551. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87993 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 3:41 am

That is from one of Rtambree's posts, #111 on this thread.

I apologise.

552. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87992 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 3:36 am

I don't know how you mean that.

So?

Surely you are not suggesting that we must honestly ask somebody in need whether what they prefer, us to help them or to torture them, before deciding what's ethically best?

Yes. That is part of the approach.

Or that we must honestly discuss with other people whether to help people in need or to torture people in need is the right thing to do?

Yes. That is part of the approach.

Incidentally there are no graduations between "subjective" and "objective".

Yes, there are.

Perhaps you interpreting these concepts to refer to how confident one is about something one believes.

Yes.

But that's not what subjective and objective mean. "Subjective" characterizes those propositions that refer only to peoples' opinion. "Objective" characterizes those propositions that refer to something that is independently of peoples' opinion. There is not middle ground between them.

Yes there is.

I choose the former. Now suppose that God says "to use violence against other people is wrong in all cases" and I say "to use violence against other people is not wrong in all cases". These are both objective ethical propositions, because all ethical propositions refer to how objective reality (and hence God) actually is. The difference of course is that people cannot be certain about how God objectively is, so the ethical precepts they claim may be wrong. God, on the contrary, doesn't express an opinion but simply states how S/He is and therefore is always right. It's a simple idea; please let me know if don't explain it well.

Deary me. You have made a bit of a mistake here.

You have followed:

people cannot be certain about how God objectively is

with

God, on the contrary, doesn't express an opinion but simply states how S/He is and therefore is always right

Please point to the Universal Rightness meter that we can use to know that God is always right, otherwise, I am afraid, "God is always" right just has to go into the "Something Danielos just made up" bin.

553. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87990 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 3:26 am

Indistiguistable statements, for which Dialenos has the same amount of evidence.

* Except being a person, God is also perfectly good
* Except being a person, God is also 99% good
* Except being a person, God is also 98% good
* Except being a person, God is also 97% good
* Except being a person, God is also 96% good
.....
* Except being a person, God is also perfectly evil
* Except being a person, God just doesn't care
* Except being a person, God enjoys doing the Times Crossword

554. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87839 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 10:21 am

Look, you scientific naturalists believe that there is a physical/mechanical reality out there that produces our experience of life.

Do we?

All I believe is that stuff seems to happen and I want to use the simplest way of exploring it.

555. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87802 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 7:31 am

Is Dianelos trying to say that all positive scientific assertions are non-falsifiable and so are non-scientific, therefore he's entitled to be equally self-contradictory and wacky?

Yes, I believe that is precisely what he is trying to say. Although it is worse than that. He is attempting to justify the view that he is allowed to use his own criteria for 'wacky' (as, clearly, scientists have no clue about this with their mad ideas).

556. Holy communion

Comment #87801 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

Does this mean, however, that British satirists producing cartoons for British magazines read by a British audience should take into account the prejudices of the narrow-minded bigots in your part of the world?

I don't think that is the issue at all. It is a simple matter of respect. Should we laugh at people because of in-born characteristics? Is it funny if someone is female? If they are short? If they are black? Of course it isn't. Then gayness should not, of itself be considered an acceptable way to mock someone. This cartoon is bad because it uses offsensive playground-level humour: "Look - Dawkins is funny cos he is like a gay".

Surely it should be encouraging to one who lives in such a place to note that it is not that bad everywhere, that places exist where these issues are fringe issues of little political importance, and can be treated humourously?

It isn't a fringe issue. The established church in the UK is working to actively restrict my rights. Respected clerics in other faiths (Judaism, Catholocism, Islam) consider my lifestyle sinful, and say so in public, encouraging prejudice. We have members of smaller Churches (such as Wee Flea) coming on this site and asking why we think homosexuality is different from child molestation.

My rights as a gay man have increased beyond anything I imagined in my lifetime. But it has frequently been against the campaigns of the religious - the supposedly 'mild' religious groups
we are supposed to ally with, acording to this article. The cartoon suggests that it is more than just the religious who need to consider their views.

557. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87772 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 4:37 am

Better still an American fundamentalist's car?

Well, obviously it would have to be a convertible, with Rapture-sensitive roof.

558. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87767 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 4:05 am

Is there any Muslim organization that can speak on behalf of all Muslims? When were these "community leaders" elected?

I have the same problem when people talk of 'leaders of the Gay Community'. I do wonder if I have missed some kind of ballot form. Should I have signed up to some kind of 'queer electoral register'?

559. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87765 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 4:02 am

Translation: I want to cheat our immigration laws. Please look the other way whilst Jesus sneaks in without a passport.

But if the door's open to Jesus it's open to Osama.

