Comments by MPhil

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

Comment #166609 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 10:41 am

seeker_of_truth,

cocnerning social darwinism:

Depends on what you mean by "justified". If you mean whether I think that Darwinism justifies Social Darwinism - absolutely not. Darwinism is science, science per definition does not and can not make ethically normative statements - if anything does, it isn't science anymore. That would be the naturalistic fallacy (see e.g. George Edward Moore, 'Principia Ethica'). You cannot infer or derive a non-natural property from a natural one, and there is no epistemic justification for identifying a non-natural with a natural property. Meaning there are no facts about this, it cannot be "found out" and is as such unscientific.

But you can place a value on certain properties, processes, actions, intentions etc. - That is what all ethics do. The final justification is however not a matter of "finding out", but of deliberate construction of these values via this identification.

But as explained above with contractualism, this can be aided by rationality a great deal. If you want to construct a first-order ethical theory, you'd be wise to have as realistic a picture of the world (including its agents) as possible. For example, you might want to construct an ethical theory that takes into account facts about psychology and sociology in order to give proper directions and model the theory so that it can be applied. Utiliarianism for example has as a central premise the fact that happyness (though a bit more complicated than the everyday sense) is the only thing that agents desire in itself. This is a psychological statement.
Contractualism needs sociology, psychology etc as well.
If your ethics is to be comprehensive, it better have a picture of the world that is as complete in the relevant aspects as possible - you have to minimize the probability of situations arising with which the theory cannot deal.

So, no - Darwinism does not lead to Social Darwinism, nor can the latter be inferred from the former, nor does the former even lend any amount of justification to the latter, as the latter is all about ethically normative statements.

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

Comment #166597 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 10:26 am

It isn't a huge stretch, really.
Just as a physicist who has his common sense notions of space and time can perfectly well work with relativity.

It's simple, and not a stretch at all. We construct a model of people with only certain attributes (capability of rationality, knowledge of the fact that they will be a part of society and capability of imagining certain situations that would arise etc)

I really don't see why you think there's a problem with that. Sociologists construct models independent of their own preferences all the time. Actually, it's no more of a problem than any model. That what it's about is something that is relevant to oneself doesn't matter when analyzing the model.

I'm sorry to say - you're absolutely wrong that this is a stretch and hardly possible. I can perfectly well analyze what would be done there.

Please read the link I gave you.

For example - beyond the veil of ignorance, everyone would see to it that his chance of fulfillment of his rational self-interest is maximized. The only way to make sure of that beyond a veil of ignorance is to make sure that society is structured in a way that everyone has an equal opportunity for participation - and that inegality between in starting-positions are minimized. Also, in the original position, I know that I will as a member of society endorse some comprehensive doctrine, or will want to do so. Since I know this, I want to make sure that I can. But since I don't know which it will be, I must make sure that all are treated equally and none is forced upon the citizens, and that none are allowed whose goal it is to be forced upon others, because I might be on the receiving end of that. And I wouldn't want that.

... see, not hard at all. And not a stretch either. This is of course a very simple example, but it proves that there is no problem with that.

753. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166574 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 10:04 am

All this "evidence" you mention is a load of crap.

Most of it is simply wrong - the rest is a statement of incompleteness of scientific explanation. You cannot infer the existence of a certain entity from this. You cannot infer any existence statement from that. And while the probability of the incompleteness of these explanations is raised by the assumption of a god, this hypothesis itself is in light of the scientific evidence completely improbably - aside from the fact that I have already shown that the theistic conception of god is impossible.

Also, the probability of the incompleteness of the explanations is explained perfectly on scientific grounds.

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

Comment #166561 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:57 am

"supernatural laws explaining something natural"

... That's a contradiction.

To explain something natural, a mechanism has to be given. Either something explains a natural phenomenon by providing a mechanism or a general law, and as such is a natural explanation, or it is "supernatural", in which case it is not an explanation because it doesn't provide a proper mechanism or statement exclusively about a necessary progression of types of physical events.

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

Comment #166539 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:45 am

Epeeist,

I get no percentage... it's all in the interest of enlightenment :)

seeker_of_truth,

Are there any ethical definitions in naturalism[...]

Naturalism is not about ethics, and as such what you ask is impossible... however, there are ethical theories consistent with naturalism, such as utilitarianism, or contractualism etc.

