651. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67240 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:13 am

Dianelos
Comment 2074

I made the point about physicalism because of the way in you appear to want to make a blanket division between naturalism and idealism. Yes, "physicalism" is generally confined to the philosophy of mind (and is sometimes not property defined). However, for you everything is mind so the distinction is appropriate.

I don't agree that it is associated with naive materialism. Physicalist accounts of mind (which say that the mind is made up of physical 'stuff 'only) are often subtle in that they understand that the nature of physical 'stuff' is subject to scientific revision. Also, they don't deny mental experience, they merely make the point that mental and physical experience are inextricably linked.

Comment 2075

Corylus (post 2011 or #65968):

That was Lauregon not me - I'm not that articulate!

652. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67183 by Corylus on September 2, 2007 at 2:04 pm

This forum does seem to show that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, judging by some of the wonderful pieces of poetry written by the contributors to this site.

You need to check out this thread Kaiserkriss. There's some stunners on there ;)

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1572,Fallen-Pastor-Seeks-Aid-to-Pursue-Studies,NYTimes

653. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67181 by Corylus on September 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Paul

There is no morality.

Not so fast! I happily concede that there is no such thing as "objective" morality.

You however make the unsubstantiated statement that therefore, for atheism 'there is no morality'.

Not justified. Let me demonstrate why.

1) My view of morality is subjective. It is subject to revision, inherent in it's conceptualisation is the understanding that it is important to continue to learn and understand.

2) My view of science is subjective. It is subject to revision, inherent in it's conceptualisation is the understanding that it is important to continue to learn and understand.

a) You accuse me of not having any basis for believing in morality.

b) You do not accuse me of not have any basis for believing in science.

Why do you make this distinction and how do you justify it's use?

654. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67175 by Corylus on September 2, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Paul

I thought for a bit you were going to bow out. Understandable. I know you have to go back to school soon. Should be a break, listening to those who define themselves as either believing in 'sumfink' or 'nuffink' rather than arguing the toss about idealistic theism :) Maybe that's unfair though - possibility the children are smarter and posher in your neck of the woods.

Anyway, re the question of 'going beyond science', and the desire to do so because of a need for objective morality.

We can, and must, go beyond science.

My question: Are you talking about 'science' or the 'scientific method'? (You appear to use these two terms interchangably).

a) Science is simply a body of knowledge. It is constantly and impressively growing. OK occasionally knowledge gets lost or tragically misinterpreted, but that's another tale.

I do understand what you mean when you point out

...the huge assumptions that it is necessay to make in order to make any statements about the physical world.

Fine This knowledge is not strictly value free (I'm avoiding the word 'objective' at the moment: I'm heartily sick of it), what it is though is replicable and falsifiable which is the closest we mere mortals can get to value free.

Therefore, scientific truth claims are only contingently valid. Hurray say I. Long may this dinstinction continue. Why limit the questions you ask because of some strange notion of essential, unknowable truth? Just because I don't understand something I do not make the hugely arrogant mistake of assuming that it cannot be understood. Maybe I'm just not smart enough.

(My admiration for this type of epistemology is one of my reasons for "biting the bullet" as Dianelos describes it over objective morality i.e.denying its existence. I don't just reluctantly do this though, I happily do this! (Sticks out tongue) I do not like the idea of putting a full stop to inquiry and understanding, merely because of the dubious notion of synthetic a priori moral truths dreamed up by the sexually repressed old fossil that was Immanuel Kant).*

b) The scientific method however is a manner of enquiry. It works by testing competing hypotheses. It is therefore, by definition, evidence based. Whilst the hypotheses that you test are not value free - it can be argued that the method is.

You can talk about going beyond current scientific knowledge, in that there is much to be learned. Fine. (Although on this board full of prickly scientists - might I suggest that instead you talk about 'advancing' science??)

If instead, you are talking about 'going beyond the scientific method' then you need to explain what method you are talking about and why it is, by implication, superior.

No-one is arguing that there are different methods of enquiry. E.g. Describing literature in chemical terms would be sheer idiocy, in the same fashion that chemical in literary terms would be daft. You have to be sensible about what type of explanation you make.

However, if you want some overaching method of enquiry that is superior to the scientific method then I am afraid you will have to explain precisely what it is and why you think it 'goes beyond'.

Yes I know Dianelos had been giving this a bash for 40 pages now, but I would be interested in your views on it. You haven't said much on your views on Dianelos' worldview by the way, but I suspect you don't agree with all of it.

Your question:

How do I prove that rape is wrong?

Have you considered the possibility that the analytic/synthetic distinction is not a clear cut as you think? As you state "Analytic means true by definition". Simply by using the word 'rape' aren't you defining the act as wrong??

I'm being a bit playful here. I am not saying 'might is right' and something is wrong because I say so. What I am saying is that I think it might be illuminating if instead of wondering about notions of objectivity and proof - you instead ask yourself the following questions:

"What is it about the act in question (rape) that makes me call it so? Why do I assign this act (by definition) such a negative value?


---
* If you want some interesting background reading on the psychology and hypocricy of Kant - you might enjoy out the following link. (Maybe you've already read it).

http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/rhl/maria.html

This is an abridgement of Rae Langton's 'Duty and Desolation' (1992), Philosophy 67, 481-505

Steve like the new avatar.

655. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66951 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 4:53 am

The desire to teach creationism in the schools is a symptom (my emphasis). The disease is the attitude of those sixty-four percent of the people who think their invented-from-whole-cloth religious beliefs are more reliable than the findings of science.

I have been considering this possibility for a time.