I so envy your way with words.

560. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87764 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 4:00 am

Ok, let's not call war and bombing terrorism then.

Well, they can be. But not necessarily so.

But why is it morally more acceptable to shoot rockets from a far to a market at war than to ignite a car bomb in the same market in an act of terrorism? It seems that the word "terrorism" is often used as a way to elicit emotional response while "war" is almost a clinical way to linguistically put a distance between the perpetrator and the victim. That being the case it is legitimate to call state sponsored, whole sale terrorism by its name.

My understanding is that terrorism is about intent. If there is any direct targetting of civilians for the purpose of killing those not directly involved in combat, then that is terrorism, whether it is done by remotely fired cruise missile, or by car bomb.

I believe there is at least some case for calling the Hiroshima bomb an act of terrorism, as it was intended to cause the death of civilians and instill fear.

My problem is when the word 'terrorism' is extended to the point where it includes attacks on military or state targets that happen to include collateral deaths, when those deaths are not the intention.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance here. Are you suggesting mass murder in some remote country would be legitimized by a democratic vote here? The victims didn't get to elect these governments.

I agree. This comment was not well thought through.

Indeed your argument proves Chomsky's point that citizens of democratic countries are morally accountable for their governments' actions.

I am happy to agree with that point.

Edit Also, Chomsky didn't redefine any term, he uses the official definition of terrorism by esteemed institutions such as the U.S. government. The only difference is that he applies the definition consistently.

But here we go again. What does 'consistently' mean? I can consistently assert what I like. What matters is accepted use, not even official definitions. We have to come to a consensus. Specifically, though I was questioning Xenocratic's scattergun hyperbolic use of the term.

561. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87753 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 3:22 am

One must reason to one's own satisfaction and not to other peoples' satisfaction.

Not in matters that involve others. Then you have to collaborate, based on evidence. You should not just proclaim things based on faith. To do so is dangerous.

It's a fact that the kind of scientific naturalism that Dawkins expounds is full of growing holes and paradoxes (which are holes and paradoxes of that particular paradigm of reality and not of science I hasten to add once more).

No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. You can't get away with sneaking in 'it is a fact' without justification. You have provided none to our satisfaction.

The idea that one needs evidence for all claims is wrong, and it's easy to show why: Suppose you claim A and I ask for your evidence, so you present B, for which I also ask for your evidence, and so on. Either you will end up using a circular argument, i.e. giving evidence E for claim C, but then using C as evidence for E, which is clearly irrational. Or else you'll arrive at some proposition Z for which no more evidence can be given and which must be accepted as self-evident. (Examples of widely accepted self-evident beliefs include "objective reality exists", "the world did not start 5 minutes ago", "the inductive method is correct".

You are confusing claims with axioms and procedures.

It is entirely reasonable to say 'if you start from A, and follow this logical procedure, you will end up at B', and claim that as objectively true. It is not reasonable to claim that A is a fact, or self-evident, and no-one is.

Although I am beginning to doubt you really are confusing things. I suspect you know full well, and are just trying to score some kind of 'point' by tripping up atheists in word games. Part of the 'You can't disprove anything, so I am allowed to just make things up' strategy.

And part of my argument is that idealistic theism is a better explanation than scientific realism for the whole of my experience of life.

That is what we call 'delusion' and 'fundamentalist thinking'. Delusion - believing falsehoods. Fundamentalist thinking - continuing to believe those falsehoods in the face of argument and evidence.

I have used my personal judgment about absurdity and obviousness as part of my justification for what I believe is true, yes. I suppose you do the same when you reject solipsism.

I don't reject solipsism. I can't. I just don't consider it a workable approach to dealing with (what appears to be) others. It would not allow me to progress in any way. You know full well that judgement about what is absurd has failed mankind in the past, yet you persist. Evidence of a fundamentalist attitude.

I agree with you that dualism is a better explanation than scientific naturalism.

I never said that. It is also not an alternative to scientific naturalism, as it depends on what you define as natural. A dualist can consider consciousness part of the natural world.

I am happy to point out, comes a step closer towards idealism.

No, it doesn't. It does not deny the existence of the physical world.

Not to mention overpopulation because of the same reason. I agree with everything you write above. Religion is indeed being misused. And not only religion, by the way. Science too is being misused, say for the production of weapons of mass destruction, or for the destruction of the environment.

The big difference is that science can change its mind based on reason and evidence - resources that creationists like you reject.

562. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87749 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 3:08 am

I put it to any fair minded reader of this thread that the above remark about Xenocratic is ludicrous and totally unjustified.

I think it is unfair, but I would not agree that Xenocratic argues lucidly, even with his wide ranging knowledge. Examples are repeated putting of words into others mouths (as in 'but I also think totally discrediting all the positions he's ever taken on anything because of this mistake is just plain silly'), assuming to know the minds of others (as in 'are quick to ignore the flagrant hypocrisy which exists in bucket loads at the other end of the political spectrum') ridiculous hyperbole (as in 'One left-wing city mayor sending a limo over for al-Qaradawi (while ignoring his homophobia) is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different from the Queen [...] sucking up to, giving diplomatic support to, and arming, the House of Saud'), misuse of basic terms (like relativism - things don't become not relativist just because someone says so) and evasion (1948?).

His knowledge is impressive, but his argument technique is poor, and certainly not lucid. It does not do justice to that knowledge, which is a shame. No matter what someone's view, clarity of argument and avoidance of the traps mentioned above are important. I am not claiming that I am always as lucid as I should be; but that is not what is being discussed.

563. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87730 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 1:47 am

Of course if you accept as given that reality is naturalistic then any non-naturalistic argument will make no sense (it's what one calls the fallacy of begging the question). To understand an argument for God an atheist must first have the mental flexibility to temporarily drop their naturalistic intuitions.

I don't necessarily accept that reality is naturalistic. I don't know what reality is. I just find that a naturalistic model is the simplest and most productive way to explore things. You are the one making the claims. You are the one who knows (because 'it is obvious') that reality consists of God.

And, as I have pointed out countless times, that there are at least a billion people who don't believe in a God (and are therefore atheist) but are open to more than naturalism. They are called Buddhists.

So every sentence you have written here is wrong.

564. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87728 by steve99 on November 13, 2007 at 1:39 am

The US/UK invasion of Iraq didn't receive a mandate from the UN

That, of course, is a subject of debate. Ask some people and they will say they didn't ask others (like Hitchens) and they will say they did, because of internal geonocide and other reasons.

But I see no point continuing, not when you are so sure of all your points, and I am so stubborn!

565. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87671 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm

phasmagigas:

It turns out Dianelos (and/or his source for that statement) has been confusing 'metal' with 'alloy'. The idea is that as there are an infinite number of alloys, you can't be sure of their properties. This is supposed somehow to be some kind of problem with naturalism. Go figure.

It is, of course, nonsense anyway. I don't think anyone would disagree with the statements that whatever the composition of an alloy, it is going to melt somewhere below a trillion degrees.

566. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87668 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Seems even Muslims have a hard time agreeing with him...

It seems Dr Bari's comments have had quite an effect. But probably not the one he intended.

567. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87666 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Really? Where exactly have I claimed that holes in the scientific explanations of physical phenomena point to some kind of supernatural explanation?

Well, 'Many Worlds' is a scientific explanation for the physical phenomenon of quantum mechanics. It may well be testable. However, you claim it is 'absurd', so therefore it is problematic.

Also, you believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That is a physical phenomenon. There is no scientific explanation for it. Even if it was just an illusion created by God in the brains of the disciples, that too is a physical phenomenon with no scientific explanation for it.

But consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, rather consciousness must be already given in order for us to be able to know about physical phenomena in the first place.

That is called 'begging the question'. You need to show that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. And 'it is obvious' may be good enough for you, but not as a debating point here.

Dianelos... is it really worth you trying to continue with all this debating? We already know that you base what you belief on is 'it is obvious', and that you are basically trying to use 'you can't disprove anything, therefore I can believe anything' as arguments to convince us of your point of view. That is not going to work, is it? We have higher standards than that. As should you. As should everyone if we are going to be safe from religious fundamentalism.

568. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87548 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Anyway, I destroyed his whole dumb worldview down to the subatomic particles several pages ago, so I dunno why this is still going.

Because he believes in resurrection. Or perhaps you only think you destroyed his worldview. It was God fooling with your mind.

569. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87532 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 11:39 am

You must understand that Chomsky has long been reviled by the media establishment because he has been the bringer of uncomfortable truths, namely that they are part of a propaganda machine.

That isn't the issue. He is also disliked by some fellow left-wingers because he at least appears to publish things that just aren't true, like his description of what happened in Bosnia and Serbia.

Even if this is only a matter of things appearing to be false, you have to remember Chomsky is a master of language.

Imagine Saudi Arabia invaded England, would it then be "extreme" to refer to the Saudis as terrorists? Of course it wouldn't

I am afraid it would. Because that is not what terrorism means, or at least not as most people use it. There is a difference between war and terrorism. There is a difference between bombing and terrorism. No matter how awful or wicked the war or the bombing or other acts may be.

I think there is a unsubtle attempt to redefine words here so that major democratically-elected world governments can be put on a par with suicide bombers. You may or may not think that is true, but you won't get there by misusing language.

570. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87521 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 11:03 am

It's not about what I "think are Chomsky's views", but what he has stated about a particular issue.

That is the problem. We have varying reports of what he has stated. We have claims that he has changed what he has stated.

I also don't "filter" people out because they're "capitalist lackeys", but whether or not they are accurate in their assertions or they can cogently argue their points.

That sounds a little circular. You read some writers to determine what is accurate, but you need to know what is accurate to select which writers to read.

You are clearly not going to budge an inch on the Livingstone issue

I doubt it. Many friends have tried to change my mind, and have not succeeded so far.

I don't think it was wise for him to associate with a Muslim reactionary even if this move was, as you acknowledge, "well intentioned"

I don't acknowledge that. That was just one of my thoughts on the matter. Other thoughts are less charitable.

but I also think totally discrediting all the positions he's ever taken on anything because of this mistake is just plain silly.

That is hyperbole. I never said that at all. If I were a Londoner I would still prefer him over the appalling Boris Johnson.

I also refuse to see him as part of the problem when Labour have completely sold out their ideals and still insist on "cosying" up to those major international terrorists who occupy the White House, with all the attendant carnage which continues to ensue from this "special relationship".

It is unconnected. And I am afraid I find terms like 'completely sold out on their ideals' and 'major international terrorists who occupy the White House' to be extreme. As someone who has benefited from the government's introduction of Civil Partnerships and major legislation for gay rights, I think that first phrase is just plain silly. The second is not worth even commenting on.

Livingstone "honouring" Al-Qaradawi was a terrible blunder, but I'm really not prepared to obsess over it while there are far bigger criminals out there who need to be stopped.

I am not asking for obsession - just honesty. A simple statement that it was wrong, and it was offensive. It seems you have given that. I just wonder why it was so hard, and took so long, but I am glad we got there.

571. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87508 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 10:36 am

Two apples and the number two are different. The first is concrete, the second is abstract.

I honestly believe he knows, and his declarations of what naturalism is supposed to be is just wordplay.

572. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87504 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 10:19 am

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, but accurately representing Chomsky's views.

What you think are Chomsky's views. That is why we need to be skeptics. This is why we need to read widely, and not filter out those we don't like as "capitalist lackeys" or whatever.

You glibly assert that he is "cosying up to reactionary clerics" without considering why this might be so,

How do you know I didn't consider why this might be so? I have had many thoughts about this. "Well intentioned, but incredibly naive" is one.

or why the gay and lesbian community still supports Livingstone despite this so-called "cosying up".

What support? Do you realise the harm he has caused? He has alienated many with his actions.

By acknowledging the fact that Livingstone has fraternised with this "reactionary" how was I ignoring it?

By not condemning it.

I was merely pointing out that by doing this Livingstone wasn't killing or oppressing anybody

I believe he was oppressing people, at least a little, by implying to some through his actions that reactionary views were acceptable, or at least tolerable, within Muslim communities.

I agree with you that he shouldn't have come anywhere close to someone like Al-Qaradawi, but on the scale of "vile" actions this hardly even registers

It registers.

considering that, as I indicated in my last post, Livingstone doesn't endorse any of the cleric's repulsive views nor does he even remotely advocate them.

When you declare that it is an "honour" when someone turns up to an event, that is an endorsement.

573. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87495 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 9:35 am

I have never read anything by Francis Wheen, but if, as Fanusi Khiyal intimated earlier, he accuses Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot, then Wheen is simply a liar because Chomsky never did this.

So you have never read Francis Wheen, but if he disagrees with you, he must be wrong.

Now what is worse, selling arms to one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, or sending a limo to pick up some powerless Islamic cleric? This isn't moral relativism, or hypocrisy, but simply rationality, and if you can't see that these two acts are orders of magnitude apart I'm afraid there's little hope for you.

It certainly is moral relativism and it is worryingly hypocritical. Livingstone was wrong, regardless of whatever anyone else has done, and to ignore that is appalling.

You may think that cosying up to reactionary clerics with frightening views is a minor character flaw. I call it a major error of judgement that has alienated many on the left.

574. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87487 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 8:57 am

If that's what you believe then you disagree with scientific naturalism. You see, scientific naturalism claims that everything that objectively exists, exists in the physical universe that (according to scientific naturalism) science studies.

No it doesn't. You are just making this up. Scientific naturalism does not claim that Pi (an infinite number, after all) objectively exists in the physical universe. Please look up the meaning of the word 'abstract'.

(Epeeist sums this up with his usual eloquence).

But if complex things can "just be" then why should one explain them? They "just are". That's what theists claim about God and that's what Dawkins disallows.

No, that is nonsense. We only trust things that 'just are' exist when we have objective evidence for them. And theists don't claim that God 'just exists'. They claim that God is an explanation for other, less complex things.

Incidentally, Dawkins does not really give any evidence for his belief that complex things that objectively exist can't "just be", nor for his belief that the ultimate explanation is simple: I suppose for him it's just obvious that these two propositions are true ;-)

No. It is the basis for rational investigation, based on millenia of experience. We don't just make things up like you do.

Different types of objective things (e.g. some existing inside the physical universe and amenable to experimental verification, some existing outside of the physical universe and not amenable to experimental verification) obviously require different methodologies of investigation.

No. Everything is subject to experimental verification, even abstract mathematics. People can independently work through the description of the proof.

I already gave you one: that you can explain all physical phenomena using scientific theory and without assuming that the physical universe objectively exists.

No, that is a proposition, not an experiment. Please describe an experiment that will verify idealistic theism. You need to show that extra 'God' bit.

Ah, but you recall that I have already conceded that I believe in some propositions because I find them obvious.

That's why your attitude is so very dangerous. Bin Laden believes in different propositions because he finds them obvious. Keeping slaves was obvious. That women are inferior to men is obvious to many.

It is also a sign that you refuse to learn from history. I have already shown how 'obviousness' has failed again and again as any measure of truth. But for some reason, you know better.

Anyway, you are trying to convince us that these are objectively true. So please provide evidence. What you believe personally is up to you. But when you try and persuade others, you better have evidence, or we are entitled to dismss your views.

It's you who claim that you have evidence for all propositions you believe in. So I challenge you to substantiate this impressively sounding claim and present your evidence that all ethics is subjective.

I did not claim I have evidence for all propositions I believe in (or if I did, I forget). All I am saying is that I don't expect others to believe things I believe unless I can provide evidence for them.

I have plenty of evidence that ethics is subjective. The fact that there is such a diversity of opinion about them. The existence of psychopaths.

Oh, let's start with a much simpler task. You have still not offered your evidence that the moon (or even simpler: the Statue of Liberty) objectively exists. And, according to what you yourself have been teaching in this forum, what one happens to find obvious or what other people say does never count as sufficient evidence for objective truth.

I agree. Which is why I don't find them obvious. I am at least led to believe that some photons that have bounced off these objects have entered my eyes?

So where are the photons that have bounced off the universal meter which shows God is perfectly good? Surely if you believe God is universally good, you must have some evidence for it?

Or is this yet another stab at 'I can believe anything because you can't disprove anything'? Are you REALLY resorting to that? Are you that lacking in evidence and argument?

I really think you have been exposed. You are prepared to believe that things are objectively true for everyone simply because 'it is obvious', and you expect us to believe whatever you say 'because not everything can be absolutely proved'.

And you condemn Dawkins for poor use of philosophy? Are you serious?

(By the way, I accidentally flagged this post as offensive. It was not intended! I clicked the mouse in the wrong place, and in the wrong window.)

575. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87467 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 7:46 am

But Dr. Bari is speaking for apparently 2 million Muslims.

He may think he is, but he isn't. There have been frequent complaints from other muslim groups that the goverment has picked the MCB as a point of contact with 'the Muslim Community' when it is far from representative.

This will give those other groups ammunition to push their case that other voices need to be heard.

576. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87462 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 7:40 am

A metal can be any alloy

No, a metal is an element. An alloy is an alloy.

That all metals melt at some temperature is clearly a meaningful (not to mention an almost certainly true) scientific proposition which cannot be corroborated or falsified by experiment.

Yes, it can be. We know the maximum strength of the bonds between elements. We know that above a certain temperature all elements will exist not just a gas, but a plasma. The melting temperature is less than that.

I read it in a paper written by a naturalist philosopher discussing the problems of naturalism.

Well this is not one of those problems.

577. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87444 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 6:32 am

steve99, remember though that the theistic universe isnt the same as the naturalistic one with god just 'added', its something totally different!!! sorry, i felt i need remind you of that before somebody else does :)

Ah... but now I am REALLY confused :)

Just I minute, I think I have it: they are different, but the same, as you can't distinguish between them by experiment.

No... lost it.

578. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87412 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 3:56 am

Nevertheless, I think it's finally time to put paid to the sorry saga of Keith's comments.

Oh dear. Surely you realise that in debates like these, it is virtually impossible to achieve that kind of closure....

Actually, I think Keith has done rather well, and has put forward points that have not been refuted.

And by the way...

Oh, and he dares to call Ken Livingstone "vile", which as others have pointed out on this thread, isn't merely despicably excessive, it's not based on any meaningful evidence.

Stop being so selective. So far in this thread we have you defining which journalists we should trust, you selecting which evidence you want us to take note of, and now you are ignoring others on this thread who agree with Keith's assement, and you are attempting to define 'meaningful' your own way.

If you surround yourself only with people whose views you want to hear, and if you allow yourself to define your own terms, then you will end up closing yourself off from the real world.

579. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87410 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 3:42 am

Extra credit for you for reading a chapter ahead.

Apologies for my pushiness.

580. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87393 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 2:45 am

Yes and, as I said already, by the same measure idealistic theism too predicts that the orbits of planets can be calculated only using current theories of gravity, and no additional fact will need to be invoked, such as the objective existence of gravity, or of the physical universe for that matter.

Great. So this proves my point. There is no evidence that distinguishes idealistic theism from scientific naturalism. So in that case, I go for the simpler solution. The one without added 'God'.

Thank you!

581. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87391 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 2:41 am

I was discussing worldviews that posit that fundamental reality is physical, which is not what Chalmers is proposing. Rather he is proposing a dualistic ontology in which both physical matter and conscious experience are fundamental. So that's a different case.

I know it is a different case. That is my point. You are trying to show flaws in a naturalistic viewpoint in order to justify a theistic viewpoint. As you have pointed out, there is at least one more possibility: a dualist viewpoint with no God. Therefore, claiming that consciousness is a problem for a naturalistic model of the world is clearly no justification for a God. It is not enough. You need specific evidence for the God bit.

And what other people say is the proof of what's objective?

No, it is evidence for what's objective.

But what other people say is the very antithesis of objectivity: something is supposed to be objectively true independently of peoples' opinion.

Indeed. And we get hints about what is objective by finding out what people say that is consistent, so indicating what is independent of viewpoint. It isn't proof - it is evidence.

There was a time that everybody saw that the Earth is in the middle of the universe, and surely that was not proof for that.

No proof, but lots of evidence.... all that flatness...

Also suppose you found yourself alone on an island with no possibility to speak with other people: Would that state of affairs make it impossible for you to think about objective truth?

Gosh no. One can think about anything.

Remember that one can also get to objective truth through formal logic. So one could come up with a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in isolation. That is very much the way Andrew Wiles acheived it.

Also remember that you aren't claiming the use of any such process in your justification of objective ethics. You simply say 'it is obvious'. That is neither proof, nor evidence.

Finally what proof do you have that other people objectively exist in the first place?

All these questions! But you are the one making the claims, not me. You claim that God exists, is perfectly good and so on.

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you should be allowed to get away with claiming that, without having to provide evidence, because 'we can't prove anything'?

This is really resorting to playground logic...

"God exists"
"Show me"
"I don't need to because you can't prove anything ... Nyahh!"

There is nothing that comes close to proving that the moon objectively exists Steve. There isn't even a good probabilistic argument that the moon objectively exists. But I can understand that people who take their philosophy from reading TGD are unaware of that.

Sorry, this doesn't work in your favour. If you claim that there is a problem with knowing what objectively exists, then you are in no position to claim that objective ethics exists.

You do keep shooting yourself in the foot with your attempts at logic.

Also, you need to stop being so bitchy about what you believe is in TGD, as you have clearly shown you have misread it. As in the examples of claiming that Dawkins is against all ideas of a Creator (only unevolved ones), and claiming that complex things can't "just be" (they can, but that is no evidence for a more complex creator).

Dr Benway is suggesting a path you might want to consider: Stop worrying about objective reality and limit your beliefs to propositions about phenomenal reality. In the context of phenomenal reality naturalism clearly makes eminent sense.

Not to you, as you claim phenomenal reality includes the resurrection of Jesus.

If you were simply an idealistic theist, I might have some slight sympathy for your views. The problem is, you have to add all that extra magic.

582. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87378 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 2:06 am

both scientific naturalism and idealistic theism agree with phenomenal reality

Not according to you. You claim that phenomenal reality includes the resurrection of Jesus.

583. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87357 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 1:11 am

Sure, and that's why it's so naive to ask people for "proof".

Not when religious views have consequences, such as the mutilation of women.

584. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87260 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm

All parties involved would include the 19 martyrs plus 3000 New Yorkers, passengers on 3 planes, all the Pentagon employees, me, Afghanistan, etc.

Indeed, which is why 'somebody other' needs to be qualified.

585. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87259 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Ignoring them is not good enough. These people should be exposed, criticized and ostracized mercilessly. A strong message must be sent that their views are incompatible with and unacceptable in a liberal democratic society like Britain.

I was being too mild. You are right.

586. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87247 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Dianelos might think that he discovers right and wrong by going into his bedroom and pondering deep questions. But in fact, ethical rules are established by agreement. Somebody other than Dianelos needs to be involved in the process.

I think you need to extend things further than that.

One person pondering deep questions can lead to a single fanatic. Several people pondering deep questions and coming to the same conclusion can lead to 9/11.

It think sanity requires more than just 'somebody other'.

587. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87243 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Britain must, he warns, beware of becoming like Nazi Germany.

In terms of views about Jews, women and homosexuals, the best way we can avoid that is to stop listening to him and his evil views.

588. Holy communion

Comment #87238 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:49 pm

If it wasn't for the out'n'proud sign I'm not sure I'd be convinced this was really an anti-gay anti-dawkins cartoon though.

Sorry to go on about this, but I really feel that this an anti-Dawkins cartoon because the artist feels that it is acceptable to mock the out'n'proud campaign by comparing it to the gay 'out' campaign, as if that compaign was somehow funny.

I am actually pretty astonished by the lack of upset on this site. Do people think that the portrayal of Dawkins in the persona of a campaigning but comic camp gay man is acceptable? Are gay people funny? Is it acceptable to portray gay people as conforming to an effeminate stereotype? Should one laugh at that stereotype? We live in societies where many religious people consider gay people not a figure of fun, but evil.

I find this cartoon deeply offensive.

589. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87203 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm

I think you are under the mistaken impression that my goal here is to convince you of my position.

After having debated with you for months, I am now convinced that this is precisely your goal. I believe you feel your position is fragile (and I am not surprised). Unless you can convince your most active critic that your opinion has validity, or at least can somehow evade criticism, this threatens your worldview, to which you have a huge emotional investment.

You, on the contrary, believe that it's only a matter of subjective opinion to believe that it's better to help somebody in need instead of torturing them.

No, I don't believe that. I believe that there is something intermediate between subjective and absolutely objective. It is called honesty. It means we just don't know, and we have to work together to find out what is the best way forward. You need more honesty.

Yes, but God is not just any conscious person that is part of reality; God is the whole of reality, and reality is what represents what is objective independently from your or mine opinion.

That doesn't work. A person is subjective, and has subjective opinions. You can either choose a Personal God, or you can choose a Spinozan God, who is nothing more than the instantiation of the laws of the universe.

If you choose the former, then God's opinions are subjective, and subject to debate. If you choose the latter, then God has no opinion, and you have to find some other justification for 'objective ethics'. Which do you choose?

590. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87189 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 12:18 pm

the thesis that religious moderates enable fundamentalists is simply wrong and it is not backed up by evidence. It is an irrational dogma of some atheists, often repeated like a mantra without reflection (and it proves that not only religious people can be dogmatic and blind)

I can give you examples of this not being irrational dogma.

The first is the attempt by the Anglican church to be 'inclusive'. This means that the Archbishop of Cantebury panders to reactionary African bishops because he is not prepared to dismiss the fundamentalists.

The second is something you have commented on today. It is the Ken Livingstone treating the reactionary Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi as an honoured guest because he did not want to offend Muslims in general.

591. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87182 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:52 am

what resources she has when life goes badly wrong

Partners, family, friends.

(moving away from the completely personal) whether an atheist has any solutions for a suffering world

Just the same as the religious. Charity, empathy, compassion. We just don't look to a God to inspire those.

and whether any of it matters anyway.

Personally, I think it matters far more. If this life is all we have, then we need to do more to make it better for ourselves and for future generations than if there was an afterlife. We aren't preparing ourselves and others for some imaginary paradise. We have to make here and now as good as we can.

592. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87174 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:37 am

No, please no - don't let DG loose on cricket

I guess it should have been football. Perhaps he could come up with an idealist theistic explanation for the offside rule.

eepeist, what do you care, looks to me you are a golfer :)

He is FAR more dangerous than that...

Wikipedia:

"The épée ('ep.eɪ) is the modern derivative of the original duelling sword, the rapier, used in sport fencing. Épée is French for "sword"."

593. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87172 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:32 am

But the steak was delicious, Steve.

First, I am kind of vegetarian (well, I avoid eating mammals. When I can). Secondly, I find myself completing the above statement ..."with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

(Incidentally, apologies for the picture. There seems to be a glitch in the site which has reverted things to the way they were a few days back. No criticism intended for Josh - he does a fine job. When the forum facility is back, I will update things).

594. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87168 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:26 am

Experiences that discourage my confidence in this notion:

Sheesh! You and your evidence. You are such a party pooper.

Iguess it's the quality of our personal relationships that is of supreme importance.

