Comments by Brian English

1351. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229107 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:27 am

Idealist means you hold that there are ideals (perfect forms of something) and these ideals are real. There is a real morality, it's something that exists and we can know it.

Consequentialist means that you judge something good or bad by its consequences.

Pragmatist means you just go with what works the best in that situation.

1352. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229105 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:24 am

Steve, chicken or egg? After all, it's only thermodynamics. ;)

In the end humans make arbitrary distinctions, like species, particles, waves, logic, value judgments like morality, etc. These are conceptions that work for us in our evolved 'middle-view' of the universe. The universe has no responsibility to conform to these conceptions.

1353. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229103 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:21 am

Irate, read my HPS303 study guide on belief. I haven't but it deals with these issues.

Put it this way, if all behaviour is determined, which it is I believe, then we are still responsible because all our thoughts are based on our brain 'composition', upbringing, societal influences, personal likes and choices. So, when someone acts a certain way, they are responsible, because no one forced them to act that way, but there's a 'causal' chain that lead to them acting that way.

I think the idea that we can just 'puff' choices into our heads that have nothing to do with our desires is stupid. Our desires are caused by who we are, both physically and mentally, so therefore they are determined, but yet ours.....

1354. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229100 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:15 am

Is there not a gain to be had for me in being with the girl I love?

Reminds me of the story of Lincoln when he pulled a pig from the mud, that if he hadn't of done so he would have felt bad all day. The important thing to note is not that one does something because it makes them feel good, we all do that, but that we think it's right to do such a thing, this is morality. Irate may feel right helping his wife, but not because it's what he wants, which he does, but because he feels right doing it. Irate is moral.....

1355. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229098 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:12 am

I should point out that I think that if a human holds it immoral to kill another human there's no problem with him feeling moral about killing other humans. For example, if you see your enemy or another ethnic group as less than human (dehumanized) then it's easy to rationalize their killing because, after all, you're not breaking your moral code in killing them. I think this is how so many people have stood by and watched genocide, the people being killed weren't their 'people'.....

1356. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229093 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:05 am

he two sides appear - to me - to be the degree of effect of the evolution of our species individual behavioural psychology vs the wider society's rules and norms. Yes yes yes, it can be argued - to a large extent - that the former leads to the latter. But does it in toto?

False dichotomy. Just because a nuclear missle can destroy a city doesn't mean it will. We can't not be humans, but that doesn't mean because we're born with a gene that increases the likelihood of being nasty that we will be nasty. A lot of it is upbringing.

Are we no longer behaving like 'beasts' because we are no longer in the jungle, or are we no longer in the jungle because we are no longer behaving like 'beasts'?

Similar mistake. Beasts don't behave like humans, except maybe cats playing with mice when they aren't hungry. Beasts do what they do. We think and reflect. So even if we're in the jungle slaughtering for our own survival, we still are choosing it. Just like we can choose to eat tofu and not eat meat (not that I do), even thought by nature we're omnivorous.

Without modern 'society' would the whole world look like Rwanda? Or Kosovo. Or Georgia. Or Chechnya? Or Palestine? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Nazi Germany? Or an Old Testament ruled land

All those places are modern societies. It's how humans act when they form in-groups/out-groups and ideologies. It's a very human (not bestial) way of doing things. Beasts don't do systematic mass slaughter, only humans.

1357. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229089 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:53 am

Here's what I have to negotiate:
1 wife who thinks religion is a crock of shit! Yeah!

1 mother = devout catholic, but we don't speak.

5 sisters, varying from regular churchgoers to lapsed (no problem with any of them).

4 brothers, all lapsed or agnostic, but some pricks with whom I don't speak.

4 maternal aunts, all practicing catholics, most of whom I have little to do with, and all have at least 3 children each who vary from practicing to agnostic.

3 paternal aunts, I'd say agnostic with plenty of children who are much older than me and seem all agnostic, but I don't speak with them......

1358. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229083 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:47 am

I wonder what the evolutionary advantage is to be that naturally stupid?