See the following article about the 'Creation Museum, where the journalist interviews Ken Ham:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2872252.ece

"If you believe in millions of years of evolution and you didn't get it from the Bible, then you really do have to reinterpret Genesis, which means you are upending biblical authority," he explains. "If you are saying it really didn't happen like Genesis describes, how can you trust anything in the Bible?" Does this mean that a relaxed interpretation of parts of the Bible, Genesis included, might lead to the unravelling of Christian faith altogether? Ham likes the word "unravel". That is the point exactly. And, thereafter, the unravelling of society.

"Step back and look at the big picture. America is not as Christian as it used to be. The Ten Commandments are not where they should be, gay marriage is accepted more and more, abortion is being permitted. The big picture is that there is a loss of biblical authority in this nation and a much greater loss over in England and in Europe generally." That is the rot, as Ham sees it, which has to be reversed.

There is a deep sense of fear here. Never a productive emotion.

Ultimately I don't think this is about the validity of scientific claims contra the bible. This is about all claims contra the bible (i.e. those from literature, history etc).

I suspect that the particular venon with which scientific claims are treated is related to how they (in terms of having obvious demonstrable results) are seen as the biggest threat.

NOMA? Incommensuate levels of enquiry? Not their concern.

They don't need Dawkins to tell them that evolution poses a challenge to religion, they have already figured it out for themselves.

Well said.

656. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66914 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 1:43 am

Beat's me Russell's Teapot - I'd email admin if I were you.

657. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66913 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 1:37 am

Some telling words and phrases in here:

archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities

"History", as we know it, is a wholly modern concept. For the ancients, a history would be a mixture of reportage, received wisdom, narrative and story.

the fact of fact and the fact of fiction,

Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite

What we have here is someone who has drunk deeply from the postmodernist tankard and can't stop belching.

658. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66793 by Corylus on August 31, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Russell's Teapot

Took me ages to work this out myself. I recently wrote detailed instructions for someone else, I reproduce below:

1) When logged in look at one of your comments. Click on your name.
2) You will be taken onto a blue page with 'Viewing Profile' on it. At the top left hand side you will see 'Board Index' written. Directly below this you will see 'user control panel'. Click on this.
3) On the 'user control panel' page - which is laid out like a card index - you will see a tab with 'profile' on it. Click on this.
4) You will now see a page asking you to 'edit profile'. On the left hand side you will see the option 'edit avatar'. Click on this.
5) On the 'edit avatar' page in the middle is an option to 'upload from your machine' with 'browse' on the side of it.
6) Click on 'browse' you will then be able to download/upload (buggered if I know the difference) a presaved picture from your PC's memory.
7) Make sure your file is not too big (the maximum dimensions are given on the page).

N.B. You might want to check the properties of any picture before you try to download - you may have to crop or compress accordingly.

659. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66617 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Paul

Thanks for the post.

Looks like you have some other people who want to talk to you though - and I don't want to swamp you.

I'll reply soon, but I'll give your some space to work through the other comments :)

660. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66611 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Thank you mdowe - working my way through :)

661. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66591 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Lane, nice to have your input :)

You say,

I'm happy to know that even you brilliant people can be kind and nice.

Agreed, it's great when those qualities go together - Elli is one of our smartest and kindest posters.

Quetz

I'm only young (24), and no doubt many would say I have hardly lived yet!

Sodding hell! I thought I was one of the younger ones on here. Now I feel 110.

Don't worry Quetz, it's quality not quantity that matters. I should know, dormice don't get out much :-(

662. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66556 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I can see why the world 'design' rings bells RichardM, (the needless attribution of agency worries me too) but I read this is a totally different fashion.

This strikes me as a bit of a smack in the teeth for the ID mob. E.g. the "It's so darn complicated I guess a magic man did it". If instead you concentrate on simplicity...

the most basic underlying principles and strategies used by the genomes of higher organisms to regulate gene expression are quite close to those used by simple organisms like bacteria and yeast.

Then the argument of irreducible complexity really does not wash. What you are faced with instead is a small amount of simple processes where the illusion of complexity is provided by the fact that:-

An external or internal stimulus activates some genes, which in turn control others genes whose activity turns on or off various biological processes.

By that analysis one understands complex things in terms of simple things working in an interactive and algorithmic fashion.

Sod it - what do I know!! I'm an arts type. Doubtless talking out of my backside: happens alot sad to say.

Jonecc have I totally misunderstood?

663. The importance of doubt

Comment #66552 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 11:50 am

fides_et_ratio is Latin for "I know Latin."

Whilst ... Caput tuum in ano est is latin for... well pretty much what Richard just said.

Or maybe... Futue te ipsum et caballum tuum.

Little snippets from my Latin for all Occasions book - who said it wouldn't come in handy.

664. The importance of doubt

Comment #66434 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 2:09 am

Well, waded through that.

Anything worthy? (I always try to be fair) I have to give points for grammar, vocabulary and spelling but that's as far as it goes.

Overall, misrepresentative and frankly nasty.

I'm a natural cynic and I try not to let that cloud my judgement, but I believe the very last line is telling....

· John Cornwell is director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge. His book Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte to the God Delusion is published in hardback by Profile on September 6, priced £9.99.

Plug, plug, plug ....

665. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66238 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Opps! RichardMorgan - hereby telling myself off for being over earnest and miserable :-)

666. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66144 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 3:16 am

RobertM

Think you are being a bit unfair here.

Apparently there is some element of truth into happy animals tasting better. For example, meat-eating friends tell me there is a huge difference in taste between free range and intensively farmed chicken and bacon.

Free range animals tend to have more fat on them, and fat transmits flavour.

667. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66143 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 3:01 am

Philip

What possible benefit is he going to bring to the counselling world?

I would suspect sweet FA! Counselling is about helping people face difficult situations, head on and being positive. It is not about judgement or denial. I find myself darkly suspecting that he might go into "counselling" homosexuals out of their condition. Hell - he's the voice of experience after all!

If he had the natural compassion needed for counselling he would have realised the damage his church's teaching causes. For example, suicide is a huge problem with young people, a common factor is struggle with sexuality. It is unknowable how many young people have killed themselves over this. Does his attitude do anything but contribute to this? Nasty judgemental, sanctimonous little hypocrite. Despicable individual.

668. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66132 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 1:49 am

There is a HUGE a difference between killing for food and killing for sport. (Jesus H you seem to have ignored people who made this important distinction)

When someone goes and hunts for food (often to feed their children) who am I to say that this is wrong? I wouldn't presume. In fact, if you hunt your food direct I would say that this is morally better than buying factory farmed produce from your local supermarket because you do not really like to think about where your food came from. At least the animal has had a bit of a life in its proper environment.

I admire the consistency and honesty of people who hunt for their own food.

However, I also try to be consistent in my actions. I find myself unable to kill anything - I simply can't face it. I'm too soft. Accordingly, I haven't (knowingly) eaten anything you have to kill to get for over 20 years. (A decision taken in childhood, but one I don't regret) Not easy at first, but, I could no more eat meat now than fly in the air. (I also think it would be better for our poor beleagued environment if more people ate lower down the food chain and there was a greater emphasis on arable farming, but that is a separate point). HungarianElephant I agree with you that it is shocking how few people grow their own food - I'm not self sufficient in my garden, but I do make an effort.

Hunting for sport though seems to bring out the worst in many. (Especially when these people hunt in groups) Maybe it is some deep atavistic pack instinct that is being tapped into, but its not pretty. In Britain we have the fox hunting brigade (ostensibly outlawed now, but the law is often ignored). This is often more about group cohesion and social climbing than anything else. They say that this is for the good of the countryside, however, left alone the countryside regulates itself. Oscar Wilde called them "The unspeakable pursuing the inedible." I find it hard to disagree.

This combination of going out and killing what you do not / can not eat while sanctimonously carrying a bible shows a certain type of mindset that many (including myself) would like to distance themselves from. If this makes me hateful and dogmatic mea culpa.

669. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66088 by Corylus on August 28, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Steve comment 2006.

I understand your frustration, I really truly do, but have to admire the man's persistence and manners, as I do yours. At least he hasn't used bad poetry like Darwin2...

Paul

Hope you had a good break. Interesting tale of your attendance of that debate. I think what I took from Craig was a dislike of his tactics and an instant personal dislike. (NB I very rarely make snap judgements like that), but have to say he struck me as a smug, self-important little weasel.

Of course, what we understand as reality is an important question. Of course, proof is a loaded word.

However, and this is a huge however, while it is fine to make this important point it is not fine to use this as a springboard to making utterly ridiculous assertions. Something might be possible yes, but:-

1) Is it probable?

2) Does the consideration of this possibility advance our knowledge or merely waste our time?

3) Does the person using this argument from uncertainty (which is only valid for agnosticism anyway) then do a dramatic volte face and make assertions for which they have absolutely no positive evidence?

I have to say that I think it is more satisfying when atheists scientists debate with theist scientists and atheist philosophers debate with theist philosophers. When people talk past each other, they merely waste each other's time. I would have liked to see AC Grayling against Craig. Who do you think would have won? (I know who I have my money on).

You ask:

Should we go beyond science?

Are you questioning whether this is

a) possible?

b) desireable?

670. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66031 by Corylus on August 28, 2007 at 1:29 am

Hmmp! Anyone want to pay off my lingering student debts?? No? Thought not.

There was a young lady from Nod
Who thought babies came from God
But is wasn't the almighty
That lifted her nightie
It was Roger the logder, the sod.

671. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65935 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Dr Benway said

The philosophers here can correct me, but as I understand: materialism limits reality to matter and energy; naturalism leaves the door open for other factors yet to be detected or defined, but rejects alleged supernatural realities.

I think you might find an interesting half-way house in the term 'physicalism'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

(Bit more subtle than simple 'materialism')

I notice that Dianelos never uses it - wonder why?? If he does can someone please point me to the post, and I will most humbly apologise.

I am still rereading the thread and thinking deeply about the posts on here (I originally only scan read with amusement and came on here to chat with PaulE) - my poor little brain is sodding killing me!!

Have to say the following:

1) Dianelos - you have got the thread to over 2000 and appear to have coaxed a response from just about every regular commenter on this site - well done!!!

(Well, apart from Henri Bergson our resident Nietzschean sexist, arrogant little twat - I believe he was told to come play with you, but obviously didn't have the guts...) Again if I have missed his post apologies to Henri.

You now have enough material for a whole book of dialogue/christian apologetics here. If you do write such a thing, I hope you credit a tiny dormouse, who didn't say much but was stunningly insightful.

2) Bowing and scraping respect to all with the posters you have stuck with this from the beginnning - Steve99, Benway etc.

I am not worthy.

Bloody hell... I am even beginning to sound like Keanu now.

I give up

672. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65903 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 9:50 am

Fair enough Keith :-))

I think you are very wise BTW to wait to see what actual women think about the language used concerning them.

It is interesting that Kelly apparently wrote this blurb and the woman to whom it referred didn't give a stuff. "Cool", as they say. Completely their choice. Probably is an American usage thing. (I am not up on American English either and suspect transatlantic differences often play a factor in differing responses to some of the articles on here).

I reserve the right to get prickly though. Maybe that is why I'm not in running for being a 'cool atheist chick'. Grumpy cow maybe... ;-)

P.S. I'm a Rigsby fan too!

673. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65864 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:54 am

Oh, it's about football.

