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

Comment #87101 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 8:07 am

I didn't say that. I said condemnation should be proportional to the crime. It's not a dichotomous world - all can be condemned. One party doesn't have to be condemned at the exclusion of the other.

I am not disagreeing. All I am saying is that Livingstone should be condemned for the nature of his association with reactionary clerics.

Hyperpatriotic yanks would be one subgroup of reflexive Chomsky critics, but certainly not the only group (see post #120 above for a list of others).

I am glad you distinguish between reflexive and non-reflexive critics.

602. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87100 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 8:06 am

Can you be more specific?

Sweden is a good example.

603. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87099 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 8:04 am

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that mathematical objects (such as numbers) exist objectively, but without any substance (either physical or supernatural). So, I wonder, where exactly in the universe are these objects?

They don't exist anywhere in the universe. That is what 'abstract' means. Things don't have to exist anywhere in the universe to be objectively true. The difference between mathematics and ethics is that there are logical steps to mathematical truths given simple axioms. There are no such logical steps to ethical 'truths' from simple axioms.

Further, some mathematical objects are very complex, and according to Dawkins in TGD it's not good enough to say "they just are"; rather one must give a simple explanation for them.

No, that is not what Dawkins says at all. He does not say that complex things can't "just be". What he says is that it is unreasonable to explain the existence of complex things using more complex things.

I really think you need to go back and read TGD again. Carefully. You seem to have little idea of its content. We have seen this before when you claimed Dawkins was against the idea of a Creator, when all he actually is against are Creators that have not evolved.

So how were they formed? Where to they come from?

They just are. They are where you get to if you choose certain axioms, unlike ethics.

We all agree on the value of Pi (well, apart from some religious), but not on the meaning of good and evil. If you have some method of determining good and evil that is equivalent to the formula for calculating Pi, you would make philosophical history.

And by the way, you still owe me an experimental prediction of idealistic theism. And evidence for objective ethics. And how I find the universal right-and-wrong meter that will reveal that God is perfectly good.

604. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87086 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 6:49 am

I am surprised that the people in this forum seem more interested in picking hole in my puny arguments than in asserting their own view of truth.

We are asserting our view of the truth (there is no God or Gods) in challenging the claims of the religious.

Tell me, what does atheim have to offer the world, and what evidence of atheistic societies can you provide?

Freedom from people claiming that they have divine backing for their conflicting, and sometimes repugnant and reactionary, views. There will still be unpleasant views, but without the religious support that it is considered anywhere between impolite and taboo to challenge.

If you want to look at atheistic societies, just look at many Northern European countries, or those where the population is primarily Buddhist. You will see no lack of morality there.

605. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87078 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 6:36 am

well, that is an excellent question. Who do you think is to say which is right?

I don't think anyone can. My view is that if there are so many different views of what is right and wrong under the label of 'Christianity', it is best to consider Christianity an unreliable source, and we need to start from scratch, and build our morals on other principles, without the 'God said...' baggage that seems to allow to many to justify heavenly authority for such a range of different views.

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

Comment #87076 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 6:32 am

So I ask you which is the greater offense? How do you reconcile spending so many posts attacking Livingstone's "honoured friend" phrase while ignoring abuses against homosexuals on a vastly more serious scale, all supported by right wing governments?

Sorry, but I don't buy into this reconciling business. I am not prepared to forgive Livingstone's foolishness because he is not as bad as others. That would be the kind of skewed 'looking the other way' viewpoint that I dislike in Chomsky and others.

The gay community were fine with Livingstone about it - they didn't feel he was out of line. You're taking it a lot more seriously.

This is nonsense. There was great upset.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3888419.stm

'outside City Hall, homosexual groups rallied against the cleric holding banners that read: "Qaradawi endorses stoning of gays" and "Defend Muslims, fight Muslim homophobia".'

'Peter Tatchell, of gay rights group OutRage!, said: "It is an insult to every man and woman in London that he has been given a platform.'

