form is "Deutsches Bier"
and
-it's "Gemütlichkeit" - or if you're too lazy to search for the umlaut "Gemuetlichkeit".

I am aware that the latter has become a fixed term in Englisch, like Zeitgeist, Weltschmerz, Bildungsroman, Ersatz, Kindergarten, Leitmotiv, Schadenfreude, Doppelgaenger, Rucksack, Realpolitik, Weltanschauung etc... but the peculiar thing is the grammatical usage of "gemütlichkeit" in English.

In German it simply means "comfortable-ness", though with an etymological background in "Gemüt", roughly "state of mind".

...okay, that may have been a boring treatise :)

Anyway - yes, I'm feeling very comfortable in München... although I do miss my girlfriend somewhat. Oh well, I'll see her again Friday evening.

517. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173567 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Sounds nice... but I dont get to grill/bbq very often :) Will try it sometime.

518. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173563 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Let me modify a statement by the Monty Pythons...

"Any non-German beer is like having sex in a canoe"
...

519. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173562 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:24 pm

mole? like the animal that digs though the ground? :)

You mean chocolate and chile pepper? I like both seperately, but have never tried them combined.

520. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173558 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:21 pm

MPhil doesn't believe in empirical evidence but rather that for God to exist must be a contradiction :)

Not true at all - empirical evidence is important. Empirical investigation is the only way to find out about objective facts about the world... but the logical arguments are necessarily true, no matter what the world is like.
I do believe in empirical evidence. Even if the a priori arguments weren't true, the empirical ones would still be...

... me, not believing in evidence... sure :)

And no, sadly I don't speak Dutch... but I might be able to understand some of it.

Deutsch, English, un peu français et lingua latina should be enough I think.

Gute Nacht jedenfalls DickDawkins und eventuall bis Morgen :)

521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173552 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Thanks... but to be frank, I never liked the taste of coffee - at all. So no Kalua either.

:/

522. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173548 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Brain, true - but looking only inside yourself won't help much either... you have to look at the world you live in and the people in it as well in order to create meaning and value for this life.

523. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173547 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Podaar,

Martinis... oh I love cocktails... I fancy myself to be quite good at mixing them as well. Though I usually drink the fancy sort... and create new ones.

I usually mix
-Zombie
-Touchdowm
-Sex on the Beach
-Cuba Libre
-Mai Tai
-Pina Colada
-Strawberry Colada
-Long Island Iced Tea

and so on...

also, if you get the chance, try this:

3-4 units Creme de Cassis
2 units pure lemon juice
4 units cranberry-juice
4 units pink-grapefruit juice
3-4 units Absolut Vanilla Vodka

... I call it "Pink Bastard"

524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173543 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Very true, Quine.

Meaning and value are not discovered or given from above, they are made, given to ourselves by ourselves while facing the world as it is.

525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173542 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I think the paper was arguing that official inclusion in the church should be discouraged, and that official membership in a church should be restricted to adults capable of making informed, free decisions - not against the legality of telling children about religion, of parents living their religion in front of their children as an encouragement or even taking them to church if they want to :)

526. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173536 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Podaar,

thanks... responded.

527. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173529 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Bye Goldy!

528. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173525 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm

On a side note:

I am really extremely sad that Steve Zara is leaving... I enjoyed his contributions so much. This is a great loss to RDnet... :(

529. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173520 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Do you realize that we've been on this constantly now for over three hours?

And no, figuratively speaking I won't kill the demon... but I might help exorcise it from the minds of a few people (wouldn't be the first time).

530. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173515 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:39 pm

My sole motivation is enlightenment...

though I could propose a deal to Amazon I guess :)

...or to the various university publishers...

531. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173514 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Famous last words. Logical impossibility has not killed of this demon before. What makes you so confident it'll do it this time? ;)

The fact people don't realize this and/or don't want to realize and acknowledge this?