Of course the idea of an ethical theory being actually universally applied by all people is illusory. But that is so for every theory.

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

Comment #166535 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:39 am

But this can't be accomplished, can it?

This is not a matter of actuality... it is a hypothetical situation which we can analyze perfectly well. We can construct a model of what that will be and derive the conclusions of persons in such a situation - given a view of persons as capable of rationality and able to develop a conception of the good.

Of course the situation was never actual and will never be - but we can analyze what would be decided upon in such a situation - and thus derive the basic values and in general the foundations of a just and stable society.

This is what John Ralws has done is his magnum opus "A Theory of Justice" (one of the greatest works of political philosophy ever) - and refined in "Justice as Fairness - a Restatement" and "Political Liberalism"

As over-simplified as this might sound, is 'shared goals' a majority-rule type of principle?

Well, depends. I would say no, because it is not the case that a majority rules in their own interest only with regards to themselves.

In a just society as described above, it is the interest of all people qua members of society. And as such the interests of the whole society as such are so that the all are treated fairly - including every community constituted by sharing comprehensive doctrine that is compatible with the basic liberties, rights and duties.

757. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166487 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:14 am

Now he's really making an ass of himself - laughing because evidently the continuing existence of a transitional form is a conceptual impossibility for him.

758. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166479 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:09 am

Ah, now the human understanding cannot grasp god...

then you have no justification for believing in his existence... you have to know exactly what you claim exists in order for your claim to even have the possibility of being justified. If god is not knowable - that's goodbye for religion then.

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

Comment #166472 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:05 am

seeker_of_truth,

yours is a question of ethics and metaethics...

I know I do this all the time, but if I may, I'd like to suggest to you the wonderful book

"Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" by John Leslie Mackie.

He argues (correctly IMO) that there are no intrinsic, metaphysically objective moral values... that values are constructed (social constructs), not discovered.

Ethics can have a rational basis however - as for example T.M. Scanlon's work on contractualism based on John Rawls' "A theory of justice" shows.

Moral values are constructs, but not necessarily completely arbitrary. Every moral code proses that certain natural things (actions, intentions, desires, beliefs etc) have certain moral value.

You cannot infer a statement about moral value or moral imperatives from a statement describing a natural state-of-affairs. But society can and does place values on states-of-affairs, on intentions, actions etc. From these, imperatives are derived.

There is a movement in ethics called "consequentialism", which states that the ethical value of some act is determined by its consequences. Utilitarianism ("the greatest good for the greatest number" is of this kind for example, but so is contractualism).

All that is needed for ethics are shared goals. Let's say society agrees that the survival of the humans species is a good thing. Or that avoiding unpleasant feelings is a good thing and seeking out good feelings is a good thing. Or that a stable society is a good thing.(there is something to be said for the existence of uniform proto-ethical intuitions in humans and other higher animals, probably based on evolutionary stable strategies and the hard-wiring of the brain)

Now if such a thing is agreed upon, we can rationally deduce what actions and policies advance, hinder and which are neutral towards that shared goal - and since the value-function is transitive, we then can derive other moral values and imperatives.

Furthermore - there is even a rational means to find out which goals and basic rules we shall agree upon: The original position.

I suggest you read this entry in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, since an explanation by me would take up to much space:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Basically, if all constituents (persons) of a society came together beyond a veil of ignorance, meaning knowing nothing about their social place, race, religion, education, sexual and political preferences etc - what rules would they decide upon?

That would be the most just (under "justice as fairness", and fairness here is an objective concept) society.

This is applicable in ethics.

And there you go - an example of ethics without metaphysics.

760. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166441 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 8:49 am

Why should we give a shit about what a book says about us that was written by people whose only attempt at explaining the world is constructing and attempting to enforce myths - and whose "intellectual" descendants are mostly not much more enlightened than the average iron-age peasant - and on top of that try to shove their myth down other people's throats and establish it in the state?

and...

Get some soap for that potty mouth...

I'm having a slight wooter flashback here.

Also, you still haven't answered the questions put to you by epeeist, or addressed my arguments for the impossibility of god. I'm still waiting for that logical proof of good in a a formal calculus using only tautologies as premises...
But do it one at a time - epeeist asked you first... go ahead, answer him.

761. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166155 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Yes, "sterblich" does indeed mean mortal.

The natural language sentence at the beginning is to be expressed in formal logic.

First, an explicit form is created (EF), and this is then translated into formal logic.

