Comments by Bonzai

1651. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143381 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 4:21 am

Brian

The only tricky bit is, we need to let these biggots speak and be rebutted publicly.

I think there are certain things that are so dehumanizing that even entering into the debate lends them undeserved legitimacy. For example, we don't debate whether Blacks are fully humans. Legal banning of such speech is a way to send a signal that such ideas are simply not debatable, just as it is not a debatable matter whether we should send handicaped people to death camps. There is a point where ideas cease to be just abstract ideas and become a form of persecution. This is what I am trying to get at.

For the gay muslims in the youtube link I provided, the idea that gays are sub humans is not an abstract philosophical proposition. It is a form of real persecution and people get killed because of that. I think there should absolutely be legal consequences. The society needs to make a clear and loud statement that this is not acceptable, not through debating clubs but the court.

I understand that in practice there are grey areas and lawyers would have to work them out. I am only stating a general philsophical position with blatant disregard of technical details.

1652. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143375 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 4:08 am

That could be a bit of a problem to introduce, seeing as how certain religious groups well-established in the UK aren't exactly in favour of equal rights for women, for example.

That would actually be excellent because if these nutters would dare to declare openly that women should be treated as second class citizens based on their religion, it would be enough to bury them as well as undermining religion in general in a very public way.

1653. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143371 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

Other than incitement I also think that there should be law against those who teach or preach that an identifiable group of people are subhumans who don't deserve human rights.

1654. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143369 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:46 am

Once we agree to one form of speech censorship, how can we logically argue that others shouldn't be stopped?

My rule is that ideas are fair game, but targeting people is no no. It's ok to say Islam is a ridiculous religion but it wouldn't be ok to say that all Muslims are scumbags who should be locked up. I don't believe that people should be threaten with arrest for saying stupid things about homosexuality and 'homosexual conspiracy", but I draw the line if they advocate doing harm to gay people, perhaps killing them.

I know sometimes the line is not easy to draw, but that is my basic position.

1655. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143364 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:40 am

Having had a long chat with my wise husband about this, I have realised I was wrong(*). The best way is indeed to allow such speech, no matter how nasty.

I draw the line when someone actually says homosexuals should be killed, as it is happening in some mosques in the U.K. Such people need to have the full force of the law brought on their sorry arses.

1656. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143353 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:23 am

He replied pathetically saying he must love her, but hate her sin or something stupid. Wanker....

At least he didn't tell her he would kill her with his bare hands.

Pell is one of the most conservative Catholic Cardinals around. It would be a great progress when you can get your average traditional Islamic cleric in the U.K. to tell his gay brother I love you even though I hate your sin.

I think the Catholic Church is an easy target because no one really takes it seriously anymore, at least in most of the Western world. I think Islam is way worse in terms of hatred towards homosexuals and a few other things

1657. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143346 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:08 am

The link again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f80pNyoL6A&feature=related

1658. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143344 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

On the other hand, knowing kids these days in the UK, he is probably going to make himself look a total ass.

Not in the Muslim community, for example. I think there is a case to really bring the law down on those who preach hatred against gays in extreme cases because people are getting harmed, badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f80pNyoL6A&feature=related

Though I feel sorry for the guy on the radio in part1 I have to say he is pathetic. You have to be a masochist to remain a Muslim if you are gay.

1659. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143341 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 2:54 am

The Bishop is a model of "tolerance" comparing to the Islamic nutters.

1660. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #143316 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 1:54 am

Lose track of the "off-switch" for your mind. I have never found mine.

Meanwhile I have problems finding my "on switch".

1661. Two More Fleas

Comment #143274 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Re: How do you answer the fine-tuning argument?

Current science doesn't have an explanation for fine tuning. In a sense it is not even entirely clear how the question should be formulated or to what extent it is a real question. There are many speculations, opinions and plausible ideas but nothing really concrete. In short we don't know. I think that about sums it up honestly.

While an interesting and perhaps important question in physics, fine tuning is a non issue as far as the God debate is concerned.

While science doesn't have an explanation for question X, it doesn't follow that "God did it" is a legitimate explanation. It doesn't 'explain" anything even though it may look like an explanation because of the way we use language.

There is no way to describe how God fine tuned these constants, no mechanism is suggested, there is no way to test the God "hypothesis" which can be invoked to "explain" anything for which we don't know the explanation. It is infinitely flexible, infinitely ad hoc, infinitely vague and doesn't have to satisfy any constraint of consistency imposed by what we do know.

I would argue that science doesn't have answers to certain questions is a demonstration of its strength, rather than its weakness. In science there is a very high standard for accepting any proposed answer. It has to pass many tests, make precise quantative predictions and fit into our over all understanding of the world because unlike theology, science is a coherent body of knowledge, if one piece doesn't fit the whole structure may fall apart, the requirement of consistency is that stringent. That's why answers are so difficult to come by in science. The "God explanation" is cheap because it does none of these.

Religion has no standard and so not surprisingly it seems to have an answer for everything and it is always the same answer. It is not a strength to be able to produce answers that don't conform to any standard. Quite the opposite, it is a fatal flaw for any system that claims to have insights into deep knowledge.

Anyone can come up with answers, they are as numerous as digestive gas. The difficult question is how do we know we have the right answer,--even in some provisional sense. "God did it" offers no clue to how this can be ascertained.

Victor Stenger is wrong in calling God the failed hypothesis, that is giving it too much credit. It is a non hypothesis that only looks like one.

So indeed we can turn the table against the theists if they use fine tuning as an argument for God because it proves beyond the shadow of doubt that they have not a clue on even what it means to have an answer, let alone having one.

When believers trying to argue for God by invoking fine tuning, it is basically the "I don't know, therefore God exists" non argument, as Brian English said "Non scimus, ergo Deus extat". It is nothing but a shameless celebration of intellectual laziness.

1662. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143256 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I noticed that in many cases people were laughing before the punchline, like they were trying to express an opinion with their laughter or, like groupies at a pop concert, they were erupting in response to hearing the first few chords of their favorite song.

Or going to see the Rockey Horror Picture movie.

1663. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143255 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm

roboholic

Mabye in heaven I can take off my mask.

What made you think that you are going to heaven?

1664. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143251 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm

The Vatican released a list of seven new sins on Monday.

Yawn.

Some people have too much time on their hands, how about the Popes and Bishops start making an honest living for a change?

It just strikes me as odd that there are actually people whose only purpose in life is to invent sins, stupid rules and make up scary stories about being sodomized by demons after you die if you sin as if they have experienced it first hand,--sorry that was Father Max who buggered you when you were 6, not a demon. They then solemnly announce their rules and stories to the world as if we should take them seriously just because they wear funny cloths and believe in fairies. I mean, grow up.

The sad thing is too many people do take them seriously instead of just laughing them off as the clowns that they are. This is beyond irrational, it is insane.

1665. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #143242 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Who is the horse?

1666. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143201 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

ut surely this cannot be becoming that widespread that people are starting to believe it in this country?

No, I don't think so.

I quote:

The bishop's summons to appear before the committee followed a document he produced last year which angered some MPs because of its strict line on sexual morality.

and this

The committee also heard faith schools were creaming off wealthy and bright pupils at the expense of children from the most disadvantaged homes.

It seems the Bishop was asked to explain himself to a hostile audience who demanded to know WTF was going on. By all indications, he was put on the hot seat instead of being treated as a rock star in concert by an adoring crowd.

1667. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143196 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm

They should ban faith schools instead.

In a way it is good that the Bishop speaks up. He is probably digging his own grave if his outlandish opinions raise enough eye brows, this is afterall the U.k and not some Eastern European country where the Church is held in the highest regard.

PS Is this the same guy who thinks gays should be in jail on the other thread?

1668. Fleabytes

Comment #143180 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Steve

Some of my best friends are women...

Oops, my witticism backfired. :)I meant to say "like I need a woman in bed" But then I decided to keep it implicit and change "I" to " a gay man" as I realized my sexual preference really had nothing to do with the thread.

You know I almost prefer the honesty of the creationists. You know what you are dealing with, and they recognise that NOMA is nonsense.

Actually I don't mind NOMA if religion holds up its end of the bargain.

The problem is religious people would never officially give up claims that intrude into science because to do so would be to acknowledge that their God is just a feel good fiction and an occasional gap filler, though a small number of theologians like Bishop Spong are honouring their end of the deal admirably in that sense.

Even without going that far I have no problem with religious moderates who compartmentalize their brains to such an extent that they do in practice honour NOMA even though they may still listen to stories of resurrection and virgin birth without much resistance on Sunday. Many of them fight on our side to keep creationism out of the classroom. I think that needs to be acknowledged.

And sorry, no, I don't prefer the "honesty" of Creationists,--get a taste of that "honesty" with Wooter. That is not honesty, just consistent stupidity. It is better to be wrong only sometimes than to be wrong consistently all the time. Consistency is not a virtue in and of itself.

1669. Fleabytes

Comment #143163 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve

I think some people find religion comforting because it offers such a small view of the universe. They may call God infinite, but I am sure many really mean is that God is simply a celestial superman, big enough to defeat all enemies and look after me.

It is actually kind of ironic.

On the one hand believers endow their God with omnipotence and credit him with all creations, insist that he is infinite and beyond space and time. But it would be difficult to believe that a God bigger than the universe itself would give a flying fuck about their petty lives any more than we would care about the lives and happiness of an amoeba.

So while talking big talks in truth they actually believe in a God small enough to be like us in order to feel snuggly. Kierkegaard knew the implications of a God who supposedly set the heavens in motion and presides over eternity, he didn't want that remote being and cried in anguish, "I don't want the God of the philosopher, give me the God of Abraham and Issac." Yes, he wanted God small and snuggly and unlike many contemporary theologians at least had the honesty and insight to acknowledge it.

1670. Fleabytes

Comment #143152 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Steve,

Religion is a parasitic flea not just on writers like Dawkins, it is parasitic on science. Whenever something new is found, you hear some theologists claim that this "simply expands our understanding of God's creation". I despise this. It is like a child, who finding a new toy around the house, immediately declares "that's MY toy!", claiming ownership of everything just in case.

It shows that they are desperate. What I find most unbearable are people who smugly intone that science and religion need each other, in a truly ecumenical fashion while it is obviously religion that is trying desperately to hang on to science's coat tail. Science needs religion like a gay man needs a woman.

1671. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #143058 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 11:56 am

Steve,

Could we distinguish "studying the supernatural" from "trying to showing religions true"?

I think we can.

I don't think we can. I think if we try, we will always get people claiming we are doing the latter, and that this gives religion scientific legitimacy.

Should we make our decision based on what people may misunderstand? The news media often paints a rather misleading and simplistic picture of science, just look at all the "study finds" headlines. I don't think that is a good enough reason to stop any research that can be justified on its own ground.

For example, if someone wants to claim that prayer works, what are we actually studying? If there was, hypothetically, some effect, how are we supposed to distinguish some direct "psychokinetic" effect from an intervention by supernatural beings?

You say it yourself. Honest and competent scientists should be able to follow up and decide which is which.

BTW, I can certainly imagine psychologists and neural scientists being interested in studying whether there is a correlation between health and praying.

Neural scientists do study Buddhist monks who practice meditation. I think that is a legitimate project even though it can be easily misrepresented.

No matter how much we insist that the first explanation is the more reasonable, due to simplicity, you can bet the "god did it" explanation would be the one that would be accepted.

If people insist they can always insert "God did it" no matter what you find. The Catholic Church doesn't go out of business because it accepts evolution. It can still say God did it by "guiding evolution"!

I understand your PR concerns and I am also quite tired of the attempt to validate religion with science but I just don't agree that certain research should be off limit to respectable scientists simply because it may be misconstrued.

As I said before, if we ask theists to supply evidence for their claims it seems unreasonable to take such a dismissive attitude the moment they do try to investigate those claims with science and appear to be doing so honestly. I think there is a qualitative difference between TF and outfits like the Discovery Institute, it is not fair to tar them with the same brush (I know you don't, but many here seem to be doing just that).

1672. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142919 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 7:48 am

Steve,

Sorry, but I am with Harold Kroto on this (very good company). Once you start religious-oriented research under the guise of science, you give religion credibility as a rational basis for understanding the workings of the universe, and it it can start to be mentioned in science education.

I heard Kroto on the Beyond Belief conference, I was at first in agreement with him but I come to revise my view a little.

I could be wrong on this, but based on what I read the TF funds science that may have some kind of religious overtone if people choose to interpret them that way, but they are not religion disguised as science, these are two different things. The study of prayers, for instance, while obviously had religious significance no matter how the result might have turned out, was a genuine scientific study adhering to all the protocols of such investigations.So I wouldn't call that religion in disguise even though it addressed a religious theme.

Now we atheists always demand evidence from the theists, we should welcome the effort to put religious claims in scientifically testable hypotheses. I doubt that anything extraordinary will turn up, but at least it shows that some theists do accept that it is valid to apply empirical tests to empirical claims made by religion and are willing to carry out these investigations honestly,--as far as I know there has been no accusation that the TF is engage in anything scientifically dishonest like the ID crowd. Since the TF is paying for the bills I don't see why we should be upset about it,

1673. Two More Fleas

Comment #142641 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 11:27 pm

I experience some kind of spasm whenever I see a hooter, I mean a wooter post and have to press the troll button, It must be the devil who makes me.

It is a waste of time to try to reason with him/her. I don't see the point of deconstructing his/her inane arguments the nth time unless you are doing this to practice your writing skill.

1674. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142636 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 11:15 pm

I am a bit surprised that some people here are comparing TF with the RC Church and hell fire and brimstone Christians. I may be mistaken, but I am not aware that the TF has any particular religious affiliation. Its agenda, based on my possibly erroneous understanding, is an attempt to build a bridge between science and some kind of vague, wooly "spirituality", which is not specifically Christian, it is not even necessarily theistic,--"God" or "divine" can be a shorthand for a lot of things if it is not tied to any specific doctrine..

You may still find that distasteful, but I think it is knee jerk to react as if it is some kind of Church sponsored operation.

1675. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142607 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 8:37 pm

It is cruel and offensive to ugly people! Oops, I mean beauty challenged people, I am sorry for the slip,

1676. Two More Fleas

Comment #142594 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 8:10 pm

clearmind aka hooter whined:

blah blah blah ..Non scimus, ergo Deus est.. blah blah blah..

1677. Two More Fleas

Comment #142591 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Brian

I'm not Cartomancer, but I'll give it a go.

Non scimus, ergo Deus extat.
Or
Non scimus, ergo Deus est.

Good job! Well actually I say this just out of politeness because I don't know any Latin, :-) but it does look impressive, probably has a nice sound to it too when recited in a singing voice.

It should be inscribed on every church and cathedral.

Edit

"It should be inscribed on every church and cathedral and hooter's forehead."

1678. Two More Fleas

Comment #142587 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm

(BTW, are you a social scientist or student in that area? You seem to be from your posts.)

No, actually I am in mathematical physics, rather hard nose stuffs. I just happen to have many interests :-)

1679. Two More Fleas

Comment #142580 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Also, as the God Delusion points out, religious belief actually increases with age, probably because of the fear of death.

It would be interesting to sort out religious affiliations by age. I have the feeling that while it may be true that many people get religious as they grow older, the fundamentalists, born again variety of believers represent an overall younger demographic. When older people get religious,they seem to subscribe to more mellow versions of religiosity.

Perhaps young people are in general more idealistic and uncompromising in their views, which extends also to religion if they happen to be religious.

These are just hunches, it would be nice if there are actual data on this.

I also think fear of death is a somewhat simplistic explanation for why older people getting religious, Surely the realization of one's own mortality plays an important role but there are other reasons as well. As people get older they in general settle into a more conventional mode and that includes participating in religion, People also tend to become more introspective and come to realize that a lot in life is out of one's hand as they get older, With age one experiences more losses, sees more unfulfilled promises melting away and takes on more responsibilities for others. This would spur a greater urgency for meanings and reassurance.

1680. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142565 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I don't see why not. The TF has its own philosophy which influences the kind of projects it funds for sure, but it does fund scientifically interesting research. Even its critics acknowledge that it does scrupulously maintain a non interference policy for the projects that receive its fundings, the scientists are firmly calling the shot, The same cannot be said about some corporate donors such as big pharmaceuticals. The profit motive is a much more serious threat to scientific integrity in the modern world IMO.

The role played by TF is not so different from the wealthy patrons of science in European history. Many distinguished scientists got their supports through this patronage system.I am sure almost all of these patrons were religious and they might have funded scientists for motives other than purely to advance science.

The TF is no Discovery Institute, people should chill out.

1681. Two More Fleas

Comment #142428 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 1:25 pm

We should all see a pattern by now. For many believers their idea of evidence is the absence of knowledge. So they claim they have "evidence" for God whenever science cannot explain xyz.

"We don't know, therefore God exists." Cartomancer should translate this important theological principle into Latin to make it sound more impressive and less stupid.

With such laughably stupid definition of "evidence" no wonder you keep hearing them saying that their faith is based on evidence.

1682. Fleabytes

Comment #142390 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm

mylearnedfriend wrote

One problem in Biblical interpretation (and no, I'm not trying to make everything less precise by this, but MORE precise) is you have to look at the style of writing - so a historical narrative (eg Chronicles) should be looked at differently from poetry (eg Psalms). Just as we look differently at a description of something in an encyclopedia compared to that in a poem.

To be fair I think the man (woman?)does have a point.

Except for the fundies who think that Jesus spoke KJB English Christians don't claim the Bible is the literal word of God. Sophisticated Christians instead say that the Bible was "inspired" by God but written by men. This would allow for a lot of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in irrelevant details. If the purpose of an "inspired" narrative was to convey a moral lesson or to set the stage of some dramatic story I don't see why it had to be accurate on scientific details.

Many Christians would have no problem acknowledging that the bible was not intended to be a scientific text book and secular Biblical scholars agree on this point as well. I really don't think it is such a devastating blow to point out that the Biblical authors believed in the flat earth theory. This line of attack would work on the Quran though, because Mohammad made the much more definitive claim that God spoke through him and God is supposed to know his facts,

I think it is best to let mylearnedfriend to tell us what sets the Bible apart from other ancient folk lores and take it from there. I can't think of anything but let's hear his claims and his arguments to back them up (I know his claims but I would want him to flesh them out with detailed arguments and evidence when applicable)

I would also want to hear from other sophisticated Christians such as flying goose.

1683. Fleabytes

Comment #141948 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Now I think I might have misunderstood fides_et_ratio's statement that

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray

I thought he was talking about someone who has quited drinking through some kind of Christian programs. But now I realize he is making the statement out of the blue which I can only take it to mean a universal recommendation, which is of course stupid.

But I stand by the rest of my points in the previous two posts.

1684. Fleabytes

Comment #141939 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Steve,

Can you post it somewhere?

1685. Fleabytes

Comment #141936 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm

MPhil,

Hmm, but whether it actually is rational as opposed to merely perceived as rational but in fact only costly on resources (time, energy) depends on the actual utility.

A large part of utility is psychological satisfaction, which we have to take people's word for it as that cannot be measured objectively.

This seems like some kind of Pascal's Wager.

No. It is not like that at all.

You won't know the outcome of Pascal's wager in your lifetime. But believers do have means to evaluate their satisfaction on an ongoing basis. There are people who either become atheist or switch faith because they figure they make the wrong bets that don't "pay off".

In order to maximize the utility, wouldn't we have to pray to all gods? Or only to the ones that don't fight each other?

People do shop around, see above. It depends on many factors, like what community one feels comfortable with and so on, which really has little to do with specifically the religious texts.

But no utility of praying has been observed except for the placebo-effect. You could invest that same time and energy into something more effective, I'd say.

How do you know it is not effective? Placebo doesn't work very well on average but this doesn't mean it doesn't work well for any particular individual.

I know some friends who are social workers, they told me of people who are in and out of jail and have a long list of addictions.They try everything with them, punishment, encouragement, therapy, nothing works but somehow Jesus does. It is a placebo but it does the job for them.

We may say they are just statistical outliers, but this is a third person way of looking at it. A person never looks at himself or herself in statistical terms. Now is it irrational not to give up on a placebo that works well for you in exchange for something that works better, but only on average and chances are you already know it doesn't work very well for you based on past experience?

EDIT

Actually there may be something more than placebos because people don't just do prayers alone, chance are they get some kind of community and emotional supports from peers by joining a church and these things can be shown to be effective in helping people to cope during difficult times.

1686. Fleabytes

Comment #141927 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

fides_et_ratio

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray

Actually, this is an interesting point that I can sympathize with. It boils down to what is rationality?

This is the economist's definition of rationality, which involves maximizing utility rather than "truth". If you get what you want by subscribing to a fiction who is to say it is not rational in that sense?

I can respect that attitude from believers as long as they don't make truth claims that they have nothing to back up.

I have said this before, I think most people don't believe because they want explanations for some scientific riddles. You can find good evidence for that by actually tracking the rise and fall of religiosity in a population.

The Chinese community in Toronto is highly religious comparing to the general population, Evangelicalism is a very visible and powerful influence within that community. It is not that these people brought their religiosity with them because many become Christians after they have arrived and the community is markedly more religious than the population they come from.

A key reason is that the Church provides many things that a new immigrant needs such as social support, networking, services, community and friendship.

I think this observation can be reasonably generalized.

There are of course many harmful side effects accompanying the rise of Christian fundamentalism, but you can't turn the tide by bashing people over the head with "truth" and "rationality" only. These are not what motivate people to believe in the first place. There is a disconnection between cerebral atheist intellectuals such as Dawkins and the very people they try to influence. For Dawkins and his supporters here "truth" is all that matters, as he himself stressed many times in his interviews. But religious folks,--and non religious ones too,-- are almost as a rule not too interested in the abstract "truth". I wouldn't necessarily say that they are non reflective,--I take back that description which I used in replying to MaxD earlier,--but they probably reflect on other things, which are more personal and concrete.

If we want to help people kick their religious habit,--sometimes for good reasons, though not always,--we have to understand their emotional and material needs and offer an alternative. Telling people they are deluded that their feelings are only biochemistry wouldn't get you very far.

1687. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141680 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 4:47 am

Sex is perfectly natural, but how many of you would have hot, steamy, sweaty sex in front of your children or your parents? If not, why not? Do you think it is an irrational hang up that we should overcome?

1688. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141679 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 4:42 am

Russell Blackford

While I do have some preferences about what is done with my body after I die, I don't really care that much if someone is silly enough to want to have sex with it. It may seem "icky" or "creepy" but it's not an ickiness that I'll experience

Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, respect for human remains can be justified as a way to protect their memory for the living, Seeing the body of a love one being abused may cause emotional damage for the living family and friends. I think that is a good enough reason to treat dead bodies with respect. Since we are hard wired to feel empathy, it would be natural for us to extend the same respect to dead bodies of strangers.

Humans are emotional creatures, a sound ethics must take that into account. "Rationalism" has a slightly different meaning in ethics than in the natural science. Ethics necessarily involves value judgments and preferences, evidence and data has to be evaluated against premises which are necessarily anthropocentric. What "nature is" alone is not a sufficient foundation to define proper human behaviour.

1689. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141654 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 3:11 am

Mphil,

Josh, couldn't you just ban the IP instead of the profile?

Finally something we can agree 100% :-)

I don't think your nuronal code analogy is accurate for what we were talking about, but that is an interesting topic on its own.

My point was a very simple very focused one. I just don't think formal logic has a similar function to natural logic. Also, you obviously need some natural logical skill to work on formal logic,---because even while trying to act like machine, you do actually use natural, informal logic and intuitions to work out your formal deduction, it is just the presentation that is formal,-- but I don't think studying it would improve one's "logical" skills in a natural sense.

It is not to say that it has no other use. I can see how its useful in modelling and engineering such as some kinds of AI systems, or the example you gave, or even the mudane Boolean circuit. These applications are considerably beyond traditional formal logic.

There was a girl who hanged out with my philosopher friends some years ago when she was dating one of them. They used to tell her to her face that she had poor logical ability and she became very self conscious as a result. She asked them for ways to improve her logical skills and one guy told her to take a course in symbolic logic. She actually did that and ended up even more confused than she was before because she couldn't even parse a simple word argument any more, let alone making one. When my friends introduced her to me, her first question was, "Oh my god.. you are a mathematician so you must be good at logic, do you think in symbols?"

For some reasons I couldn't shake that off my head when I was reading your posts, perhaps I was reading too much into them.

1690. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141652 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 2:46 am

Troll wrote:

Every painting has an artist

By using this analogy you already assume nature is like a painting, which is an artifact by definition. So you are smuggling your conclusion into your premise in a rather obvious way. This is circular argument.

Why does your ass split into two buttocks? It must have been King Arthur trying his sword there. Every painting has an artist, right?

1691. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141627 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 1:15 am

Mphil

It makes clear the connections and inferences that are far more ambiguous and obscure in natural language - but are there if interpreted correct. It helps to see what the different logical structures could be - what the interpretations could be - and which yield a valid argument and which don't.

But you're then talking about the value of formal logic in investigating logic as a subject matter, it is not an argument for the advantage of applying formal logic in real arguments. These are two seperate issues.

The point you have been making is like telling people that they need to study linguistic in order to write well. One has nothing to do with the other. Noam Chomsky is a great linguist but he writes in a rather dry and turgid style, he is not a great stylist IMO. On the other hand, most writers don't know any linguistics.

Oh believe me, I know far too many mathematicians who would have their fair share of problems with any kind of formal logic.

Because most mathematicians wouldn't actually use formal logic in any real work of importance or interest. Again the difference is studying formal system (human using natural logic to study formal logic) and working within the formal system (human trying to pretend to be machines). Mathematicians tend to take the first route to prove interesting theorems about these systems, not the second route. This explains the difference in logic courses taught in math departments and philosophy departments. Books such as Kalish and Montague spend a lot of time on making you work mechanically within the system which is rather trivial but tedious,--and pointless IMO. I am familiar with the book as I have charged philosophy majors $25 an hour to teach them that stuffs when I was a starving undergraduate, without even taking the course myself. A much more interesting book would be Yuri Manin's mathematical logic. There is very little transcription and formal deduction. It shows you these things can be done in principle and then immediately moves on to prove interesting theorems about these systems.

t's like learning a programming language - where the forms are extremely important, too. After all, logic is the underlying form of every programming language. So I will say again that studying the very nature of logical reasoning by studying logic

Then why not actually learn a programming language?

Having the ability to formally reconstruct arguments can and does (from my own experience) help to see why an argument looks 'fishy', where exactly the problem lies. This can be very obscure in natural language.

No one does that in real mathematics because it would be unreadable, it is like saying you can find the logical flaw in a computer program written in a high level language by looking at its machine codes.

Besides it is exceedingly unlike that a working mathematician would commit the kind of elementary logical fallacies in his proofs that can be cleared up with the help of making the formal structure transparent. Logic is so basic in the trade that any competent mathematican would use it almost instinctively. Logic is the easy part in mathematics research, it is like knowing the alphabets for the writers,--not even grammar and spelling, just the alphabets,-- as I have told you before. The kind of holes uncovered in proofs are usually so subtle and convoluted that it could be spotted only if you have some feel about the concepts involved, not through translating the argument into first order logic,--probably thousnds of pages of gibbrish for the original proof of Fermat's theorem for which a hole was discovered in the 1990's,-- hoping that you can detect the flaw mechanically.

Mathematics,--and any subject of real intellectual depth for that matter,--is much more than just a logical skeleton. You have a very skew view of mathematics because you only know it through a caricature. It is a caricature because it selectively exaggerates some features while completely ignoring others, much more important ones from the practioners' point of view. It may be a useful model for whatever that you want to study about mathematics, but keep in mind that it is still a very distorted picture of the real thing.

In short formal logic is useful only as a model to investigate some aspects of reasoning and it is interesting only when you take the meta view of studying the formal systems themselves. It is close to useless as a way of augmenting natural reasoning in any real endevor of science, not to mention actual debates in the humanities.

If someone has to make his arguments in a way that would require two pages of Kalish -Monbtague styled formal deductions to decode I would suggest that he should learn to express himself better.

Also, it is essential for formal epistemology - belief-revision theory and so forth, various semantic theories and truth-theories.

Maybe, I also doubt the value of formal epistemology.

1692. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141618 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm

MPhil

(EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px) IFF (FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px IFF ~Py))

Don't know why you would want a formal proof. The formal machinery actually conceals, not illuminates the real "logic". This is the machine's way of doing thing, not how a logical human would carry out a real argument.

Here is the human proof.

Assume (EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px)

This means the predicate P holds for some object a and doesn't hold for some object b, so we have

Pa and ~Pb (i.e "both Pa and ~Pb are true")

Take an arbitrary but fixed c,

if Pc is true, then

(Pc<->~Pb),

so for some y (Pc<->~Py)

i.e.

EXISTS y (Pc<->~Py)

Since c is arbitrary, this is true for any x substituting into the place of c

so

FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

On the other hand, if Pc is false

Pc<->~Pa

so for some y (Pc<->~Py)

i.e

EXISTS y (Pc<->~Py)

Since c is arbitrary, arguing as before we get:

FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

Since in either case (whether Pc is true or false)
we nave

FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

We showed that

(EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px)->FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

The converse is equally easy.

This kind of reasoning pattern is standard fare for undergraduates in pure mathematics who have not taken any course in formal logic. They learn that by actually doing proofs,--by actually using their logical faculty to solve problems,-- rather looking at logical templates.

Once one knows what is going on, it is an easy but boring job to transcribe it into a formal langugage unreadable by most humans so that those who can read this kind of gibberish can feel smart. The specific formal rules and the detail legal format of writing formal inference differ depending on the formal logic book one has the misfortune to read, but the differences are usually only pedantic and notational.

Sorry for being a meta smart ass once again. I just want to demonstrate the fultility of formal "reasoning". Rigorous looking formal rules may intimidate the uninitiated and give out an aura of importance but it is rather useless in teaching logcal thinking, it is just a game.

Knowing the name of something and knowing something intimately are two different things,--Feynman's cardinal rule? I never feel that it is very convincing to cite Latin words for inference rules in order to persuade someone who has not been exposed to them. He should ask what are the justifications for those rules if they don't appear intuitively enough. Logic is intuitive as we are all hard wired with it. One should be able to convey the naturality of a sound argument without having to quote the rules.

1693. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141604 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 8:59 pm

so drinking alcohol is a sin too it seems. oops!

Didn't Jesus turn water into wine?

Is seven a magic number?

1694. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141590 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Shmeezers,

On another note, I have a question to ask here; any atheist is open to answer it. Let us say there is no God, no good nor evil, etc. How do you feel about the fact that someone like Hitler (who killed himself before justice could be served) or Stalin will end up in the same place as you and I (i.e., nothingness)? How do you come to terms with the fact that there is no ultimate justice? I am very curious about this.

I am sure many people would point out that wishful thinking doesn't make something true.

So let me make a different point.

The crime of Hitler and Stalin might be enormous to us. But for a God who supposedly created the univerese through the big bang, created the stars, the laws of physics and the mind and has "guided evolution" through many episodes of mass extinctions, there a disconnection here to think that he would care about what Hitler and Stalin did. Their crimes would be trivial in the eyes of such a being, just as they would be against the backdrop of the vast cosmos. Our emotion, joy and pain would be just nothing when put in such a context.

So it is not even true to say that everything would be forgiven, to forgive at least something or someone has to care enough about the transgression. If there is a God and it is as grand as advertised, I just cannot imagine it giving a shit about Stalin and Hitler or our notion of justice.

Would we give a damn about what ants do to each others in their warfare? Well the gap between us and God is infinitely greater than that between us and the ants,--if such a being exists and has indeed done all the things that theists attribute to it.

So here is a problem. If God were to be truly relevant to us, it has to be a very small God, small enough to be sufficently like us to take an interest in our petty problems and conflicts and demand our worship--in other words, not really a God at all and perhaps not even a very powerful alien. If it is anything like religions advertise, it ceases to have any connection to us except as a sort of general background,--indifferent to our hangups just like the universe itself.

1695. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141587 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 6:35 pm

gay jesus

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xog6i_funny-gay-jesus-will-survive_shortfilms

1696. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141581 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I don't see what great scientific cause would be advanced by digging up poor old Galileo.

1697. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141576 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Marxism was turned into a religion in the former communist countries. Say whatever about Marx and his writings, but it would be wrong to say that as an intellectual system Marxism is a religion and it was intended as one.

Humans have a way to turn every idea into religion, every wise man into an icon and a demigod to worship. I am seeing that trend even here with rationalism and Dawkins among some occasional posters.

1698. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141575 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 5:25 pm

ungodlystheist

1/ All things are impermanent.
2/ All emotions are painful.
3/ All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent existence.
4/ nirvana is beyond extremes (Birth,death, ageing and sufferinf)

1. Is that not true?

2.No, it says (emotional) pain is brought on by desire and attachment,--not letting go. It does not mean all emotions are painful and it doesn't mean your athritis is brought on by emotion.

3. This is one way of translating it, another way is that phenomenon is decieving and transient, so that beneath all the sights and sounds is the great void. In view of Quantum field theory that is not really that outlandish.

4. It is a state of mind.

A central Buddhist teaching,--certainly not unique to Buddhism,--is that words are only a crude way to communicate ideas. It is therefore foolish to hang on to the words but missing the ideas and images they try to convey. You illustrate the point nicely.

Buddhism is definitely against literalism so there is no such thing as a "Buddhist fundamentalist". Indeed a purpose of the riddles in Zen is to break the cognitive "prison" created by words, though I think they may be taking it too far.

The Buddha never taught that "salvation",--if I can use a Christian term for people too steeped in that mindset,--is attained through "faith" and slavishly hanging on to his every word. Rather exactly the opposite. Buddhism teaches that each has to find "truth" through his or her own path. The Buddha asked his pupils to doubt, not to "believe based on faith". Sometimes it veers to the extreme of doubting even reason.

Burning incense and praying to Buddha statues are of no help. There is no "sky daddy" looking out for you in Buddhism, Buddhists do these things not because of Buddhism, but because it is a human thing to seek mental comfort and reassurance.

Whatever one thinks of Buddhism, it is not like the Abrahamic religions, it is a very different animal. Most notably, Buddhism doesn't ask you to believe in anything, worship any God, or obey any commandment; it doesn't insist that the Buddha's teaching cannot be changed or be reinterpreted. You are only projecting your own mindset by trying to create a false parallel, so that you can slot Buddhism into your preconcieved idea of "religion".

1699. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141369 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 10:03 am