I must say that the actual article is a bit of a let down. I was expecting all manner of things after reading that wonderful title ;)

674. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65859 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:42 am

Interesting link JeanB.

I hope Josh puts this up.

675. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65858 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:39 am

Logicel

Thanks for the interesting post :-)

I'm glad that I was not simply over-analysing the woman - it appears there is a definite personality type at work here...

676. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65826 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 1:35 am

Keith

Re the sexist language claim, why do I often get the idea that the person who objects is often less disturbed by the dodgy language than desirous to show how right-on they are?

Sorry Keith, no. I understand your point, but no.

My objection had nothing to do with desiring to show myself as 'right-on' - it genuinely pissed me off. (Maybe I have more experience of being patted on the head and talked down to than you do?)

To British ears, 'chick' (and 'right-on') smacks so much of the 1960s that it almost has comedy value, in the same way as 'groovy' might.

I have British ears too, and again I understand your point. However, if you want to make a 'comedy' point why on earth put it at the beginning of a serious critique?

I am not uber sensitive about language usage, I rarely play the grammar police role, and I understand why people think it is nitpicking and get annoyed.

However, I do find it a great pity that people might choose to skip Sapient's article (which has a lot of good points in it ) merely because they are turned off before they start.

Zarcus

As for the author's mentioned in Michael's Sciam piece, I would imagine Sam Harris' reaction will be the most vitriolic.

I don't know Zarcus - I actually think that there is a possibility that Dennett might surprise. See the article below for an example of what happens when he is annoyed.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,635,Response-to-Orr,Daniel-C-Dennett

If Dennett responds I suspect this might have more impact than a reply from Sam.

There has been lots of debate on Shermer's article, but one thing that everyone seems to agree on it is that it was dreadfully unfair to Dennett.

677. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65822 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 12:34 am

Arrh SG!

You're a mean man ;-) That was not a face I needed to suddenly see when I was innocently munching on my morning muesli.

There are now oats on my pc screen and raisens in my hair...

678. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65785 by Corylus on August 26, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Thanks for the imput ? :)

The psychological make-up of people like MT is fascinating. Disturbing, but fascinating.

679. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65780 by Corylus on August 26, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Have just ordered Hitchen's book - should make interesting reading in the light of this!

Re the publishing of her letters without her consent. Interesting question. In the Time article her reason for this was:

Consistent with her ongoing fight against pride, Teresa's rationale for suppressing her personal correspondence was "I want the work to remain only His." If the letters became public, she explained to Picachy, "people will think more of me — less of Jesus."

In terms of the complex personality type she seems to have had I find myself wondering whether she was protesting too much about not wanting them published.

Maybe part of her hoped that her flagellistic, masochistic, self-indulgent meanderings would be foisted onto the public and that adulation and admiration would result?

Can any ex-catholics on here can help me? I vaguely recall reading that it was part of catholic doctrine that good deeds and prayers done by the living on the behalf of a dead sinner can raise them out of hell/limbo?

Possibly I'm overanalysing here and being unfair. I do try to be sympathic to anyone in distress. However, I am afraid I am finding it hard to much care about her 'crisis'.

680. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65721 by Corylus on August 26, 2007 at 3:04 am

Under the "headlines" section of the front page of this site is the link to the petition to abolish faith schools in the UK.

You can sign if you are a UK citizen.

681. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65618 by Corylus on August 25, 2007 at 6:21 am

Apologies for all as some of this is old ground, (I am currenly re-reading this thread!) but if you have problems with a philosophical position, critically examining the methodology behind it is a good place to start.

Dianelos

Re your reliance on thought experiments you state that:

Observe that thought experiments are not imaginary or impossible experiments, but experiments one is not currently able to perform because of limitations of technology or resources.

My problem with them is that many of them are precisely that. Impossible. They thus do not tell you anything about the world, or anything relevant about your understanding of it. They might demonstrate an impressive ingenuity, but I am afraid that this is where it stops. Let's look at two classic examples:-

Mary's Room
Does Mary learn anything new about red when she sees it for the first time? My answer? No. N.B. I do not say no because of any statement concerning the absence or presence of qualia. I say "no" because I do not think she would be capable of seeing red at all, if she had been raised until adulthood in a colour free environment. There are critical periods in terms of childhood development - this is shown in the difficulties in teaching feral children language. With vision when children have cataracts it is important to remove then asap, for this very reason. (Maybe Dr Benway can clarify on this one?) Cheating? No. Practical statement.

Ivan's Challenge.
...Imagine that you are charged with building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim of which this to bring people happiness, to give them peace and contentment at last, but that in order to acheive this it is essential and unavoidable to torture just one little speck of creation...

People get wound up with this one - "Oh no! Child torture" (always evinces an extreme emotional reaction). They then go on to say that 'I guess there must be objective moral truths after all. Must have God for them."

Excuse my language, but "bollux" say I. What conceiveable set of circumstances could possibly bring such a situation/choice about?

I would suggest that thought experiments are often more useful as a demonstration of the hidden agenda of the person using them, than as a tool for understanding reality.

For example, when one first hears about Matrix style scenarios there is an instinctive "Wooh" (I can hear Keanu saying this!) response. "Guess nothing is real then". I see this being used shamelessly to bring in epistemological relavitism, postmodern drivel and general sloppy thinking. With Craig there is another possibility...

I was interested in your view on him because I wanted to how and in what fashion you distanced yourself from him - what with him being a leading light in the Discovery Institute and thus complicit in their apologetics for "intelligent" design. You merely say:

(Which is not to say that I agree with Craig on all particulars; in particular he believes that the physical world is real and I don't.)

That is something I surpose, but I am afraid you fail to mention any other differences you have and your theoretical and methodolgical basis for making them.

Maybe you would like to formulate a thought experiment to show me ;)

682. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65506 by Corylus on August 24, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Dr Benway said

After a few minutes, it became clear to me that she felt "critical thinking" meant appreciating both sides of a controversy and being able to weigh competing values... It genuinely surpised me that this intelligent, college educated woman didn't have a firm grasp upon what "critical thinking" means.

You know what I think this is about? A nasty confusion between critical thinking and critical theory.

I know that relying on wikipedia is a bad thing, but I have to say that their entry on "critical theory" is quite interesting in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

683. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65500 by Corylus on August 24, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Dianelos - thanks for the essay.

The trouble with arguments like yours is that it is important to give a considered response. I do like to try to think before I reply. (Trouble is, on this site threads move quickly, and by the time I have thought about things no one is listening anymore!)

I will reply, but please do not think me rude if I take a day or so to do so :-)

684. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65391 by Corylus on August 24, 2007 at 2:38 am

Was anyone else puzzled by the deliberate blurring of faces in the scenes of kids & adults playing in the park? Is this now a legal requirement?

I wouldn't be surprised whoisthisgodperson. Puts me in mind of those news reports concerning how fat people are getting - they always cut to pictures of the general public wobbling down the road. You never see the faces of the individuals concerned, just their torsos.

I personally view this as quite an incentive to stick to my diet - I live in terror of seeing my own rear end on the evening news.

685. Scientists Induce Out-of-Body Sensation

Comment #65386 by Corylus on August 24, 2007 at 2:02 am

The illusion shows that body parts can be separated from the whole body by manipulating a mismatch between touch and vision. That is, when a person's brain sees the fake hand being stroked and feels the same sensation, the sense of being touched is misattributed to the fake.

This puts me in mind of Ramachandran's experiments with 'mirror box' therapy (his book Phantoms in the Brain is fascinating if anyone is interested in this sort of thing).

This where amputees have a image of their existing limb projected onto the space where the missing one should be. They can then manipulate their "missing" limb: spectacular results had with the treatment of phantom pain.

686. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65143 by Corylus on August 23, 2007 at 2:26 am

Dianelos

I get where you are coming from here - I really do. There is a great deal of what you say that I agree with. Also I have learnt alot from reading your comments and those of others on the thread. (I admit my eyes glazed over on some of the science bits, but as I said I am no scientist).

For example, I agree that:-

a) Plato's Cave is a continuing problem - and we don't need the Matrix to point it out (Good thing too. It was OK as an action film, but the acting! I don't think poor old Keanu is ever going to get an oscar...)

b) It is very important to consider how we view our environment and the assumption and presuppostions we have concerning it. This is not just important in philosophy, but important in science also. From reading about the history of science and advancements in knowledge generally it strikes me that people often leap forward when they consider and test counter-intuitive ideas.

c) I agree that "ethics plays a central part in our lives and our understanding of reality". For example, I seem to recall in an earlier post you talking about how unthinking dualism can lead to mistaken ethical decisions. (I can't be bothered to go back and find the post - do correct me if I dreamed / misinterpreted it). This is something I have been considering for some time, in that it is hugely relevant to the question of how we treat animals. E.g.

The question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?
Bentham

Very possibly that is why I chose Fido as an example - I wanted to talk about the actions and experience of a living breathing thing (and not the mere actions of a calibrated instrument) in terms of helping to understand reality. We are part of the world - even if we sometimes feel divorced from it.

Ok. So far so good. Where do I disagree? (Well I disagree on the existance of God for a start, but let's bracket that for a moment!) I think where I disagree is with your use and reliance on thought experiments. Don't get me wrong I think they are very useful tools. Particularly useful in ethics, you can think about things that may happen and what your response should be to these events. This can save you time later and stop you making a mistake if you ever have to make a snap judgement.

No so sure that are that useful in epistemology though, you say:

Such thought experiments help us understand which arguments about objective reality are valid and which aren't.

I can see you walking a very careful line there ;)

I would say what thought experiments do in this context is tell us about how we think. Objective reality is not something that we have direct priviledged access to - as we both agree on this one. I would say that it is important to make a distinction between saying

1) Thought experiments give us insight into how we think and are great tools for teasing out our prejudices and inconsistencies and

2) Thought experiments give us insight into objective reality.

Important not to slip from #1 to #2.

To make this point can I ask you to listen to a short debate? It made me irritated when I listened to it. It is between Lewis Wolpert (whose denigrating statements about philosophy annoy me) and William Lane Craig who IMHO uses 'The Matrix' thought experiment in a totally unjustified and overextended fashion. I would be interested in your views on this.

http://richarddawkins.net/audio/Wolpert_lanecraig.mp3

Re: Idealism you say that:

Also please note that in this post I am not arguing for idealism.

Maybe not, but you are certainly paving the way for it! I do understand* the attraction of idealism - I flirted briefly with it myself - shamelessly misused it to the justify an 'occult' phase I once went through. [Cringes with embarrassment!]

In general terms idealism puts me in mind of Alexander the Great standing over the Gordian Knot.

"You want this unravelled? Hmm. I'll unravel it!" Gets out sword.

Is this a solution? Yes
In this an elegant solution? Yes
Is this a solution only a smart person would think of? Yes.
Is this the solution to the actual question posed, or merely a response to the difficulty of it?...Pauses...

I suspect people are now cursing me form bring this back to metaphysics, but your long reply to me demanded an answer. Anyway - the 2000 mark is looming. I think you might hit it.
----
Well, to the extent that a baby philosopher like me can understand anything. I am not a teenager, (unfortunately!) but I am always aware of the immense amount I have yet to learn. Have to say I am hugely wary of playing philosophy with you BTW. You are much more well read and adept at explanation than I am. :-)

687. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64981 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Phil said

Am I right here in assessing Paul's concern essentially as being that a society, morally sustained by empathy and the Golden Rule (and not by a divine moral framework),would be unstable, and prone to exploitation and ultimate destruction by the selfish and the sociopaths?