The backwards "E" is the existence quantifier, stating "There is (at least one)/a x such that:"

and the upside down "A" is the universal quantifier, "For all x:"

"Px" means "x has the property P"
P and Q (and potentially Q, R, S, T) are variables for predicates, while x,y,z are variables for individuals

Now take a look at page 221 for a simple proof

"zeige" means "show"

The first line is the statement to be proven.
The second is the "A-BA" which is the "assumption for the conditional deduction". To prove a conditional (-> or <-), you assume the side left of "->" as given (or right of "<-") and then prove that the other follows necessarily from that.

In that example, since the second line is again a conditional, you again assume the antecedent (what is before the "->". So the third line states that what follows (in the box) is the proof of what is left.
Then, from the antecedens "for all x Px"(which is assumed), we eliminate the quantifier, and we get

Px

We then eliminate the quantifier in line 2 and get
Px -> Qx

then we take these two lines (Px and Px -> Qx, lines 6 and 7) and per modus ponens can infer

Qx

and the proof if done.

(what it says to the right of the boxes are the inference-rules).

Good hunting!

762. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166137 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Methods of logic by Quine is quite okay - but I don't think it's good didactics. Also, the notation he uses is not quite standard.

I would recommend a book that has not only definitions and explanations, but also many more examples and especially exercises.

Don't get me wrong - I love W.v.O. Quine's work! "On what there is" was one of the best papers I've ever read. His contributions to philosophy were incredible. Any philosopher should have read Quine on indeterminacy of translation and his "From a logical point of view", or at least "Two dogmas of empiricism" and especially "on what there is" in the above.

I doubt the "faithful" would be too happy about that.

Me too - but Anselm, Descartes, Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig and others don't seem to think so.

763. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166104 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm

btw, Brian...

...the original book by Kalish and Montague (the developers of the KM-calculus) is still around, but not inexpensive, with about 80 Dollars.

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Techniques-Reasoning-Donald-Kalish/dp/0195155041/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208914376&sr=1-2

and from what I hear it is sometimes quite demanding... but you would be hard pressed to find a book teaching you formal logic that isn't.

The more inexpensive way would be to learn German and read the scriptum "Collegium Logicum" by my professor - Prof. Dr. Godehart Link... :)

Or you can download it and just look at the statements, definitions, examples, axioms, rules and proofs in the formal language... maybe you'll pick something up:

http://www.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/fakultaet/lehreinheiten/logik/personen/link/link_downloads/colo_25-03-08.pdf

:)

764. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166096 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Thanks, Brian - I'd appreciate that.
Yes, I knew you were joking...

And great to hear you're planning on reading "The Miracle of Theism" - of course there have been new arguments and discussions since this book appeared.. . (Michael Martin's compendia cover the new stuff quite well) ... but for a serious philosophical discussion of the arguments that were around until 1980, this book is in my opinion the best.

Actually, I think Professor Dawkins should read it - it might help to refine and add to his arguments a great deal. Hmm, maybe someone should send it to him as a present :)

A good book on logic?

Depends - do you want an introduction to formal logic, teaching you how to understand and use predicate calculus and the extensions?
Or something more general? Or more specific?

I think I could do some research and come up with suggestions, but to tell the truth, I never read a book about it, as I only needed the scriptum for the courses I visited in formal logic.

That scriptum is wonderful - the life's work of my logic professor. About 700 pages, extremely useful and entirely free for download... but sadly in German only :)

I'm having a course under another professor of logic tomorrow (about reductionism in philosophy of science) who doesn't use that scriptum... I'm sure he could recommend a introduction to formal logic in English.

765. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166087 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Well, you sent me a PM back then, - and as far as I know I replied (didn't I?)

Maybe you could PM me the two relevant comments by that poster (forgot his name)... then I'll rewrite my piece (once I get to it :) and PM it back to you ?

766. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166080 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 6:04 pm

by the way - I still plan on improving my "essay" on the omnipotence problem, refining it to account for the objections raised on Brian's blog. I'm very busy at the moment and sorry to say I didn't get around to it yet - but I already know how to do it... not that hard, really. The objections raised are easily countered.

767. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166077 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Thanks Frankus -

From the index of contents, he does seem to go into every detail of the arguments for the existence of and belief in god, but deals with rather few arguments against, such as those in the compendia edited by Michael Martin on the improbability and impossibility of god.

I also like where he's going:

And I think, for Mackiean reasons, that there
cannot be an 'objective god,' a being such that there would be a prescription, valid and authoritative for all, that
those who believe in its existence must worship this being. I do not believe in the possibility of such
prescriptions. And so I think that the ordinary God-talk and God-thought of believers and disbelievers alike
involves an undermining error, which is that there could be an 'objective god'.

Though I'm not so sure about the evident other possibility of "subjective god"...

Anyway - good to see he mentions Mackie, whose "The Miracle of Theism" is still one of the greatest books ever written on the subject.

768. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166068 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Can you discuss anything without using profanity?

Yes I can, thank you for asking. I've had very nice discussions with theists, even on this site... absolutely friendly... but your arrogance is simply outrageous.

That's funny. You have done nothing of the sort.

Yes I have, time and again.

For centuries, logic has deduced the existence of God.

Good one - studied philosophy and logic much? Well, I have.
Descartes, Anselm and Plantinga (among others) have tried with
ontological arguments - all unsuccessful.
But you only listed inductive arguments. And they have been just as unsuccessful.

For centuries all attempts at proving god or even the rationality of believing in god have been successfully shot down.

Based on the laws of epistemology, God is the only reasonable, logical, and rational deduction .

And again you show your ignorance. There are no "laws of epistemology"... there are theories of epistemology. The justified true belief theory for example, advanced first by Plato and refined innumerable times - but still unsuccessful, the coherence-theory, the causal-chain theory, the undefeated justified true belief theory and many many others.... all of which, properly applied show that belief in god is irrational, illogical and unreasonable.

If "logic has proven" god... please give a logical formal proof in the Kalish-Montague calculus (or any other accepted logical calculus), including axioms and inference rules for every step, starting only from logical tautologies as premises. You may use first or even second order predicate logic with identity, lambda and iota operators, and modal logic as well.

Go!

769. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166054 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Oh well - since clicking on a link seems to be too hard for you, here you go:

We can prove that the concept of a non-physical, personal god is contradictory, because being a person means being a thinker and potentially an agent, and the concepts necessitate that any potential referent is within time because action and thought is always also a change in state of affairs - which only makes sense in spacetimetime. Our concepts of personhood and agency are inextricably linked to our concept of time.
Therefore, a "personal god outside space and time" is a conceptual impossibility - a category mistake.

Something non-physical effecting something physical is - aside from being in contradiction with the conservation of energy and momentum - another conceptual impossibility.

Furthermore, the concept of intention being fulfilled without a mechanism is incomprehensible in principle. It doesn't make sense. And just saying "well, god can" - won't do.

As for the logically contradictory notion of omnipotence... I'll have to post the link again, since the text is rather long:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page49#136661

770. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166047 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

You are attempting to limit God who is outside of the natural world to the laws of the natural world. The laws of nature did not exist until God created them. He is not subject to them. God is eternal. God is not limited by time. At the creation event, space, time, matter, and energy were created. God created time, He caused time. He is outside of time.

Read my comments I linked for you... it's not that hard to see that what you're saying is a lump of inherent logical inconsistencies and category mistakes, aside from being entirely unsupported by any evidence... in short: bullshit.

771. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166039 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 5:19 pm

The God of the Bible, the only God. Now you prove He didn't.

I can and I did - since "he" cannot exist - is a logical and conceptual impossibility.

But even if that wasn't the case - that's not how it works. The burden of proof is squarely on you.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Oh great - kissing Hank's ass

You're saying God's always right because the bible says so, the bible is right because God dictated it, and we know that God dictated it because the Bible says so.

You know, I don't care what you believe - but when you want others to believe you and live the way you think is right... you better have some fucking good arguments... and then of all places you come here, where there are dozens of people who know a hell of a lot more about every subject you make bold claims about than you do from biology to philosophy, logic, physics etc.

Poor thing.

772. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166027 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I didn't mean questions by me.

God is outside of our natural world. He is eternal. He is the first cause. He created space, time, matter, and energy. He is no subject to the laws of the natural world. He created them.

1. No evidence

2. Impossible - as I have shown multiple times. Doesn't even begin to address my arguments.

See these comments of mine:

Concerning personality and interaction

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins,page2#164400
(and the next one by me on that thread, in response to Steve)

And concerning Omnipotence:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page49#136661

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

The universe (all space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist.