Isn't it painfully obvious? Evolution favors those who have the requisite adaptations to survive. If drinking piss is adaptive in our evolutionary environment then the non-piss drinkers will suffer. But it seems that drinking piss isn't all that adaptive, evolutionarily speaking, so the morons who don't drink and overpopulate will have many non-drinking babies who they'll indoctrinate and who will take over the positions of the piss head atheists when they die (assuming we're not led to the gulags beforehand) ;)

1359. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229080 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:45 am

I thought ME would be something like myasthenia gravis, but that would be MG wouldn't it?

1360. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229078 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:41 am

What two sides? We feel morality is objective due to an evolved sense of objectiveness about certain habits that work for a social animal. This is based on iterative game theory, i.e. the best chance for survival was to remember those who shafted us previously and accordingly act. To feel guilty when we shafted, and to fell anger when another shafted.

We can choose what these moral 'imperatives' are, so therefore we need to work out amongst the group, or be told by the group, what the moral ethos is. I fail to see the problem.

Thus, morality feels concrete because of our evolved brain, but what we call morality is social . That is, what a social animal would think good.

1361. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229074 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:37 am

ME = chronic fatigue syndrome?

1362. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229072 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:33 am

1. She had been indoctrinated by birth (see my previous posts about the outlaws)

No offense irate but I'd love to understand the mechanism of birth indoctrinating. Perhaps you meant since birth?

What is ME?

1363. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229058 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:47 am

Any of them in the unholy trinity. The Father, The Son, The....

But Denis seemed so nice. :)

1364. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229051 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:39 am

Boulat, check out Levy's What makes us moral It runs the gamut of evolutionary theory and philosophy of morality. Fantastic book.

1365. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229048 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:36 am

Quetz, I see nothing wrong with defending someone you like or admire. So, I say this, Wooter fuck off you misogynistic wanker. :)

1366. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229043 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:29 am

Just restarted Firefox, and still had to wait a long time. I only got ADSL2 a week or so ago. The text appears instantaneously, then you get 'waiting for reddit.com' message. The site has been struggling lately with 404 errors, 'comment text-->' errors and delays. I wonder why? Josh does a sterling job. Perhaps it's because there's too many atheists, or too many comments or the system has moved to a new database/language....

1367. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229040 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:21 am

I know twp can handle it herself, but even so.

Good point Quetz. I look for the logical arguments and generally let the insults slide. I do this because I've found that generally when I argue emotional stuff I get caught in a vicious cycle. Perhaps I let stuff slide that I shouldn't, but give the internet is such an alien medium I'm not sure of the best approach. Forgive my fumbling.

1368. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229038 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:17 am

This site seems extremely slow posting. Or my brain is imagining that it's fast under the influence.

1369. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229037 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:13 am

Sorry, my fault, you're right Quetz. Gillipollas would be pronounced 'Hilyipolyas' whereas the correct 'Gilipollas' would be 'Hilipolyas'. This relates to the slang word for penis. Polla = cock or dick and always in Spanish it's put in plural in a compound of this type, e.g. Matamoros = moor killer (nickname given to patron saint of Spain). From my understanding Chupapollas = Cock sucker, so Gilipollas = dick head or cock head. anyway......

1370. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229034 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:08 am

White Pearls seems fluent, so anyway, she'll tell me if my Spanish (from Spain of 2000/2001) makes no sense to someone living near Mexico of 2008.....

1371. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229031 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 3:06 am

My translation: White Pearl I know you can handle it yourself, therefore I didn't flag the jerk-off Wooter.

D'Oh. OK, I've had a beer or two. So just ignore. :)

1372. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229028 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:59 am

Not at all Steve, I just like the sound of my fingers hitting the keys signifying that I think I have something worth typing. :)

1373. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229027 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:55 am

Perla blanca, se que puedes arreglartelas sola. Por eso, no trato de hacer 'bandera' contra el gillipollas 'wooter'. :)

EDIT: shit, wooter can speak Romanian, so Spanish may not be too difficult for him (given the assumption that he pays more attention to language than logic).