I thought that at first (and I suspect that might be part of it), but, to be fair to Paul, I don't think that this is his only point.

His problem seems to be a perceived inconsistency with regard to non-theistic moral statements. He makes the point that we (atheists) discuss morality as though there are disembodied moral truths out there, when we have no basis for assuming their existence.

We all make statements in general conversation where a theoretical basis for them is lacking, or at least not adequately spelled out. However this does not mean these statements are incorrect (they are just not considered or phrased properly). The solution is to be pragmatic (small p) when making moral statements.

Trouble is, if you start overdoing the thought experiments, you can see situations were moral consensus and empathy (must not forget wonderful emotional, irrational empathy) lead you to strange conclusions. Paul seems to be a nice guy and wants to be able to say that you 'ought' not to act in a vile fashion - whatever the circumstance, in actuality this is impossible.

Where I part company with Paul is that he seems to be trying to use the existence of some objective moral truths as a proof of God. Strikes me this reasoning is the wrong way around - you need to prove God first (or at least show his existence is extremely likely) before you can do anything else .

I also wonder whether Paul is actually not just using morality to prove God, but suggesting that morality is God, or part of God. E.g.

Morality obviously exists (questions about objective/subjective aside). If you think that morality is God, then God exists also.

If you respond that God does not exist then you must say that morality does not exist - which goes against all of your intuitions and experience. An unpalatable conclusion. Therefore God exists.

If I am wrong on this I hope Paul will tell me where I am wrong when he gets back.

BTW: I also hope he will tell me what is going on in Germany that is so momentous - I have looked on the news and I can't see anything.

688. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64947 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm

I have a little post it note on the side of my PC monitor. It reads:

"Do not use when pissed!"

It is great. I (sometimes) see it through the mist and it stop me doing silly things like adding software when I have other programmes running or buying crap I don't need off Ebay. It also stops me making on line revelations that I might later regret...

Biz, I am not going to comment on the statement you have just made, because it is none of my business.

You can still delete if you are quick ;)

689. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #64934 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Roach

"Referring to women as "chicks" is sexist?"

I wouldn't be surprised if this is partly due to a tranatlantic difference of language. However, to my (admittedly snooty :-)) British ears, this does indeed sound sexist.

"Chicks" give the impression of extreme youth (and thus someone who can be talked down to) "dudes" does not have the same connotation.

Robert
Agreed that that this should not be a debate about feminism.

Lets talk about the article instead. It is just one of those words that raise my hackles - we all have them!

690. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64929 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 12:17 pm

TieInterceptor

Hadn't heard that argument before.

Sure it's not a reference to fertilizer? I spread earth (and other fragrant substances) over my vegetable patch every year.

691. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #64927 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I agree with a fair bit of this, there are many good points in here.

Unfortunately, he got me in a bad mood at the start by talking about "A totally cool atheist chick". He doubtless meant this a compliment, but unfortunately merely made himself sound like a sexist child.

If you want to persuade people it is a good idea not to talk down to half your audience.

692. Rational Atheism

Comment #64818 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 1:36 am

Ok

This is a clear and polite piece from a smart person so lets look at this calmly.

Point 1.

"An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

Well, I am glad that this is a quote and not actually Michael Shermer speaking,because I am sorry to say that this is complete BS. What a myopic understanding of political activism. When you reject something this is both a negative and a positive action. When you reject something you, by definition, embrace its opposite (unless you wish to put forward a third alternative). For example if you say that you reject racial discrimination, then by definition you embrace racial equality - unless you want to make silly alternative suggestions like apatheid.

Point 2.

It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow[s] from the advance of science.

Advance science and learning - agreed. However, no direct arguments against theism because they are ineffective? Don't know until you try and if the sales of the above books are anything to go by....

Point 3.

If it is our goal to raise people's consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind.

Sentence 1 - completely agree. Sentence 2 - don't agree. You don't avoid debate simply because you are frightened by tu quoque.

Point 4.

If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

OK. Important to be kind and polite to everyone. However, the important phrase above is "unto theists do the same". If a theist wants to talk about giving to charity and helping people - great. If a theist (like the Bishop of Carlisle) wants to talk about floods which kill innocent being due to God's wrath over society's tolerance of homosexuals then ... gloves off.

Point. 5.

A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

Absolutely, completely 100% agree! Well said. (I'm with AdrianB on this one).

Also interesting that this is the one point in which Michael Shermer does not hide behind a quote from another person. Wonder why?

N.B. If anyone missed this the first time round - PZ Myers article in response to similar criticism is a fun read.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,926,We-aim-to-misbehave,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

693. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64814 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 1:12 am

Dianelos

I had a bet with myself you'd would be back. I have been trying very hard not to get sucked into this thread and failing. Sigh, so addictive.

You say:

People don't realize it,[best explantion] but that's the way we think about most of the things we say exist.

Fine no problem with that, our experience of the world is not direct - it is a construct.

However,

Neither can electrons be tested, talked to, touched, seen or heard. So, would you say that electrons are illusions too? Please never forget that what goes for the goose goes for the gander too, so try to apply to naturalism any argument you use against theism, so as to find out if that argument is reasonable.

Well, I am not going to make any statements about electrons on here (I am an arts type and terrified off making a scientific howler! Accordingly, I will use an example within my level of scientific literacy - sounds).

Concrete example, I take a dog for a walk in the park. I also take a dog whistle. I blow on said whistle - can't hear a thing! Fido, though, responds each time, consistently and predictively. It is therefore reasonable to assume that sound waves exist that are inaudible to my little ears. I conclude that Fido is not suffering from doggy psychosis. High pitched sounds are not an illusion (even though I do not have access to them). Fine.

Statements about God and his/her actions - consistent and predicable? Sorry, no.

BTW: I love your term 'atheologians' I have to use that :-)

[Edit - yes, I know that you were originally talking about things that cannot be heard (electrons) - and you can argue that Fido hears these sound. However, I personally can't. This for me is enough to make the above point.]

[Edit. Edit. - Arrh!! I am getting close above to reopening the idealism debate which has alreadly been done to death by others on this thread much more eloquent than I. Dianelos. Everyone. Ignore Me!]

694. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64398 by Corylus on August 20, 2007 at 1:23 am

Blimey Paul

Looks like your going to get this thread up the the 2000 mark. Kudos for the stamina. Seems like you have lots of people to answer and I don't want to swamp you so I'll be brief.

You say that you are "equally upset by racist Christians", and note that there is no excuse for racism in the bible. You then ask how atheists would combat racism when you can't make the 'made in the image of God' argument. OK. Lets look at this:-

1) No excuse for racism in the bible. Debatable. There is the whole 'curse of Ham' business. You can argue that this is a dreadful misinterpretation, and is now an non-issue. Trouble is, it is still alive and kicking in some parts of America.*

2) How can atheists combat racism? Simple, they can make the statement that race is a concept not a reality. Genetically our differences are a continuum not a divide. Many people (of all races) don't like accepting this, I guess because they view it as such an intergral part of the self-concept. That's how you fight prejudice. Pure facts, not value judgements.
____
*Have to correct a small point here. You assume that I am American because I used the word 'hookers' to describe prostitutes. I can see why you would think that. (For the record though I am English) I used the word because I wanted something with less emotional loading than some other possible other terms, but I didn't want to fudge the issue by using a 'lite' term like 'call girl', or an archaic, pompous one like 'courtesan'.

I like to view emotive subjects calmly, but I don't like mealy-mouthed prudery either. Interesting how we display our personalities so clearly merely by which terminology we choose to use :-)

695. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64191 by Corylus on August 18, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Paul said

This seems to be a retrograde step - you've gone from altruism to egoism. Is this really the best we can manage?

I have heard this before as a criticism of non-theistic morality (particularly social contract theory). E.g. "You act this way because (ultimately) it benefits you, oh dear". There are two problems with this.

Firstly, theistic morality to open to exactly the same criticism. E.g. "You act this way because you want to avoid hell, oh dear". (Yes. I know that I am walking close to tu quoque with this one, but I can't resist pointing it out!)

Secondly, (much more interestingly), there is a point when the delineation between egoism and altruism disappears. Let me explain. We are all connected. (Before any other atheists start spitting their coffee out over their PC screens, I do not mean this in some hippy, dippy Jungian fashion). I am talking about physical events leading to other physical events. We do not act in a vacuum, at a certain level what harms others will also harm yourself.

Think of John Donne's statement "Any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankinde". (Yes I know he was a priest!) However, to me this pretty much sums up what moral statements (should) be about.

Now, lets look at a concrete example, something icky and emotional, I know! Prostitution.

Now, I really don't like this. However, I am not naive, I know that nothing I do will stop this happening. At a certain level even if I could stop it happening I probably wouldn't, it is up to adults to decide for themselves when and with whom they disrobe. By now I suspect you are jumping up and down asking me 'How can you say that it this is objectively wrong without God?"

Simple:

1) For a start I do not say that this is objectively wrong - there might be some situations where it is understandable and not wrong, individuals have complicated emotional lives. Some hookers enjoy their work (they are generally at the top end of the scale and not at risk of constant violence though), some men enjoy hookers. Fine. I don't see how this situation will advance mankind at all, but I admit that it is possible that maybe some good might come out of it. I don't know how, but I do not dismiss this possibility.

2) However, I can say that is is generally wrong for practical reasons.

a) I can say that it is particularly wrong if the male (it is generally a male) is in already in a relationship. Even with safe sex there is a small risk of picking up a nasty (or even fatal) infection. If the person that they normally sleep with has not agreed to take this risk then this is a betrayal of trust, and negligent homicide if their partner is also infected and dies due to this infection.

b) Then is the issue of consent - does the woman (it is generally a woman) consent? Might seem to, but then again the client runs the risk that she might have been trafficked, she might be acting under the duress of a violent pimp or she might be acting under the influence of an expensive drug addiction. The male in question might want to ask himself, just how far away (technically) are his actions from rape?

c) This action also brings to light the Kantian question of treating people as ends and/or means. You don't need God to go for Kant. (I believe you have admitted as much to me before. However, I don't like Kant, which I admitted to you before, so I won't go into detail about this one).

d) This action also demeans the male. For a start he is considerably poorer - what else could he have spent his money on? He is at increased risk of health problems. His self-esteem is dented by the fact that he has to pay for what should be given freely. If he is not currently in a relationship then I really don't see this helping with getting a partner - why go to the effort of getting to know someone when you can just pay? This can mean he misses out (not on sex) but on other benefits of having a partner, like friendship and mutual financial support.

e) What effect does this have on society, i.e. all of us? What message does it send to young people that there is an 'easy' living to be had selling sex? Surely, it would be better if they concentrated on studying instead and made a contribution to everyone, not just themselves...

You see how this is not all about altruism vs. egoism? This is about both these things.