The universe must therefore have a cause.

God is that eternal first cause.

Science again appeals to a supernatural event of something coming from nothing that violates logic and a first principle of knowledge.

You're infantile attempts at philosophy here are ridiculous. Every Christian philosopher would tell you so - like Plantinga, Swinburne or Craig.

And every real philosopher will tell you the same - and show you why even the arguments by the likes of Plantinga, Swinburne and Craig are wrong.

You are talking to people on here who have a very good knowledge of logic, philosophy, biology, physics etc.

You are seriously in far over your head.

773. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166001 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Remnant,

a n s w e r

t h e

q u e s t i o n s

774. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165990 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Not answering any questions, are you, Remnant?

Quelle surprise!

775. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165977 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Matter frozen in time? Could you elaborate on that?

You mean matter for which time doesn't pass? I thought that happens only at v=c?

776. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165973 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Well, I've been on both sides of the fence, I can say that you are wrong.

...and now we wait for the obligatory

"...not a real Christian...",

"...you simply have rejected the truth because you couldn't live with it..."

or

"...your faith wasn't strong enough..."

comment.

777. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165965 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Oh please - you doubt the existence of black holes?

Give me a break!

and "life from no life" - Are you serious?

You are the one who believes that it is possible that intention can be directly fulfilled without any mechanism (God), you are the one who believes that there can be an agent who is not subject to time (which is impossible), who believes that something nonphysical can effect something physical, who believes that an unobserved, unobservable entity, the assumption of which is untestable and whose existence is a logical impossibility, the attributions of properties to which are category mistake...

life from no life... "life" is a concept - and a very ill-defined one until modern biology... a property of a system.

You could as well say computers are impossible, because the molecules that make them up don't run windows or linux!

778. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165937 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm

...and Occam's Razor still applies anyway - bloated ontology...

779. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165933 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I don't think the complexity-argument applies as Dawkins thinks it does to the traditional theistic dogma.

The laws of causality and the concept of "simply appearing by chance" apply only in spacetime. But most theists assert that god is not within spacetime, ie not a physical being. If true, this would mean he is not subject to the laws of causality and since metaphysical entities need no causal explanation of their being, the probability of such a complex "suddenly appearing" is a meaningless concept.

Of course the idea of god as metaphysical gets the theist out of this trap, but right into a more serious one - namely that of logical incoherence (not physical but present everywhere and always in the physical world; not physical but effecting events in spacetime) and category mistakes (a person, an agent outside time? Agency requires change, change requires being subject to time) etc.

Anyway - this is where I think Dawkins could do better, his arguments doesn't hit home. Others (like the one I have laid out above) do - and are fatal to theism.

780. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165924 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 3:34 pm

To be fair, Steve, this is also a conceptual problem - concerning our notions of causality and especially necessity and contingency.

It was a possibility open for exploration by philosophers that a creator is a conceptual and metaphysical necessity. In that case we would be truly irrational and unjustified in denying the existence of "whatever entity x that terminates the infinite regress of causes".

A serious question.

Swinburne's cosmological argument was serious philosophy for the most part. Also consider modal logic. It is indispensable... and when Plantinga came up with his ontological "proof" that was a major advancement. Mackie and others have shot Plantinga and Swinburne in their cosmological and ontological arguments down, but it was certainly a serious advancement in the debate.

That is to say - if their premises and arguments were correct, they would indeed prove what they set out to do so... but they aren't - and we're back to science and real philosophy. :)

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

Comment #165899 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

chewmanfoo,

Why stop now - I have directed you to comments of mine that make a very strong case, and I'd like to tell me if and why in light of that you still think you have epistemic justification for your position.

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

Comment #165894 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 2:23 pm

chewmanfoo,

Oh, and concerning omnipresence, I'd like to refer you to this comment of mine:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page60#138081

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

Comment #165891 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 2:19 pm

chewmanfoo,

since when does clay reproduce and mutate?

And concerning your notion of divinity -

If your concept of god is that god is a non-physical, personal, omnipotent, omnipresent entity interacting with physical world - then aside from the fact that there is no evidence for that, the concept is also contradictory, and as such cannot refer to something real. There can be no god just as there can be no green ideas sleeping furiously and no square circles.