And it was not just homosexuals:

'Green MEP Jean Lambert, a staunch campaigner against the hijab ban, pulled out of the conference to avoid sharing a platform with the cleric after being told that he described homosexuality as a disease that needed a cure - possibly death. '

607. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87067 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 6:14 am

You are right to be confused. But getting to know God is more than simply finding the right set of legalistic rules with which to bolster our own vain opinions or to further our own selfish ends.

Fine. But while you are saying this, millions of Christians are using the bible to bolster their own opinions. You have your claims about the bible, and they have theirs. The only difference is you have an internal set of feelings about what is wright, and they have theirs. Who is to say which is right?

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

Comment #87065 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 6:10 am

Can you elaborate? Are you talking gays?

That is one of the groups, yes.

If so, this has already been addressed above: Livingstone didn't ignore their views, (in fact they support him and he them)

He did ignore their views in this case, in giving prominence to such reactionary people.

and the cleric isn't in any position powerful enough to threaten their rights in London.

Yes, he is. Actions speak louder than words. Treating him as a friend, no matter what you say, encourages those who share his views. Also, I care about people all over the world, not just in London. In al-Qaradawi's native Egypt homosexuality is a criminal offence.

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

Comment #87057 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 5:49 am

As regards to the conference: it's a question of tactics. Do you help or hinder community relations if all groups are represented in discussion, or if one or more than you disagree with are excluded.

That is difficult, I agree. The problem with the Livingstone approach is when you don't just being groups into the discussion, but when you treat people whose views on basic human rights are repulsive as if they were honoured friends, and you ignore the views of groups whose rights these people threaten.

but given the fact the right are actually in power,

In London, Livingstone is in power.

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

Comment #87054 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 5:37 am

What to you mean by clean up? Only when the left is 100% perfect, then it is to be taken seriously? Is the left monolithic anyway? Is it even humanly possible for any political movement to attain these standards?

No, it isn't. But that does not mean things can't, and shouldn't be better. It does not mean we should not condemn pandering to religious reactionaries.

One left-wing city mayor sending a limo over for al-Qaradawi (while ignoring his homophobia) is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different from the Queen, PM and US President sucking up to, giving diplomatic support to, and arming, the House of Saud, with all its many human rights abuses.

Of course it is, but does that mean you won't condemn it? I mean how hard would it be not to appear friendly with those whose support you may need, but whose views you find repugnant?

Yes, one does win moral arguments in this fashion - as it is consequences that count, not abstractions about being perfect before you can act.

Calling it an "honour" when someone who believes homosexuality is evil and who won't condemn female genital mutilation turns up is not abstract. And it did have consequences. Many left-wingers refused to be associated with events where this obnoxious cleric appeared, and it did harm to the cause.

When Thatcher sat down for tea with Pinochet, that was condemned, and rightly so. But when Livingstone does the same with religious reactionaries, we are supposed to ignore it; hand-wave it away with claims that the right-wing are worse?

What hypocrisy.

611. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87048 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 5:23 am

You are quite right to denounce any Christians or People who purport to be Christians who use the Bible to justify slavery. I think that this is where to confusion lies for Atheists. Being a Christian who follows what God requires of him i.e. "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6 v8) is not the same at all as someone who claims to be a Christian and uses the power of the church institution and quotes from the Bible to justify his own selfish ends.

We are understandably confused. Because we hear so many versions of "acting justly" from people who use the same source book - the Bible. Just as in the past, some thought it was just to have slaves, many now think it is just to condemn homosexuality - and why not? It says so.

If you are simply going to pick from the Bible what matches your own view of what is just and merciful and humble, there is no point having the book in the first place.

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

Comment #87046 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 5:12 am

Steve99, who want to take the moral high ground and constantly accuse others, such as Galloway or Livinstone or Chomsky, of being hypocrites are quick to ignore the flagrant hypocrisy which exists in bucket loads at the other end of the political spectrum.

I condemn hypocricy of all kinds. I don't think you can point to any evidence that I do otherwise, and to claim it smacks of desperation.