The fact that they always will come up with new reinterpretations "after the fact" that the impossibility has been demonstrated... but these have always been unsuccessful.

Most people are lightyears away from such a level of sophistication.
This kind of argument is only accessible to someone who understands and accepts the validity of logic... and the arguments are increasingly complex.

Then there's the fact that logical thinking and impartial acceptance of logical conclusions are discouraged in religion when they touch religion... and there you are.

532. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173510 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Cartomancer,

Yes, but are the modern notions of a prime mover and so forth any more different from those of the bible than medieval ones? The old testament does not mention prime movers at all - it's an entirely non-biblical notion that, presumably, the semitic tribes of the first millennium BC did not have. How, therefore, can Aquinas' concept of a prime mover be more like that of the bible than Swinburne's when there isn't a concept of prime movers in the bible for either of them to be like?

You're right - I should have said:

The concept of god of Swinburne, Plantinga et al are farther removed from the biblical conception than the medieval ones.

___________

Quine:

I have recently expanded my list of contradictory ascriptions of attributes:

-Omnipotent
-Omnipresent AND non-physical
-Immutable AND Personal
-Immutable AND Creator
-Immutable AND Omniscient
-Personal AND non-physical
-Agent AND non-physical
and most importantly:
-Aseic AND an entity
-Aseic AND existent

and tentatively:

-Omnibenevolent AND Omniscient AND Omnipotent AND Creator of this world

But the first 9 are more than enough... one alone is fatal.

533. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173508 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:26 pm

The law of noncontradiction cannot be circumvented.

Bivalent logic is at the basis of all our thinking, it is at the basis of our belief-system and our faculty of conceptualizing.

I just realize I really forgot one of the most basic things:

"ex falso sequitur quodlibet": From a contradiction, everything follows - if you affirm a logical contradiction, that renders every possible statement true, and also the opposite of every statement - meaning you get uncountably infinitely many contradictions, and every proposition you affirm, every belief you hold thereby becomes meaningless because from your belief system, the negation of every such belief also follows.

If you deny the law of noncontradiction, you cannot deny that there are square circles, rectangular triangles, objects that are at the same time entirely blue and entirely red, that you exist and don't exist at the same time, that you are both larger and taller than 3 meters, that you have been to the moon and not to the moon, that the moon is made out of cheese and not made out of cheese, that the moon is made out of cows and and not out of cows and so on to infinity...

There is no way around the law of noncontradiction.

534. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173502 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Brianus semper vertitatem dicit. :)

If you say so :P

535. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173500 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Carto,

You're right about Aquinas being the father of modern (philosophical and non-philosophical) theology. But the definitions of the attributes in the conceptions of god of Plantinga, Van Inwagen or Swinburne are at times radically different from those of Aquinas.

To name only the most trivial example... the notion of "creator" and "prime mover" now involves concepts of cantor-mathematics, set theory, cosmology etc.

Over time, the proofs of logical inconsistency of the attributes mounted, so the attributes were redefined, at times radically... and never successfully.

536. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173496 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 pm

MPhil, just little suggestion, use layman terminology. I have never taken a course in philosophy. I have taken German and am fluent in Dutch, but that is just me overcompensating for my shortcomings in philosophy or debating skills.

I'm afraid that would make my posts even longer.
Instead I will define the terms for you:

"a priori": Knowledge gained before and not dependent at all on experience (knowledge gained by logical deduction).

"a posteriori":
The opposite of A PRIORI. A posteriori knowledge can be established only by experience (usually: sense-experience) or reasoning from experience. Example: "The weight of this book in front of me is 200g." Empirical knowledge

"ontology": the study of the broadest range of categories of existence, which also asks questions about the existence of particular kinds of objects, such as abstract entities, moral facts etc.

"logical inconsistency": A statement or compound of statements is logically inconsistent if it entails a logical contradiction.

"referent": That to which a statement, or rather a proposition (attempts to) refer.

A logically inconsistent statement of complex of statements cannot have a real referent, meaning that that which the proposition tries to assert cannot possibly be true, or that to which it refers cannot possibly exist - like a square circle.

"law of noncontradiction": It is not possible that something is the case and (at the same time) not the case

"law of 'tertium non datur'": "A third (possibility) is not given"... either a statement is true or false (or meaningless), there is no third possibility.

Did I miss anything?

537. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173484 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Now, that I have cleared up that I WAS NOT REFERRING TO A POSTERIORI ARGUMENTS OF THE TEAPOT-VARIETY... and please, keep that in mind... I will show what is wrong with this:

The orbitting teapot is so flawed on so many levels, first of all, a teapot could never withstand the G forces are needed to reach escape velocity. Secondly, if there were a teapot orbitting around the Earth trust me, I'll find it. And a teapot is human construct and not a metaphysical being, so not even is the argument silly, but it's also a bad analogy. Apparently when Dawkins had to get into college in the UK they did not test his skills to draw analogies, unlike in the US, til recently.

First - Dawkins didn't came up with it, Russell did. One of the greatest logicians and philosophers of the early 20th century. Second, it is an almost completely adequate analogy... why? Because it is about epistemology, specifically about justification for belief.

The point that it is not metaphysical accounts for the "almost"-qualification above... but it is also beside the point because the analogy is about epistemology. There are analogies that take this into account - the invisible pink unicorn for example.

Now I will demonstrate that the teapot analogy is valid by doing exactly what theologians have done with their concept of god:

[teapot-theologian]You have pointed out flaws in our old conception of the teapot (blessed be he). Your arguments hold, but they also fail to prove their point. No one adheres to that definition anymore...

The teapot is obviously not made out of simple china! What a ludicrous idea! No one believes this. It is made of a substance that specifically can withstand all the forces that act upon it.

And of course it didn't get there from earth. It is a primordial teapot. It has always been there.

And it isn't orbiting Earth - it is orbiting Mars, and always so that whenever we try to find it with telescopes or other technical means, it hides behind Mars. Yes it can do that - it is the great teapot, its definition is thus that it can do this, so you cannot deny it.[/teapot-theologian].

But, since you didn't get my point the first 5 times... this is a totally different kind of argument, of an entirely different category than the arguments for the impossibility of god, which are a priori arguments.

The a posteriori arguments show that there is no sufficient epistemic justification for belief in god - the hypothesis that he exists has a far too low epistemic probability.

The a priori arguments ON THE OTHER HAND, and COMPLETELY UNRELATED show that the description cannot have a real referent, because they are logically contradictory, just like "a square circle exists".

538. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173473 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:47 pm

High Medieval theology was about as far from the monolithic, simplistic, violent accounts of the old testament god as it is possible to be.

I seriously doubt they were as far from this as those of Swinburne or Plantinga.

Anyway - proves my point... totally different conceptions of god during the times.

539. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173471 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:45 pm

As for the teapot argument, that is just so silly, it's like a Creationist using the building must have a builder analogy. If you cannot see the silliness of that argument, then, I do not mean this to be offensive but merely an opinion, you must really argue better and more logically.

Seemingly I was mistaken in assuming that you have basic reading-skills

P L E A S E
reread the posts!

Aaaaaarrrrrggggg.... I am in physical pain right now because of that.

One last time:

I s t a t e d t h a t I w a s N O T r e f e r r i n g
t o a r g u m e n t s o f t h e t e a p o t
v a r i e t y ! ! !

I was talking about a priori arguments for the logical inconsistency and meaninglessness of the conceptions of god.

We don't believe in a teapot for empirical, a posteriori reasons...

but we know that a square triangle cannot exist.

These are two completely different forms of argument!

Arg!

540. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173466 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:36 pm

As always,

glad I can be of service.

Enjoy!

541. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173462 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Why tosswad?

Anyway -

The law of non-contradition ~(P & ~P). Thus a circle cannot be a square. It's one or the other. I think.

The law of noncontradiction is distinct from the law of tertium non datur. The first is ~(P AND ~P) and the second is (P XOR ~P) or if you want to use only AND and OR: ((P OR ~P) AND ~(P AND ~P))

The latter is only true in bivalent logic. The former is true in all useful systems.

It's also not quite about "being and not being", that is only an application. It's that any statement or compound of statements (such as those reporting the attributes of god) that implies both that a certain partial statement is true and that it is not true is contradictory and therefore impossible, given that the laws of logic reflect the laws of ontology - which is all we have reason to assume and capacity to conceive.

542. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173456 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm

riandouglas,

Can you recommend some reading (apart from your previous great posts, though I don't fully understand them) which goes through these logical arguments?

Sure,

Michael Martin (Ed.) "The Impossibility of God"

(he also has published another compendium about the a posteriori arguments - "The Improbability of God")

and

Lee Sobel "Logic and Theism"

...

Richard M. Gale in his "On the Nature and Existence of God" also talks about this.

...

and as always, I have to recommend the classic which anyone should read or should have read.

It's not too technical either, but slightly out of date (meaning some new arguments are not addressed and some theological excuses for a small portion of the arguments he forwards have been found as well):

John Leslie Mackie, "The Miracle of Theism"

543. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173445 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm

SharonMcT,

I barely understand you sometimes.

I'm sorry... I can try to be more precise, and explain myself better, improve my wording etc... but I'm not sure I would be able to.

I apologize.

544. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173441 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:18 pm

So, was that enough evidence of how religion is treated with preference?

And I hope the last post FINALLY cleared things up about the arguments for the impossibility of god. No arrogance, not for lack of evidence... but for logical contradictions.

Not like we don't believe there's a teapot orbiting Mars - but like we know with absolute certainty that there can be no square triangles or no colourless green ideas sleeping furiously.

Redefinitions of God?

Compare the concepts of God from Chrysostomus (I am sure you know who that is), Anselm, Ockam, Augustinus, Pius XI - whose encyclicae were farcical and whose concept of god evidently not forbade him to make a treaty with Hitler, knowing full well of his policies... or the concept of god of Pavelic and Stepinac, the catholics who committed genocide for national-socialism and catholicism, or the Franciscans who were overseers in concentration camps,

or even just that of a mainstream believer, or the description in the katechism with that of Plantinga, Swinburne or Van Inwagen.

And the doctrine of hell is, as I said the morally most despicable idea in all of history.

People like to argue against torture in hell. This is an ad hoc redefinition - as the passage is very clear. Also, annihilism is contradictory with other teachings, so is the "all will be saved idea"... but in any case, the passage in Matthew remains the most despicable thing I have ever read. No statement by Hitler, Himmler or Eichmann could compare.

545. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173433 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm

DickDawkins,

As for God, you are right that there's a possiblity that he might not exist, but if a philosopher thinks that something cannot exist when there is no conclusive evidence and denying any possiblity of its existence then I don't think you're doing a good job at philosophying.

You don't seem to have understood a word I said...

And Diacanu seemingly missed my point as well.
Let me spell it out for you:

Denying the possibility is not about empirical evidence, it's about logical contradiction!

The descriptions of god are just as contradictory and/or meaningless as

"a square triangle exists" or "colourless green ideas sleep furiously"...

would you say there's only a "possibility" these might not exist. No, they cannot possibly exist. And philosophers such as the ones I named have shown conclusively that the same is true for ominpotence, immutability PLUS personhood, personhood PLUS transcendence, creator PLUS immutatble, immutable PLUS omniscient or aseity...

You don't seem to understand logic - so please refrain from judging it... or maybe you get it now?

You're wrong about infallibility as well:

In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation

says the catholic encyclopedia.

...busted.

As for human dignity, I already told you - and anyone with any historical knowledge should know that there has been a redefinition from human dignity in catholic theology.

They used to think that burning people alive, torturing them was perfectly in accordance with human dignity. Now they don't. They used to think that the woman was a lower creature than the man (see Augustinus, Anselm, and for the protestants Luther).

The passages of the gospels - for example when Jesus says that any city unwilling to take up his disciples will receive a worse fate than Sodom and Gomorrah... or that anyone who leads one of his little ones astray, would be better off if a stone were hung around his neck and he be drowned...

And of course the morally most despicable thing passed off as morally just in all history:

Matthew 13:

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Whoever does not accept Jesus will be tortured forever, and the saved ones will be delighted to see them suffer. That is pure evil.. sadism without bounds.

546. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173424 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 6:55 pm

DickDawkins,

do you have any evidence to back up what you said about religion being privileged in society[?]

Historically, there is no doubt whatsoever about this.

The medieval theocracies for example. Or even outside of the judaeo-christian tradition - Plato was sentenced to death for politico-religious reasons.

But nowadays? Abundant evidence.

Let me mention Germany, where I live, a country far more liberal and far less "god-fearing" than the US of A for example.

Here, the roman catholic and lutheran protestant churches are statutory bodies. They get air-time for their ideology on the radio and tv-channels governed by public law.

Clerics, without brining any objective qualification, are included in every ethical commission.

We have religious education in public schools. Confessionally bound religious education mind you, not comparative... ie indoctrination.

Churches may sound their bells throughout the towns whenever they please, calling to service - something which non-christians may feel to be inappropriate... but a Muslim singing towards Mecca at 9 am in the morning - Christians would feel the same way when they would have to hear it every day.

Dating back to Hitler's treaty with the Vatican, we have "Konkordatslehrstühle" at universities, meaning chairs where the university can chose an applicant only with a "nihil obstat" from the church, ie they have the last word in who gets the job, and noone gets the job who doesn't agree with their dogma.

If these were only theology-chairs that would be bad enough... but that's not the case.
Biblical studies (which is supposed to be neutral), and what is most disgusting, even subjects that have to be free - science, for example sociology... or even philosophy. Philosophy must never be taught confessionally bound - that is contrary to the whole idea of philosophy. It is a farce and a disgrace.

Then we have the fact that on high Christian holidays (Easter for example), no pub or disco may play loud music or allow dancing! You may not even have a public party with music and dancing in some remote area where no one would notice it.

That is so extremely unfair it is sickening.

Furthermore, the state collects the 9% church tax for the churches... you are made an official member of the church at baptization - with no say in this, no free choice... then you are indoctrinated there with no say in it either... and then you have to start paying church-tax once you earn money... and if you want to leave church officially, so as not to have to pay the tax, you have to pay about 55 $... ain't that great?
Furthermore, a certain percentage of other taxes goes to support confessionally bound organizations... something that is also decidedly unfair.

And - what's worst... we have a blasphemy law. Or rather, we have a law that forbids "insulting a religion or world-view or its symbols where the insult is apt to cause a disturbance of the peace"... Meaning if you voice your opinion about a religion, the only thing that is needed to get you fined or in jail is that the people belonging to this religion are intolerant enough of criticism, or hidebound enough to cause trouble themselves.

That isn't all - just the most sickening of it.

Great Britain, Sweden etc still have official churches.

In the US, the national motto and the pledge of allegiance were changed in the McCarthy-Era to include references to god. Bush senior once said that he doesn't think atheists should be considered patriots or even citizens. Through prayer or even the religious references in the pledge in school, religion is forced upon the children, they are indoctrinated into accepting it or at least not criticizing it.

Negative religious freedom is valued far less than positive religious freedom almost everywhere.

The religious are allowed to say things about non-believers in public that would be considered extremely shameful and a disgrace if it weren't for the entrenchment of religion.

So, yes... there is abundant evidence.

547. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173411 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 6:30 pm

The catholic church has defined and redefined human dignity over and over again - always claiming infallibility and what they now claim is absolutely incompatible with what they claimed during the middle ages for example.