See these comments of mine:

Concerning personality and interaction

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins,page2#164400
(and the next one by me on that thread, in response to Steve)

And concerning Omnipotence:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page49#136661

784. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #165879 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm

And Bonzai,

concerning musicals - have you seen "Once"... the best one I have ever seen... especially because it's everything but the typical Hollywood musical. Can't get enough of "Falling Slowly".

785. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #165872 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Steve,
...PM waiting for you.

786. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165846 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Stein did not ridicule or call Darwinists names

No, he did far worse things.

-Likening scientists applying the rigorous standards of science and the drawing the necessary consequences of people in scientific positions not conforming to the standards of science to authoritarian suppression of free speech and ideas..

...sorry, but the standards of science are the standards of science - you stop doing science, you're no longer fit to fill a position in the research and teaching of science.

and

-Implicitly stating that people who accept the theory of evolution as best scientific explanation are adherents of an "ideology" that lead to the exterminatoin of about 6 Million people.

And please, have you never heard of the Dover trial? ID is just creationism in disguise.

CDesign Proponentists?

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

Comment #165823 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Everything except that last paragraph from this piece by Dinesh is true, but in no way enough:

He didn't only now and then use religious rethoric.
I don't believe he was a Christian either, but read my long post on this thread... he was very very friendly to the churches, and without the help of the churches, priests, and other religious institutions (such as the CV) he would have never made it. They all welcomed him with open arms. They bought his religious rhethoric and approved of him as Christians.

And again - not Darwinism...Lamarckism and artificial selection.

788. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165802 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 11:27 am

if I want to show that my idea of God should be compelling for you too

But that's not all this is about. It's about epistemic justification - not (just) for us, but for you. For that you would have to show

1. That what you claim is logically possible
2. That what you claim is physically possible
3. That what you claim is actual

1 seems no problem, except if you want to claim any of the logically incompatible or inherently contradictory ascriptions that are made in the bible (or anywhere else)

2 is seemingly at least not completely unproblematic

3 is the main problem

The probability of your scenario has to be higher than the probability of any other scenario - which means you have to avoid ockams razor and if that should be possible (which I doubt) you have to show that rival explanations of the phenomena you seek to explain by your hypothesis is - given background knowledge (knowledge, not opinion and conviction) - more likely.
Then you have to show that any evidence you can produce is more likely to occur given the truth of your hypothesis than given its falsity or its falsity in conjunction with the truth of a rival hypothesis.

Your hypothesis absolutely fails to gather any epistemic probability, which is why there is no epistemic justification for anyone - including you - to accept it.

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

Comment #165701 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:10 am

"Anyone, I just think it must be increasingly frustrating if you're German. It seems no one can mention German without Nazism being in the sentence along with it."

Extremely frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it. We have in our history some of the greatest composers, scientists, inventors, philosophers, novelists(and writers in general), poets etc...

Over a thousand years of culture, and for most people, Germany is not linked in their minds with Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Schumann, Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Kafka, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg - but with Hitler and those 12 years from 1933 to 1945.

It's very sad.
For a recent study, schoolchildren in Britain were asked to name "evil states"... guess what the top answers were? Iraq and Germany.
Among the less educated (and the averagely educated) in english-speaking countries, if you tell anyone you're from Germany, they lift their right arm to the "Hitler-Gruß" and shout "Sieg Heil".

But there are also extremely many people who know better :)

Nevertheless - something has to be done about it... and I would say it mostly has to do with the history education in schools.

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

Comment #165318 by MPhil on April 21, 2008 at 10:31 am

David Robertson,

It was also a community which more than any other group in Weimar Germany, supported Hitler.

Absolutely untrue - there were many academics who did this, so much is certain.
This is due to same facts that explain why so many non-academics supported Hitler (aside from the poverty-argument): A long-standing tradition of antisemitism (have you read Luther's "Über die Juden und ihre Lügen"?), the treaty of Versailles, Depression challenging even the rich and the longing for the old glory of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - Monarchism.

But actually Hitler would have never made it without the Zentrums-Partei and the CV (Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen) - The Zentrums Partei was the largest Christian party in Germany, and always one of the parties with most members in Germany. They both supported Hitler - the Zentrums Partei by willingly making way and the CV by telling its members that "any good Catholic has the duty to vote for Hitler".

Then of course there was the almost unanimous support of Hitler by the German churches, both Roman Catholic and Lutheran Protestant. (And aside from Bonnhöfer, most of those very few clergymen who didn't support Hitler mostly weren't philanthropists , but did so because they wanted a monarch by the grace of good who was in line with the German nobility and because of the murdering of the mentally ill, not the Jews.)

and some would argue the moral and spiritual degradation of the German people caused by the collapse in Christianity

Well, they would be wrong then. In fact, to get the German churches to support the Weimar Republic, a lot of concessions had to be made to the churches, who strongly supported the Christian monarchy. These concessions are why Germany as a democracy even nowadays isn't laicistic - why there is obligatory, confessionally bound religious education in all German schools (not comparative or merely educational religious eduction, but confessionally bound - ie indoctrinating).

German Christianity was incredibly strong, far stronger than nowadays in the times of the Weimar Republic. A cult of some mixture of Norse mythology (religion) - based partially on Richard Wagners understanding of it arose - but only after Hitler became Reichskanzler.

In fact, to get the support of the Vatican and the Lutheran Protestant church, Hitler had to strengthen the ties between state and church(es)... and he did so, willingly - knowing that when he has the support of the Christian religion in Germany (with their long-standing tradition of antisemitism), religious education and ties between churches and state would strengthen his position.

To get the support of the Vatican and the Protestant church, he had to make the Reichskonkordat - instituting so called "Konkordatslehrstühle" at German universities... chairs where the catholic and protestant church had the final say in the choice of candidate. These still exist today. And mind you - not chairs in theology or even biblical studies... chairs in anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history etc - thus guaranteeing the potential of a church-imposed bias.

came as a result of the Church largely having given up faith in the Bible - due to the effects of the Higher critical movement (largely based in Germany); and because of the adoption by the German academic middle classes of a materialist philosophy, fueled by Nietzsche, Marx and the understanding of modern science - especially their understanding of Darwinism.

Again, absolutely not true.

While it is a fact that many people embraced these philosophies, the Christian faith, true to the bible - was still by far the most powerful comprehensive doctrine in Germany at that time.

Furthermore it is a grave mistake to call the philosophy of Nietzsche and especially Marx "materialist"... have you ever studied any of them? Marx founded his philosophy on an inversion of Hegel, whose central idea was the "Geist" - very metaphysical. Marx's political ideas were based completely on the Hegelian understanding of the "metaphysical truth" that all things in this world are dialectic - a progression from thesis to antithesis and finally synthesis.
Nietzsches idea of the eternal re-occurrence of the same in particular was decidedly non-materialistic.
And the passage about "their understanding of Darwinism" is complete nonsense.

Hitler twisted Nietzsches philosophy of the superman and of the ressentiment and its genesis in the jewish people to suit his needs. Note that Nietzsche was not at all antisemitic - actually he thought the jews were very worthy and cunning adversaries - even helping to bring about the superman. Nietzsches superman-philosophy was absolutely Lamarckian, although he did not acknowledge it - based on the idea of heredity of acquired traits. So it's the understanding of Lamarckism and misinterpretation of Nietzsche that was the ideological basis for a relatively small number of middle-class and upper class "intellectuals" supporting Hitler - not Darwin, not what Nietzsche really wrote (his Sister did a lot of editing of her brother's work to support Hitler) and specifically not what Marx wrote - since he was all about a socialistic egalitarian society, where all that matters is overcoming the class-distinctions.

Of course most of the German people at that time would have been baptised as Lutherans or Catholics - including Hitler? But does that make them Christians?

Oh please - by far most people were Christian back then. They went to church, quoted the bible, expressed firm belief in God, and followed the political commands of their priests in church (oh yes, that was done unanimously). And the priests told them to vote for Hitler, how the Jews are a scourge etc - this is all historically absolutely verifiable.

You are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy. They were pro-Hitler, so they couldn't have been "real" Christians. Yes they were - and their political opinion was based as much on political delusion as on religious delusion. There is antisemititsm in the gospels - and there is antisemitism in the writings Luther and many catholic Saints and high figures.

There were Franciscan monks employed as overseers in concentration camps. Also, read up on Pavelic and Stepinac.

All it took was playing up that part of the bible in combination with the above mentioned elements - and voila - completely Christian Nazi-supporters.

...

Of course - because it no longer fits the Zeitgeist - now that we have seen where the social consequences of Darwinism have lead us.

No, because that would be a naturalistic fallacy... look it up. The is/ought fallacy. Science does not make morally normative statements - it cannot, per definition not. Therefore it's not because it no longer fits the Zeitgeist, but because people have realised it is no longer science.

Whenever someone claims that a certain natural event, process or entity has a moral value - that has nothing to do with the science that investigates and uncovers that event, process, entity. Social Darwinism is all about the moral values - and is furthermore based upon a seriously flawed understanding of evolution.

That's is also why this is complete nonsense:

Actually again you are being a little disingenous. They were. Hitler believed, just as you do, that human beings can overcome their genes and help nature along. The Jews were rats - they were to be exterminated - after all did we not now know from 'nature' that the strong survive, the weak perish.

And just on a side note - the adaptive, not the strong survive.

For the future - remember the
"no true Scotsman" fallacy
and the
"naturalistic fallacy".

And don't commit them again - that's really disingenuous!

-Mike

791. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165273 by MPhil on April 21, 2008 at 9:31 am

Generally, everyone does it. Retroactive attempts at justification for a preconceived notion. Common sense notions in general. But for many people, religion is a common sense notion (when they - in childhood - have received unanimous affirmation of religion and were trained to worship its figures) - and if and when reason and rationality develops to a certain degree, people attempt to reconcile religion with it. Since most people don't get beyond the everyday varieties of religion, and since the "reconciliation" is tantamount, the potential for understanding of reason and science extends only to misconceptions and selective knowledge that can be reconciled with religion.

Potentially, this involves active (deliberate or not) distortions of science and invention of pseudoscience.

Without meaning any disrespect,
with Karda/you, I think it's reasonably similar - only that a certain event and probably a lot of subconscious wishful thinking or some such took the role of childhood indoctrination (since I seem to remember that he/you didn't grow up in a religious houshold?)...

...and since thus, his/your abilities for exploring science are more highly developed, an everyday concept of religion would not do - so his/your mind came up with this elaborate plot...

... the tell-tale sign is still that it involves so many assumptions of actuality of states of affairs, where there is no epistemological justification for assuming this actuality at all - since the possibility either isn't given at all or the probability of actuality is based on current scientific knowledge so low that it is entirely irrational to postulate actuality.

As I said, no disrespect intended in this - but the comments about Steve's supposed ignorance... that deserves quite a bit of disrespect.

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

Comment #165101 by MPhil on April 21, 2008 at 4:06 am

"hitler.org"

... I'm not sure that's a site that ought to be graced by anyone's presence. Sounds suspicious.

793. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165100 by MPhil on April 21, 2008 at 4:03 am

Definitely!

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

Comment #165041 by MPhil on April 21, 2008 at 1:15 am

My my my - how I hate it when people who have no idea about philosophical ethics and metaethics make bold statements about it.

Care to deconstruct the Kopenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory as well?

Really, the nerve of theists who pick their morality from a book whose authority they just accept to talk about ethics.

Study some Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism and Epikureism, Mill, Kant, Rawls, Mackie, Scanlon, Tugendhat etc... and while you're at it some cognitive neurosciences and learn about ESS...

...all this is of course not entirely necessary to have discussions about it. But don't expect to be taken seriously when you make bold claims about naturalism and ethics if you have no knowledge in philosophical ethics, metaphysics, epistemology etc.

795. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164697 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Cheers Frankus - and you might enjoy this:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm

Actually, anyone with even a slight familiarity of philosophical thought-experiments is bound to get a good, hearty laugh from this :)

(and there's more where that came from - which is here: http://consc.net/phil-humor.html )

For those familiar with many philosophers - these are wonderfully hilarious:

Causes of death of philosophers:
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/DeathIndex.html

Philosophical Lexicon:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/lexicon/

796. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164693 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Actually it was Reason, Truth and History... but that's a minor detail.

797. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164691 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Frankus...

well done! Couldn't have put it more succinctly myself - actually I think I would have written about a page about that. At least I thought I would write that long a comment - which is why I didn't bother.

anyway - well done! Did you remember that right away?

798. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164686 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:07 pm

epeeist,

I think when I came to RD.net, I read some comments by Dianelos... but I have no real recollection.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me what that has to do with "theistic-idealism"? Did Dianelos argue for something like that?

799. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164679 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm

My my, what's with all the smilies in my comments - must be in a particularly good mood today. Ah what the hell - I'll enjoy it while it lasts:

:)

...there.

800. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164677 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:01 pm