I am left-wing, some may even call me socialist. I want to be one of the good guys, which is why I want the left-wing to 'clean up', and stop using these tactics.

One doesn't win any moral arguments with claims that we may be bad, but at least we aren't as bad as the right wingers.

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

Comment #87031 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:44 am

Your accusation doesn't work because Yusuf al-Qaradawi's antigay stance isn't supported by Livingstone.

But that is precisely my point. That is what I dislike about Livingstone, Galloway and others.

It is the tendency to compartmentalise, to mentally filter out the abominable views of some people who would decades ago have been considered reactionary fanatics by the left, in the cause of the good fight against the right. It is a 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' approach. At least if Livingstone HAD put forward anti-gay policies, it would be less hypocritical.

You have to note as well that Livingstone did not just talk to al-Qaradawi to help with community relations. He sent limousines to chauffeur him around. He called it an "honour" when al-Qaradawi attended a meeting.

As Peter Tatchell said: "It is an insult to every man and woman in London that he has been given a platform."

It seems entry into the "vile club" is exceedingly easy.

Gosh no. You have to put a lot of effort in, like Livingstone has.

614. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #87029 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:28 am

To restate my opinion on the original thread where the cartoon is posted, I do not believe that Dawkins is being presented as a gay stereotype, rather his characteristic exhuberance and sense of wonder are being exaggerated.

I think you may need to look again :)

The overt gay community has for a long time courted controversy and indulged in shameless self-parody.

There is no problem with that. Self-parody is not the problem.

A bit of mocking him can be taken tongue in cheek and does not affect his credibility in the slightest.

Absolutely. I don't take issue with the mocking of it self - it was how it was done.

In short, to my jaded, bourgeois eyes at least, the gay community and its various tropes are pretty much mainstream cultural property in Britain these days and thus need no special treatment.

I am not so optimistic. We still get gay-bashing, even murders. We have even had to fight for the right not to be discriminated by businesses this year, against pressure from the Churches. There are faith communities

I am afraid I see the problem as Dawkins being mocked through a portrayal as gay. I think it is shameful.

615. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87028 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:16 am

I am not sure what your prediction actually predicts

It 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 supernatural.

The answer is: The movement of the planets as observed in our conscious experience is directly caused by God.

That won't do. I asked for an experimental prediction, not an opinion about how it happens. You will first need to provide hard evidence that God exists, and that he causes our experience. We will need to be able to test those by experiment. And, 'it is obvious' is not evidence.

How does God manage to push our conscious experience in this way? The answer is: Roughly in the same way that physical gravity manages to push physical planets around :-)

No, that won't do. You aren't claiming a Spinozan God who simply instantiates the laws of the Universe. You are claiming a being who actively simulates things, and who consists of three parts, and who resurrected Jesus.

My experiment is designed to show that you don't need to invoke the supernatural. I don't need to show that the supernatural does not exist. Just that you don't need it.

You make a strong claim. You claim that the supernatural does exist. Therefore you need to describe an experiment that objectively (i.e. so that just about everyone would come to the same conclusion) illustrates the presence of supernatural effects.

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

Comment #87022 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:52 am

Keith states that Ken Livingstone, probably London's best mayor ever, is "vile". The evidence for such an assertion?

Plenty actually. His support for Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one example. Dr al-Qaradawi is no friend to gay people to say the least.

617. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87020 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:38 am

A worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is physical has to explain how a physical system produces consciousness; but obviously a worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is conscious does not have this particular problem. I am not sure why you have trouble understanding this, and I don't know how better to explain it.

It does have a problem. I could just as easily say (as David Chalmers does) that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality in our physical universe. You therefore have no basis on which to use this as an argument for idealistic theism.

I, being an idealistic theist, can agree with every single sentence written in a scientific or technological book,

No, you can't. As you have already pointed out, you choose idealistic theism because you find some sentences written in scientific books absurd.

Prove then the objective existence of the moon. Or of the Statue of Liberty if you prefer.

When I talk to other people, I get consistent reports of what those objects are and where they are. When I talk to other people, I get inconsistent reports of whether or not objective ethics exist and what they consist of. This more likely suggests a lack of objectivity, and a dependence on viewpoint. So, evidence please...

You also owe me an experimental prediction of idealistic theism - remember?

618. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87016 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:18 am

I offered idealistic theism as a much more successful ontological theory than scientific naturalism.

You offered it, and we refused it. We refused it because it was only more successful if we accept your views on things. We don't. You first have to provide evidence for your views... like these ones:

If one accepts that objective reality is intrinsically ethical

I might, if you provided evidence. Please do so.

Even more I think one adopts a theistic worldview, because the concept of ethics makes no sense at the absence of conscious subject

You see, this is an argument for ethics not being objective. They can't be if they require a conscious subject - by definition, that means they are subjective.

619. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #87015 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:12 am

It's not a particularly offensive cartoon.

Oh, it is. It is clearly trying to illustrate a link between the 'out' campaign for atheists and the campaign for gay rights (a valid link), by making Dawkins look like a figure of fun - a grinning limp-wristed effeminate.

It is offensive on so many levels:

It could be read as 'Dawkins is gay', which is a particularly nasty use of the word 'gay' here in the UK, meaning 'bad'.

It says 'look - Dawkins is funny because he is like a gay man'. In other words, gayness is something to laugh at.

It indicates gayness using stereotyping of what gay men are supposed to be like - safe, funny, effeminates. Stereotyping is offensive.

Imagine a cartoon which suggested Dawkins was black by having him with a huge afro, saying "Yassuh masser, I'm gonna lift dat barge, tote dat bail" and you get the idea of how offensive this cartoon will seem to some.

It is not offensive because it attacks Dawkins and Hitchens - that kind of cartooning has a long and distinguished history. It is offensive because of the way it does it.

No-one would dare laugh at race in a cartoon these days, but I guess that we gay people are still fair game.

620. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86960 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Have STD's increased or decreased since the widespread usage of condoms within the past decade?

That is not a sensible question. The question should be 'Have STDs increased or decreased for those who use condoms'. They certainly have decreased.

Among teens and college students, condoms foster the idea that kids are safe when they use them.

They pretty much are.

Therefore, they have more sex.

That is very unlikely to be the case. Sex is an impulse thing, and kids rarely consider the disease aspect.

However, condoms are not effective in a good percentage of cases.

Nonsense. The failure rate is very small. Not a 'good percentage'.

Therefore, although the act may have become somewhat safer, you have a disproportionally higher rate of sexual activity that negates the protection of a condom.

Utter rubbish. People would have to be having vastly more sex to negate the protective effect of condoms.

So in reality, condoms have simply made the problem worse as they project the illusion that people are safe as long as they use them.

No, this is just religious wishful thinking.

621. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86948 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Your post about an all-powerful God being able to do what is logically contradictory was frankly inane. Can he make a square triangle?

It isn't inane. It is a profound question. You make the claim that God is all-powerful, but then you limit his power. It is reasonable to question this thinking, especially when you make the (highly questionable) claim that God creates logic.

If God creates logic, and that limits what God can do, then God has, in effect, chosen to limit his power, so, by definition, he is not all powerful.

The problem here is that your claim that God is all-powerful is inconsistent in any logical framework.

622. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86930 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Steeve, the ability to "pervert" is called free-will. You wouldn't have preferred not to have that would you?

Actually, no, it isn't free will. Free will allows choice between what is available. Unless God provided the ability to pervert, it would not have been available. Unless God provided evil, it would not have been available as a choice for free will. We can only choose the paths that are available.

Of course, if we can do evil simply because we have free will, and we don't need God in the loop, then there is no reason to claim that we can't do good simply because we have free will, and there is no need for God there either. If we make evil, we can make good too.

God has to be the source of it all (good and bad), or not.

623. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86925 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 12:53 pm

These guys don't seem to realise how much of their conception of duty and decency actually derives from the judeo-christian heritage within which they were brought up!