Absolutely. If we live on in any way, it is through our relationships with others.

I have been to too many funerals in recent years. But the one thing these (secular) occasions have impressed on me is the value of relationships.

595. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87165 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:21 am

Well, the fact that scientific research today has become much more complex than it was even in the recent past, and that (on average) in order to excel today scientists must single-mindedly work their craft is I think common knowledge.

All that means is that they have to specialise in terms of science. It gives no indication of their knowledge of other areas, be it art, philosophy, cricket...

Scientists' general disdain for philosophy is also well-known I think.

Is it? I just don't know.

Now my claim is that the existence of God is the better explanation for the whole of our experience of life, and therefore I predict that humanity as a whole will move towards that realization in the future.

But that is the problem, isn't it? You can claim all you like, but we really do need evidence for claims. Simply stating the same thing again and again, no matter how sincerely you believe it achieves nothing.

I am afraid you have not done well in trying to convince us of this. All the claims you have made in attempting to show that the existence of God is a better explanation have been refuted - if not to your satisfaction, then at least to the satisfaction of most people here. You have made claims about complexity that have been refuted. You have tried to use personal opinions about absurdity and obviousness as justifications for truth. You have tried to use the existence of consciousness as evidence for theism, even though it has been shown that even some of the most prominent dualists don't accept that view.... I could go on and on.

I understand that a belief in the existence of God may supply a huge emotional support for someone, but that is no indication of it being true. And I think humanity, if it is to mature and survive, needs to face truth. Part of facing truth is realising than one can be deluded, and one has to discuss and 'compare notes' with others to find out what is really going on. I think this is where you approach fails worst. What Dianelos believes is absurd or obvious is no better guide to reality than what Steve believes is absurd or obvious. I have the honesty to realise that. Do you?

Indeed I find it probable that modern atheism will play a positive role by helping bring religion's many flaws to the surface which will force religious people to deal with them and clean up their house as it were.

I honestly hope so.

And new atheism's visibility will motivate scientific research about and I think falsification of some of its principal claims, namely that religious belief is conducive to immoral behavior and/or that atheism is conducive to moral behavior. We shall to wait and see.

I think we have an urgent problem, which means we can't wait. This is religious people actually undertaking immoral behaviour right now, and threatening worse. We have riots and assaults because of cartoons. We have support for mutilation of young girls because of religious belief. We have people dying of AIDS because a major world religion proclaims condoms immoral.

This is why we simply can't allow personal religious beliefs to be the basis of any public policies - it is too dangerous. We have to base our societies on rationality based on discussion and evidence. For example, your 'objective good' differs from many others 'objective good', so the only way to progress is to negotate what 'good' should mean.

596. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87154 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:01 am

So, we live and we die

I'll admit I don't know. I am prepared to believe otherwise... but only if I see good evidence.

Atheism is not about whether or not all we do is live and then die. It is about a lack of belief in Gods, and that is all. Whether or not you believe in the continuation of life after death does not rely on a belief in Gods.

I am not saying that I do believe in life after death. I don't. But it is far, far less improbable than the existence of a supreme being.

597. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87132 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 9:31 am

But then, this individual will take this well thought out, but ultimately exceptionally flawed, way of thinking to very unsophisticated people, and will whelm them into accepting these irrational statements as valid arguments.

That is indeed the danger. Much (OK, most) of what Dianelos writes are like those math puzzles that after a long series of equations, show that 1 = 2 or something similar. It all looks so convincing, but you just know that somewhere in there is a division by zero carefully hidden - a logical mistake.

There simply are not enough Steve99s out there to counter Dianelos Georgoudis' particular brand of irrational statements because, to be honest, Dianelos Georgoudis would have wiped the ground with most of you others who responded here if he had just debated you.

That is flattering, but not fair to so many contributors, who frequently manage to put forward a point in a sentence, or even a word, that takes me far longer. (I need not name names, you know who you are)

598. Holy communion

Comment #87130 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 9:25 am

I see no reason to bother about it myself.

As I said, try and imagine your reaction if they were poking fun at Dawkins by drawing him as black, or asian...

599. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87126 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

how well do you think they did?

They didn't need to impose atheism. The majority of Chinese, being Buddhists, either did not believe in Gods, or thought they were irrelevant to how we should live our lives. China has been predominantly atheist for centuries. Mao illustrates what happens when you place a dictator in power, not an atheist.

600. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87124 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 9:08 am

In the context of explaining physical phenomena I am a naturalist too.

No, you aren't. You claim there are holes in the explanations of physical phenomena that point to a non-naturalist explanation. You claim that the only explanation for what is going on is that a supernatural agent - God - influences our minds.