Complicated real life issues moral issues involve seeing that the ability to use words such as 'objective' and 'ought' is not everything. In fact, if you insist on this rigid notion of what is moral you can actually miss important nuances. Furthermore, it is important to understand that what sometimes appears to simply benefit one person and disadvantage another, can actually disadvantage both.

For example, with the bible as a guide (even if you don't take it all literally) you can say that prostitution is wrong and that you ought not to do get involved. You can say that it is against God's will and quote plenty of evidence in defense of this statement (incidentally more than you can contra child rape). I seem the recall that the Whore of Babylon has a bit of a tough time in Revelations, (but it is a while since I read that particular tome so do correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

Trouble is, this is where it ends.

For example, you talked earlier about your young son's moral sense. Now I don't have young children. However, as I have been run ragged helping to look after my nieces this summer holiday, I feel qualified to make a statement about childhood morality.

Picture the scene...

I say. "Don't do that".
"Why?" they say.
"Because it is wrong" say I.
"Why is it wrong?" they say. "Why? Why? Why?" (Always with the f*&king why!)
"Because I sodding well say so. That's why!!
I then feel guilty about making this statement. It strikes me as inadequate and disrespectful to my niece's growing intelligence.

You see the problem? You can't just say that something is objectively wrong because someone in power says so. In order to make a mature, considered decision as to what is is wrong, you have to make a case for why it is wrong, and not just for the person who says it is wrong.

Hmm, bit of a long post. However, this does appear to be de rigueur on this thread so I won't beat myself up over it...

696. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64050 by Corylus on August 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm

_J_ said

My apologies for the bad language. This has piqued my temper a little.

You need to get yourself a swear box _J_

Mine keeps me in claret, which is a good thing, because I swear more when I'm pissed. (Arrh the cycle of addiction: a dreadful thing).

Dr Benway's has enough money in it, I suspect, for a case of Margaux and a trip to the Maldives...

697. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64026 by Corylus on August 17, 2007 at 11:00 am

Just a minute!

In order to play a video game you need a computer/tv and an electricity supply. Just how many troops have access to these on a daily basis?

I'm thinking these f*&kwits really haven't thought this through. On so many levels.

I suspect the clean socks and the baby wipes will come in handy though.

Shemp333 stay safe :-)

698. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63946 by Corylus on August 17, 2007 at 12:06 am

Paul

Thanks for the speedly answer. So as I understand it your interest in the morality problem is about the following:

I simply cannot live with an unacknowledged contradiction. I don't know that it's a good thing, but it's how I am.

Fine. No problem with that. Of course, to be fair, this does require you to engage with atheists pointing out contradictions, like the problem of evil for example.

(I had to ask what you would do about fixing atheist morality because I have noticed an agenda behind many people who talk about this issue. To wit they are generally concerned with keeping theistic reasoning and justifications alive in legislation and educational policy. As a secular humanist this scares the living c*&p out of me).

Now back to practicalities, re your pointing out moral contradictions:

Does it help to point that out? I don't know. Does it lead to people behaving better? I don't know. That's not why I say what I say. I say it because I am convinced of it.

OK, but if you notice that non theistic morality seems to make people behave better (however it is that you define 'better'), does that not indicate that there is an inherent contradiction in your own position?

Re the debate about definitions, I am beginning to suspect that you are actually doing something much stronger than defining God as the bridge to morality, I think you are actually defining God herself as morality. (In much the same way that theologians go for the whole 'God is Love' shebang).

You can walk this road if you wish, but you will end up making your definitions so nebulous and so prone to differing interpretations that they end up losing all explanatory power. Once, this happens you are back to where you started.

699. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #63872 by Corylus on August 16, 2007 at 1:24 pm

MIND_REBEL

Welcome back!

:-)

700. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63849 by Corylus on August 16, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Paul

OK! Time to call 'time out' on the abstract philosophy. Incidentally Paul, I totally get where you are coming from when you say that:

There are dangers, particularly highlighted in this thread, in making every question an ontological one. I have appreciated the idealistic theism vs naturalism debate, but it also goes round in circles and doesn't always clarify things.

I'm hearing you!

So let's talk practicalities :-)

You say that when you ask atheists about morality that "no decent response is ever given".

Actually; as I have suggested to you before; I suspect the problem is that you just get lots of different responses because different atheists take different stances with regard to moral theory.

The fact that you do not like any of these responses yet given doesn't mean that no decent response is ever possible of being given. Maybe one day you will hear something that hits the spot...

Anyway, back to practicalities. May I put a question to you, as a believer playing the morality card, to which I never get a decent answer?

Say that you are right and that (for a consistent atheist) morality, be it subjective or objective, does not exist.*

My question? So what? What are you going to do about it?

Belief cannot be forced. There are people about who never seem to have a religious thought in their lives - they just don't get it.

What do you suggest is done with these people?

1)Gently persuade? You are ignored.

2) Maybe you would like to tell them, firmly, that they must believe? Not working.

3) How about threatening them into believing? Methinks you might be told some fibs. (Hmm, maybe it would it be acceptable is they just 'faked it till they made it' or lied?). Oh dear, nothing works!

What do you want to do Paul? Maybe..

4) How about locking them up in case they act immorally due to their pernicious lack of belief? For the greater good?

Please, suggestions!

Clue: you can either go with locking up the innocent and violate your own ideals of objective morality, which are about love, justice, truth etc.. Or you can say that the above is not acceptable and give up your absolutes.

I'm waiting.

-------
*N.B. You already know my position on this:

Objective morality does not exist and to say that it does is wishful thinking.

Morality, however, does exist. It is something that humans can constantly work on by increasing their knowledge of what harms others.

This is also, because we are all connected in the PHYSICAL world, (Dianelos!) what harms all of us. It is therefore sensible, rational even (although I admit that word is a loaded one), to care about it.