Now, women are supposed to have equal dignity, jews, and all people... that wasn't the case until a Vatican II.

You are getting your morals from an authority that has invoked its claim to authority to defend incompatible claims to knowing what human dignity is... you are getting your morals from a supposed and incoherent authority?

How can you justify this? How is this rational? How is this moral?

One of the greatest philosophers of all time, Immanual Kant, was religious. But he recognized that kneeling down before anything or anyone is contrary to human dignity, and that morality is autonomous. God for him was a necessary postulate of pure practical reason. But morality was to be found within, through the categorical imperative.

If one believes in god, this still seems far more rational than just accepting authority.

Also, I would appreciate a response to my last comment on this. EDIT: Oh, I see - take your time.

548. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173405 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm

DickDawkins,

he was a great man, even if he didn't exist, we could still learn from Jesus as a man, mythical man at the very least.

I agree - but you have to pick there, too... there are some unfortunate, not very commendable parts in the gospels as well. But I agree.

There is a picture of Dawkins with an "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt

I'm not arrogant enough to say that there is no possibility of there being one.

Most atheists don't say that - most say it's just so unlikely, there's just no evidence, so that there is no justification for a belief that any sort of God exists.

But most people who -like me- deny the possibility of god, are not arrogant - they are philosophers or logicians who see that for example the concept of a personal and non-temporal god is impossible, the concept of a personal and immutable god is impossible, the concept of omnipotence is logically impossible, the concept of aseity is impossible etc.

And they are. Many theologians see the point of these arguments, that they are valid, and then redefine god. You'd be surprised - the concept of god of philosophical theologians like Swinburne, Van Inwagen or Plantinga is so extremely different from the mainstream concept that you almost cannot find any real agreement between them.

The theologian Paul Tillich even had the wisdom to see that the arguments are so good that they are irreconcilable with speaking of god as a "being" or as "existing".

A logician, a philosopher is apt to judge these arguments.
Michael Martin for example, or Graham Oppy, or Richard M. Galen, or Lee Sobel, EDIT: or, of course, John Leslie Mackie.

I am also a logician and philosopher.
The arguments are valid. The defenses against them and the redefinitions, are however inadequate. But that is far more a matter of debate than the fact that the arguments show that any concept of god not highly artificial, constructed to avoid these criticisms is impossible.

As you correctly said the theologian already assumes that god exists - also they have to follow their dogma, and the catholic dogma for example clearly states that the existence of God can be demonstrated by unaided reason. (Which is clearly wrong). So how could they accept the criticisms? They have to try and redefine god again and again.

There is no one thing that is referred to by all the believers from the Jews to Scholastics to the modern mainstream Christians to the modern philosophical theologians... they don't believe in the same thing - there is no one thing to which all their beliefs point. So either only one of them is right, or none is. Aside from the conclusiveness of the arguments, what is more likely?

Anyway - the claim that god cannot exist is not arrogant. It is logical - in fact, purely logical.

549. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173346 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Goodness me, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Watched the daily show... they showed an interview with Supreme Court Justice Scalia, defending torture.

The interviewer asked: "When you look at the phrase 'cruel and unusual punishment', don't you think... don't you think that applies?"

To which his response was (brace yourselves):

"When has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment"...!

His defense of torture (doing this alone is just despicable) is not that it isn't cruel or unusual... but that it isn't punishment.

and later on he said: "Well, that's my opinion - and it happens to be correct"...

Dogma, ideology, double moral standards, nationalism, "knowing" that one is right because one stands for "freedom and justice", therefore nothing one can do can be unjust or restricting freedom.

Reminds me of "God is love, therefore the genocides must be just and showing his loving nature"...

I am very disgusted right now.

550. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173342 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 4:33 pm

I never thought I would get a link to "Dennett's parts"

...*shudder*

Thanks anyway :)