Actually, it is clearly the other way around. Because we see principles of duty and decency throughout the world, it can't have come from judeo-christianity. The only possibility is that judeo-christianity was founded on an existing tendency to do duties and be decent.

When it occurred, everything got skewed. Every good thing became susceptible to distortion and perversion: justice, love, beauty, poower. Everything that we can think of as evil is a perversion of something good.

Right then. So the ability to pervert must have been in existence before evil, otherwise evil could not have resulted. So, God must be the source of justice, love, beauty, power and perversion.

If this is not the case, and 'perversion' either came out of nowhere, or was invented by mankind, then you have no justification for claiming that the attributes of love, justice, beauty and so on could not have arisen the same way.

624. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86915 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 12:36 pm

He is the self-suffient cause, and source of all logic.

Oh dear. I am afraid I was wrong in assuming what many Christians would believe! Sorry, but this is clearly nonsense. Please explain how Pi could be different. If you can't, then this has to fall under the category of 'just making things up'.

He is the source of all justice and love and beauty, because He IS Justice, Love and Beauty (among many other attrubutes.

How do you know? And if he is the source of all things, doesn't this mean that he is also the source of all injustice, hate and ugliness?

If not .. if those can exist without him, then so can justice, love and beauty. You can't have it both ways.

625. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86909 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm

You've fallen into his trap! You seem to be forgetting that christians believe that God is the "first cause", the origin of the Universe. In their view, he literally designed all of the laws of nature, including Pi, the Primes, and logic itself.

Hmm. ADH may believe that, but I don't believe more rational christians do. First cause only applies to things that need a cause.

However, on a side issue, it does puzzle me when Christians claim God is infinite and all-powerful. I want to ask... 'how do you know?' I mean, it is going to take a rather long time to measure something that is infinite. This may seem a fatuous question, but I take it seriously. The infinitude of God is a claim that needs backing, just like the all-powerful-ness. Infinity is not as simple as many seem to think it is.

ADH:

But it HAS NOT been shown to be true. Far from it!

Atheism can't be shown to be true. It is impossible to show that there is no God. However, science and reason can show that God is redundant, and it has come very close indeed to showing that.

Just consider what God was required for centuries ago... the creation of the Earth, the positioning of the stars, the creation of life. Now, all that is left is some kind of inner warm feeling that some claim is experience of the religious, and some old books that contain such questionable morality and inconsistency that we need to 'interpret' them.

We have gone from a God that spoke personally, that parted seas, to some kind of force that may have kicked the Universe into being and hides in myth, that writes vague passages that need interpretation.

The God of supposedly moderate Christians today is not the same God people believed in historically. That God is long dead.

626. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86901 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 11:56 am

If God created the Universe, as ADH has claimed, then he also created logic.

Ah, no. I agree with just about all you have posted, but I do have to disagree here. I can't see how logic needs any kind of creation. It is abstract, and requires no substance to exist in. Just consider this: could God have changed things so that PI could be anything else but what it is? Or could things have been changed so that there were a finite number of primes? I think not.

I would argue that ADH's statement is false not because an all-powerful God could do the logically impossible, but because an all-powerful God contradicts logic.

EDIT:
mejdrich: I apologise, you were right.

627. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86892 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 11:32 am

Are you sure it is the Truth that you are facing.

No. Are you sure it is the Truth that you are facing?

That is precisely my point. You may in fact be withdrawing FROM the Truth into a kind of self-constructed refuge

There are standards for judging what is probably true and what isn't. These include going for the simplest explanation. Faced with pure evolution as against evolution with added God and souls, I know which is simpler. Faced with an understanding of brain processes, as against those brain processes + added God influence, I know which is simpler.

When you have to construct frameworks as complex as yours to try and keep God in the picture, that should arouse suspicion.

where you rely heavily on the texts and "insights" of your Mentors and Prophets - the High Priests of atheism.

Well, if you include the texts of great minds like Einstein, Sagan, Feynman, then yes, I do rely heavily on their insights. But they aren't high priests of atheism. They are masters of reason. And knowing more about their subject that most religious, they found no need for God as an explanation. Education is often a good cure for theism.

I have argued and will continue to insist that Atheism is a surrogate religion: "Happy band of Brothers", convert's , epiphanies, testimonies, boot camps for children ... etc. You must at least amit that with "trappings" like these you stand open to the charge of becoming a surrogate religion.

Well, that is obviously not the case. Richard Dawkins has clearly little else in common with the Dalai Lama, but neither believes in a supreme being; so no "Happy Band of Brothers" there.

And, I am sorry, but the 'you are just as bad as us' ploy won't work.

You see, the issue you have to deal with is not the difference between atheists and you - it is also between you and people who hold all those other wildly varying religious beliefs. You can't all be right. And, when confronted with a mass of conflicting stories, the honest and rational approach is surely to question them all.

628. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86886 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 11:19 am

What I think is irrelevant. The fact is that there are concequences for our actions, and when we try to mask or aviod them, our perceived solutions become problems in themselves.

Precisely. When you try to mask or avoid the fact that some kids are going to have sex no matter what you say, this has the consequences of increasing life-threatening disease transmission.

629. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86877 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 11:09 am

I don't for one moment take that image literally, and I don't know of anyone who does. It is used to convey some idea of the spendour of the new creation.

How do you know the bits to take literally, and which to take metaphorically?

630. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86875 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 11:03 am

Dvespertilio, could precisely these words not apply to the atheist "fraternity"?

There is no atheist fraternity. People who don't believe in a supreme being range from Dawkins to the Dalai Lama.

The wind of Truth can be chilly - you have to draw close together for warmth, fellowship and mutual support.

I don't know about the motivation of others, but what does it matter if this is the case? Better to face the truth than live with dignity than fight to defent delusions with ever more intricate excuses.

631. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86857 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 10:30 am

The greater the scientist today the more overspecialized they are, and therefore the more naive their understanding of the broader issues of philosophy is.

This is a very big claim. Please provide evidence.

(Don't forget there are other claims also awaiting evidence).

The issue is not the greater the scientist, the less they believe in God. Increased atheism is (as I understand it) correlated with general increased education, not just science.

And you will find plenty of atheist modern philosophers, so that argument doesn't work either.

632. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86845 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 9:41 am

Steve, for your sake I hope the easy chair debates don't turn ugly near you anytime soon. ADH really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If you have been following my discussions with some people on this site over the months, you will see that 'easy chair debates' is hardly accurate.

633. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86839 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 9:28 am

We are told in our science classes that we are animals, not just in the biological context, but in every other context. And then in school, students get free condoms. In nearly every article I've read in support of free contraceptives for students, one of the main arguments is "kids are going to have sex anyways". So what do you think all that implies?

That people want to actually do something useful to prevent kids getting diseases, rather than simply hope that kids are going to undergo some amazing transformation into people with total self-control?

Do you think kids should be punished for having sex by catching very unpleasant and potentially life-threatening diseases?

634. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86824 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 8:34 am

I told you I was out of my depth.

I would suggest you feel out of your depth because you have dug yourself into a hole with all this attempt at fit the bible to evolution.

It is all far simpler. We just evolved. No need to try and fit other stories to it.

635. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86813 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 7:53 am

Your warm hearted treatment, along with some others, suggests that you imagine this is all just some sort of silly parlor game with no real consequences out in the real world. Please do enlighten me as to the nature of your "delight." I am sincerely interested.

Of course these beliefs do have real consequences. But I don't think you get very far by running at people and yelling 'crazy'. For one thing, you can't seriously call billions of people 'crazy' - that is the number who hold religious beliefs.

(Dawkins has the right word - deluded; believing something that isn't true.)

And I find delight in polite debate. Although perhaps I overstated this.

I want people to stay and explain their views. I want to understand how they come to these beliefs and, especially, how they continue to hold them in the face of so much contrary evidence.

636. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86803 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 7:20 am

My subjective feelings are not of the "I've seen a flying teapot" variety or "I've just had an encounter with a pink unicorn". It is an experience that is shared by millions of people, each in his or her unique way (because God is a Person and reveals "Him"self to us personally) and is warranted by the coherent historical narrative that Scripture constitutes.

If you claim to have had experience of a person, but can't give any objective evidence of that, there is no reason why we should take your views seriously. The experience is not shared by millions. We know this because of the diversity of views about God and what we wants us to do. If this person you claim to have experience of actually exists, then he is apparently whispering thousands of different, contradictory, messages in people's ears.

I believe that science is very far from showing that God does not exist.

It can never show that God does not exist. What it can certainly do (and is getting close to) is show that God is redundant, and provides no explanatory power.

637. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86792 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 6:48 am

So what I am saying is that we should not preculde, a priori, evidence which is not of a scientific nature - the kind of character-based evidence I mentioned before, and also the extent to which the belief in question is warranted by history and by the experience of others.

Yes, we should preclude it. Once you have found out how something works, it is extremely poor reasoning to continue to use the previous explanation, no matter how much you may want it to be true.

Once we know how the brain works in terms of producing religious experience, we can, reasonably, exclude God from this, just as we can exclude angels from aerodynamics.

(Oh, and please ignore any insults thrown at you. I don't call you crazy, and it is a delight to debate with you)

638. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86776 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 6:15 am

Or, to mention another example, the stronger version of scientific naturalism would render even mathematical propositions meaningless, and the weaker version would place mathematical objects and laws in the realm of the non-objective opposing the deepest intuitions of the mathematicians.

We have been over this many times. This is just gibberish. You make the mistake of reification, in claiming that abstractions (like mathematics) are real things which have some sort of concrete existence.

Mathematics is objective, but abstract. It does not require any substance for its existence, either physical or supernatural.

This is such a common philosophical mistake, and so easily corrected once it is pointed out, that one has to question your motives in repeating it again and again.

But if the phenomenal world that science studies is entirely different from objective reality then scientific naturalism is false.

That is a big IF. Prove it. If you can't, then the simplest explanation is that the phenomenal world is the same as objective reality.

All you are saying here is "if we are all being fooled by Magic Man In The Sky, then science isn't investigating reality". In order to be taken seriously, you had better have some evidence for this.

In fact, the things you need to back up with evidence are building up....

1. There is a big universal morality meter somewhere that indicates that God is perfectly good.

2. Objective morality exists

3. We live in a simulation (such as God's mind)

Come on then! (And by the way ... 'it's obvious' is not evidence)

(I am also owed a experimentally testable prediction of idealistic theism)

639. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86773 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 6:06 am

What I said, and the examples I gave bear out my point, was that we CANNOT RULE OUT an external cause a priori.

So, if you are in a plane, and the person sitting next to you said "I realise that the flight of this plane can be explained in terms of jet fuel and aerodynamics, but I claim that we CANNOT RULE OUT the assistance of angels in this process", you would consider this reasonable?

640. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86738 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 3:33 am

Nice article - well done.

641. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86731 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 3:17 am

And I would love to see any experimental predictions of scientific naturalism. Tell you what: For each experimental prediction of scientific naturalism you give me, I'll give you one experimental prediction of idealistic theism :-)

OK, here is one: The orbit of planets around other suns can be explained entirely by theories of gravity. No pushing by angels required.

Your turn.

642. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86724 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 3:00 am

Steve, re Ockham's razor. I'm afraid it cuts nothing here. Dr B's explanation was not an explanation of the origin of the said feeling but of the cerebral mechanics, what can be observed in the brain when a certain feeling or experience is induced. It says nothing about what inuced the experience in the first place.

Actually, it does. We know that these feelings can be produced (correct me if I am wrong, Dr Benway) by minor seizures for example.

So Occam's Razor does apply. No need for God here.

643. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86720 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 2:55 am

But for those who believe in scientific naturalism exactly the opposite has happened: the more we learn about phenomenal reality the less unequivocal and the more shaky their understanding of objective reality has become. Indeed, as we saw, the number and size of holes is increasing.

No, the number and size of holes in some areas is quite definitely decreasing. We now have a good understanding of space and time down to levels which would be beyond the imagining of previous generations, and we can predict things to phenomenal accuracy.

do you expect scientific naturalism to keep producing less and less unequivocal maps of objective reality?

No, I don't. As new areas of research open up, we may find our maps completely replaced. That is the beauty of science. Unlike religion it is humble, and will admit when it is wrong.

Unlike you, I don't expect mankind to be able to understand reality. It would be nice if we could, but there is no guarantee.

What we are discussing is scientific naturalism's growing pains for accounting for the phenomenal reality that science is so well mapping. Which, incidentally, is not even the primary problem of scientific naturalism; its primary problem is the transcendental argument we have been discussing in this thread.

No, the primary problem is that you are inventing problems as an excuse for supernaturalism. And, the problems you invent are still there in supernaturalism.

Oh I see: The more holes and paradoxes the better, eh?

Absolutely! That is what is such fun about science! We aren't going to sit around all smug like you with the 'God did it' answer for everything.

I hope you are joking. I find the trick of pushing the burden the proof around to be shameful, because reason requires one justify all claims no matter their form (and I approvingly notice that Dawkins in his TGD at least did not shy away from trying to justify his belief in the non-existence of a creator God). But let me play this childish game and change my claim into: "No subjective ethical concepts exist". That's a negative existential claim and I don't need to justify it, correct? And if you disagree with it and claim that subjective ethical concepts exist it's you who have the "burden of proof".

We are talking about the positive existence of something objective. If something actually exists, and is objective, you should be able to prove its existence.

We were all sitting around here quite happily, when you walked in and said 'hey chaps - there is objective morality'. Why should we take you at your word? So, go on then. Prove that there is objective morality. And 'because it is obvious' is not evidence.

644. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86579 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Lovely to put a face to the name :)

I am about to start a public science/philosophy blog. Perhaps this face will be more widely recognised!

645. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86540 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 1:45 pm

I think there is a really serious problem here, which is that the extremist and fundamentalist views of African bishops are fuelling racist views in Europe. This has to stop.

646. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86533 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 1:30 pm

mejdrich: thanks for the advice!

Older and wiser men and women with much more impressive credentials than I have have seen no incompatability, so why should I?

Because many, many, many more older and wiser men and women with much more impressive credentials than you (or I) have seen incompatibility.

If you want to play the supernaturalist game, fine. Good luck to you, but, if you wish to be considered rational, you have to go with the consensus, not the very small minority that support your view.

647. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86517 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 12:51 pm

I think it will make you protest in that adorable Hugh Grant way of yours, but I must say you are as beautiful on the outside as you are on the inside.

I am going to respond in Austin Powers mode: Be-have!

I am short, fat, greying and bald. I am simply lucky to have a nice hat and a husband who is a good photographer.

ADH:

Steve, you've been reading CS Lewis's "Till we have Faces"!!

I am afraid not :) I have read very little of CS Lewis, even though our household is packed with his Narnia books. By the way... I do intend reading more of his works.

648. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86512 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

For some reason I thought you are more tanned, with dark hair, a thinner face, wear glasses and clean shaven. hehe.

Well, I go for most of that, but "clean shaven"... no way! Incidentally, I do wear glasses most of the time.

649. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86509 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Steve99, the "evolution" of your avatar over the past little while has been quite clever. Is that you, actually?

It is me. The pictures were taken and processed by my 'husband' (I don't like the UK term 'civil partner'). I have been motivated to 'come out' by recent comments on threads when I was less than totally complimentary about the RSS. I was annoyed that even mild criticism could not be accepted unless you were not anonymous. Well, this is me. My name is Steve Zara.

Oh God, a face emerges in steve's avatar and it is so different from what I imagine..

I am tempted to ask... what did you imagine?

650. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86507 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 12:37 pm

But I appreciate how civilised your questions have been. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Me too. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome here anytime.