1374. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229022 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:53 am

As far as I can tell, universes aren't make of bricks and mortar, and don't require reliable electric supplies and decent plumbing. This one certainly seems to lack central heating.

No argument here. I'm just asking our wooter to justify how his arguments don't get hoisted on their own petard....

1375. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229013 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:42 am

Isthatclear, you say that we can know that a house is designed by a person because we have seen the designer. How can you say the universe is designed if we have not seen a person designing it?

1376. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229009 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:37 am

Although, I don't want to say Rousseau was bad, just that some of his less than useful ideas are still with us, but that's a value judgment on my part.

Unfortunately (in my opinion) he tried to rescue religion in the Savoyard Vicar and in doing so made religion more obscure (because he realized that science had made God run for the shadows/gaps).

1377. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229008 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:35 am

From ye venerable Wikipedia: Rousseau saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature. Rousseau believed that man was good when in the state of nature (the state of all other animals, and the condition humankind was in before the creation of civilization and society), but is corrupted by society. This idea has often led to attributing the idea of the noble savage to Rousseau, an expression first used by John Dryden in The Conquest of Granada (1672).

1378. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229006 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:32 am

Romanticism often refers to the heart's feelings; Hearts do not have feelings; Romanticism is to blame for arresting the development of heart-surgery by teaching people false ideas.

And you would be saying that Rouseau et al. were only an artists, instead of philosophers, and didn't influence the anti-Enlightenment sentiments of those who didn't want to leave religion behind. This is demonstrably false. Romanticism influenced a lot of art, but it didn't start out as an art movement, but an anti-reason movement and it continues that way.

1379. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #229001 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:14 am

I hope it starts to blur the boundaries between evolution and abiogenesis.

PZ Myers reckons that saying evolution is separate from abiogenesis is a cop out. He argued (too lazy to link) that the formation of life is part of the same process that includes evolution.....

1380. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229000 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:11 am

Religion is destroying education.

Dogma, call it faith or religion, is anathema to learning. What they call learning some would call indoctrination.....

1381. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #228997 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:07 am

Usually its proponents have no idea what it entails, having lived quite 'well-to-do' lives.

From my admittedly biased sample of media reports it seems it's only the 'well to do' who want to leave 'those without doors' (or vaccines) to their own devices. The so called noble savages want to more ignoble, that is, educated, have better health and not watch 10 of their 12 kids die young....Muslims wouldn't migrate to Europe if Europe was no better than the Mid East or Asia. Unfortunately, we don't insist on them accepting Enlightenment values because that would be too colonial. How one can be colonial in ones own country is beyond me....

1382. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #228985 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 1:01 am

Romanticism commits that naturalistic fallacy that what is natural or unsophisticated is good.

1383. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #228982 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 12:55 am

Romanticism promotes the idea of the noble savage, who if we had only let him/her be would live a better life than what we live. All noble and savage like, unlike us unnatural types. The flip side is that we shouldn't interfere with the noble savage, no matter how savage his/her customs seem. I.e, we shouldn't tell muslims they're worse or savage, because that is anti-romantic and progressive.

1384. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228943 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Good point. All you UKsians get out your pens and personalized letter pads and compose screeds. :)

1385. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228937 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Bonzai, if Richard does hit back, it will confirm their bias against him I fear. Not that that should in any way deter him.

1386. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228932 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Poor old Richard, he'll always be accused of arguing against someone else's religion. I mean, just because he's right doesn't mean he's allowed to say the truth. It's upsetting you know!

1387. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228929 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm

No estas por dormir? Que hora es alla?

(accents removed so that it's readable...)

1388. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228913 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Hasta pronto Perla blanca. Que duermas bien!

1389. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #228908 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Centralis, when you go around saying that atheists believe in evolution and Richard Dawkins you are accusing atheists of having a faith and prophet. Or something very similar. You can hardly claim to be making reasonable point with such misrepresentations.

1390. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #228904 by Brian English on August 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm