1851. Fleabytes

Comment #134353 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

When theists talk about these things they very much have a materialist worldview in mind and human response to certain stimuli (hence all the fire, boiling water etc).

Very true... credo quia absurdum indeed.

1852. Fleabytes

Comment #134344 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Brian English,

Not necessarily their loved one's - they will mostly only love their family and close friends, which are probably christians as well. That is, unless they take "love thy enemy" seriously.

And it's not only Aquinas who said that... it's in the Bible, Matthew 13, 42-43. Hell truly is the most disgusting invention of fiction ever - and I simply cannot understand how anyone could worship a 'loving' god who created such an celestial Auschwitz - only that the terrors of Auschwitz ended with death, whereas in hell they last forever.

There is no way around this for Christians (except for Anglicans, but they would have to justify why they ignore the pertaining sections in the bible).

Of course, this shows beyond all doubt that Richard Dawkins was right in calling David Robertson a walking oxymoron, given his statement that "I accept that Dachau was wrong" while loving a God who provides something even worse, far worse, infinitely worse to be exact than Dachau or Auschwitz for the people that don't meet his standards of worshipping the celestial Fuehrer.

1853. Fleabytes

Comment #134329 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Peacebeuponme,

And I give them some credit for having a go at helping since they really believe we are going to burn in everlasting fire.

Agreed. I must say I'm glad that noone tried to save my soul via the "or else..." approach yet (moderate central-European Christianity - glad the fundies are still a fringe-phenomenon)... it's always the "But god loves you, and don't you want to see your family again when you die..." approach - emotional bribery rather than blackmail, not much better.

I usually don't even go into the issue of "save me from what" to point out the most disgusting side of their creed, I'm mostly too busy pointing out that the whole idea of an interventionist deity is nonsense.

Just while we are on the hell topic, do you ever wonder if the fire and brimstone people ever sit back and consider the absurdity of the proposition? Its just not even logically sound. Just in terms of feeling constant extreme pain forever: most people black out when something really bad occurs.

But losing consciousness from too much pain is a neurochemical process... only our ghostly-spirity-eternal souls are going to be punished... the idea of which is even more ridiculous.

1854. Fleabytes

Comment #134320 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm

However, for a theist to act in such a way, they are not only trying to wind the atheist up but (in their mind) actually saying "Fuck you, go to hell" and truly beliving that to be the consequence.

I must say, sometimes I'd prefer that approach to endless attempts to "save my soul" which are boring at best, obtrusive and insulting at worst.

1855. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134318 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:21 pm

My hope is that someone who hasn't yet heard of, for example, the "snowball earth" idea will look it up on wikipedia and get that "wow!" feeling.

And I thank you for yet another wonderful piece of information I wasn't previously aware of!
And I have to return the compliment you made somewhere else - your posts are a major reason why I love RD.net. Truly inspiring.

______________________________

Sorry, can't help it...
"Snowball Earth" sounds like an interracial porn film.
EDIT: Did I really just write that. Wow, I must be really bored. I apologize.

1856. Fleabytes

Comment #134312 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Comment #134292 by Fedler

I asked him where are church scientists seeking to verify their claims or where are the reports investigating alleged miracles.

On a side note, it is actually true that the Vatican investigates (don't ask me how though) claimed miracles, and only a very small number are actually found to meet the criteria (don't ask me what these are either, though I suspect something akin to 'witnessed by a sufficient number of people' and 'showing god's greatness').
So it seems that the roman catholic church does have certain standards - altough I doubt they would meet scientific criteria for being (even currently) inexplicable from within methodological naturalism.

1857. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #134024 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 6:35 am

Nah, that's not what I meant - I was thinking of something akin to a program. An 'Explaining the World' software where the mere acquisition and integration of information is enough to keep it going and looking for more, without a need for emotional gratification.

The question I was asking myself was if emotional gratification is always necessary. In us, it is most probably always present, but I don't know if that's all there is to motivation. I was wondering if intellectual achievement couldn't have some motivational power on its own.

1858. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133949 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #133934 by Richard Morgan:

Exactly!
At the end of the day, that's what it's all about, I supppose.
Feelings.

Interesting. I think such feelings play a huge part in motivation for educating oneself, as well as in valuing these achievements - self-conditioning if you will. But I also think that the knowledge of having gained a certain intellectual understanding can have a certain motivational power as well.
This seems to be a difficult subject however, since generally it is thought that only beliefs desires constitute motivation, and desires are usually conceived as purely emotional.

I wonder if it would be possible to conceive of an intellectual 'state' that can fulfill a functionally equivalent rôle in the motivation-equasion. Knowledge of intellectual acheivement with the specific, nonemotional goal to acquire more for the sole purpose of increasing one's understanding, without further need for justification.
Of course, in the 'real world' emotions will always be involved, and even play a major part - but still, I wonder if an emotional gratification is always absolutely required?

1859. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #133744 by MPhil on February 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm

MeIM,

Is this work documented in such a way that researchers could check his data? "Meticulous, irrefutable" is just what we need.

His work is extremely well documented. He is a serious historian, not a conspiracy theorist. His facts are all checked - and many, if not most of the historical facts are even documented by church scholars- they just aren't keen on promoting these facts. His sources include books by old and new testament scholars, other historians, the UN archive etc..
The bibliography of each of his "Christianity's criminal history" is very extensive. It's all there.

Church officials in Germany have (of course) decried him as biased (he's passionate, but he's factually completely correct as far as anyone knows)... he has been accused of selecitvely 'picking out' the bad things in Christianity's History and ignoring the good things. Well, what do you know - he's writing "Christianity's Criminal History", duh!
Christian hisorians have read his works - if he hadn't gotten the facts right - they would have made that public for everyone to hear and see. Yet, some minor details aside, noone has ever been able to produce evidence that his sources are unreliable (since many of them are Christian, that wouldn't be a good thing for the church either) or that he hasn't gotten the facts straight.
Of course there's no shortage on accusations of being rude, or being hateful etc... the usual blather, since they have nothing substantial to say.

Wikipedia states that none of Deschner's books have been translated into English; do you have any idea why not?

I really don't know - but I would hazard a guess that it's because his magnum opus is really a collection of rather 'dry' (by comparison) historiographical books (although IMO he does write vividly and with great style) - mountains of facts upon mountains of facts - with dozens of pages of bibliography. I doubt there's much of a market for that in English-speaking countries (nor for that matter in Germany - his works are hard to get). Just imagine having to proof read the translation of about 8-10,000 pages, not to mention to translate this in the first place.

And since he has set out to document and raise awareness of the Crimes of Christianity, 'serious' academic historians may think that he has too much of an interst in the matter to be objective - which isn't true, but I understand the reservations. As I said, his facts are all checked, but his 'interpretation' is found wanting by many - of course mostly by Christians (who would have thought).

However, my statement still stands - his books on the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches' affiliation with Nazi-Germany as well as his magnum opus (lets hope he'll manage to write the last two books, though I seriously doubt it, given his age) are a real treasure when it comes to debunking Christians' claims to the 'good Christianity has done throughout history'... as well as simply raising awareness.
(And German is a beautiful language anyway, and has some of the most wonderful poetry, dramaturgy and narrative literature I have ever known - so there are incentives to learning it ;-)

P.S.: Did you have a look at the "press resonance" section on his page? It includes statements by scholars, including even professor doctor of theology.

best,
-Mike

1860. Fleabytes

Comment #133530 by MPhil on February 26, 2008 at 9:54 am

You think that sketch was the best of Not the 9 O'Clock News concerning reilion? How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN-00i7VVs&feature=related

1861. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #133515 by MPhil on February 26, 2008 at 9:25 am

I feel Karlheinz Deschner deserves to be mentioned among the great people who fought and fight the good fight for enlightenment, atheism and anti-clericalism.

His 8,000 page magnum opus "Christianity's criminal history" is something every historically interested atheist ought to have (ok, so you'd have to read German - but at least there's a digital edition). The late great Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Stegmüller was definitely right when he called Deschner "the most significant church critic of the century". His works have really opened my eyes for the historical crimes of Christianity.

1862. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132955 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Thought so... I only have the boring, regular edition, the one that comes without the package of dope. Knew I ordered the wrong version...

1863. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132945 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:35 pm

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual uses the term 'smurf'?... now which edition would that be?

1864. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132928 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm

...or a burning, talking Bush. Although, with the popularity ratings that low - who knows what might happen? Let's hope for the best (*giggle*)

1865. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132923 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm

44kg? Unless you're no taller than 1,4 metres - that's a bit worrying.... You really need to start eating if you want to be taken seriously as a threat to life, the universe and everything... or was that something different? Oh well - sorry if that was inconsiderate, but since you mentioned it.

1866. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #132830 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 8:55 am

Yeah, I don't know what they were thinking, voting in a former Hitler Youth.

Now that's a bit of a low blow. Pretty much everyone was in the HJ back then, including many that grew up to be good and decent people. Some of them were deluded, some just didn't care and thought it a nice activity. Generally, criticising someone for that is like criticising someone who was baptized as a baby and brought up in the church community but then saw the error of that for once having belonged to that organisation.
As much as I dislike Ratzinger, he definitely isn't a Nazi. In fact he was partly responsible for some of the liberalisation of the catholic church in Vatican II. He only became a hardened conservative when the '68-youth revolt got to the universities and disrupted seminars, even using physical force - and later supported extreme left 'revolutionary forces', some of which were genuine terrorists.
To be sure, the 68-university revolution had a lot of good effects, but I have no problem seeing how it could have driven Ratzinger to be a conservative. The RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion, German extreme-left terrorist organisation from the 70s to the early 90s) proved that the movement was to some extent dangerous. Of course I don't support Ratzinger's decision.

As recently as last week, a German Catholic archbishop criticized celibacy as outdated and scripturally unnecessary. So far, I haven't read of any call from Rome to retract this statement.

Another catholic archbishop made a public statement that celibacy isn't open for debate at this time. I think that was the Vatican's answer.

1867. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132696 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 6:14 am

On a not entirely unrelated note, I think the postmodernist challange is a real one - one we have to face, as it questions our (by 'our' I mean the rationalists') most basic assumptions. We might conclude that such universal skepticism is pragmatically unfeasible, and that rationalism is pragmatically the best option. And for all I know this would be true, but that is not an answer to the postmodernist challange.

Of course there is just the self-refuting postmodernism which in virtue of its being self-defeating we needn't address - but the real challange comes from someone like Paul Feyerabend. His "Against Method" is something that should be taken seriously - in my opinion something we should find a satisfactory answer to.

1868. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132683 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 6:01 am

Herman Hesse - The Glass Bead Game

Guess I could or should have included that, too...or for that matter all of Hermann Hesse's books. 5 books are just by far too few.

1869. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132608 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 3:25 am

Well, in that case - I think I can't help it. I couldn't possibly chose between the 7 parts, since I see them as one unified (if quite long) story - as it was set out by Mrs. Rowling. Much like Babylon 5.

1870. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132596 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 2:54 am

Man, there are really far too many to chose from, but five of them surely would be

-J.K. Rowling: The Harry Potter Series
-J.W.v.Goethe: Faust
-D. Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Series)
-P. Auster: City of Glass
-S. Lem: Solaris

...I've excluded nonfiction, poetry and dramaturgy for reasons of simplicity... and am still left with far more than 5. These are just off the top of my head.

1871. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132070 by MPhil on February 24, 2008 at 4:53 am

Richard Morgan,

very nice stuff. What software do you use to compose? Sibelius, Cakewalk or something else?
I always end up composing something that nobody could actually play - too many threads, too complex, polymetric, atonal... technically interesting but not very aesthetically pleasing. I have always wondered how people like Zappa, King Crimson or even Karlheinz Stockhausen managed to be aesthetically pleasing (in some way).

1872. Fleabytes

Comment #131494 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Bonzai,

I do know that

(- and apology accepted. I think we can leave it at having ackowledged the differences of opinion.)

1873. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131457 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:58 pm

al-rawandi,

there are implications - and I mentioned them in post 131439. ;)

1874. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131454 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm

krisking,

atheism, or rather non-theism is the default position because without a concept of god you cannot be a theist. As you acquire conceptions over time, along with the ability to modify and reflect upon them (much later than having conceptions), you are born without theism, thus an atheist or non-theist (if you like that term better, but it really means the same).

Where does religion come from? Now that's too easily answered by psychology and sociology. Looking for patterns is essential for entities governed by central nervous systems - and there is a good likelyhood of false positives, because that gets you far less in trouble than being predisposed towards false negatives.
Furthermore, there is the need for explanations where there are none or at least not to your knowledge or as of yet (in the times religions were invented, people had very little real knowledge of how the world works - every lightning, thunder, rainfall, pretty much everything was puzzling).

So people see intentionality where there is none and invent stories to explain stuff - without explanatory power - ie myths.

1875. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131439 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I am not suggestion that you have any religious faith. I am suggesting that being an atheist will have implications for your lifestyles.

Yes indeed. It means we're not likely to pray to Mars for victory, to Poseidon for steady waters, we're not likely to sacrifice animals to appease Yahweh, that we're not likely to insist on women covering every inch of their skin etc.

In that way it does influence our lifestyles. But so does being an atheist about 99% of all the gods ever invented influence your lifestyle.

1876. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131435 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Faith suppresses critical facilities that are important for humanity in this century.

True, but don't forget compartmentalisation. My girlfriend (before she lost her faith during her discussions with me and having me read TGD to her) used to be a good example: Coming from a highly religious family (German protestantism - quite liberal and not opposed to science), having received strong childhood indoctrination, she was religious and had her faith. Yet, she is a student of biology and has a very good understanding of the natural sciences as well as logic and mathematics. Quite an intelligent person capable of rational inquiry and thinking scientifically about scientific matters.

-Compartmentailsation.

The consequences of her childhood indoctrination and applying rational inquiry to her religion with the consequence of having lost her religious faith?
She is afraid to come out to her family and friends - as her family (otherwise very nice people), including her older sister with whom she always has been very close, wouldn't be able to cope with that and couldn't accept her being an atheist. Actually, a few weeks ago, when I asked her what she's planning on doing concerning her family and the religious activities (going to church, singing in the choir, leading a children's group) she observes, she was so worried by this that she was crying in my arms for about an hour.

I cannot tell you how much I despised religion at that moment.

Faith is "thinking without a seat belt".

Hmm... I would have said "Faith is thinking with a restraining order"

1877. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131419 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I completely agree with your last post, krisking.
And of course, teaching ethical behaviour should include that they have respect for people who hold benign views. Doesn't mean that they should respect the ideology or false beliefs per se. I think that it is a virtue to stand up and challange irrationality.

This doesn't mean that you have no respect for the person. However, when they chose to identify completely with their ideology, that is not the problem of the one criticizing the ideology.

As for Dawkins having stated that we cannot be 100% certain that there is no god - I agree.

In fact, I think we can only know two things with absolute certainty:
1)I exist (not however, that we have an immaterial mind, as Descartes assumed)
and
2)Logical necessity, consistency and inconsistency and things which are entirely a matter of logic.

This means, however, that while we cannot know with 100% absolute certainty that deities exist, we can know with absolute 100% certainty that deities the description/conception of which are logically contradictory cannot exist.

Having read the Bible, I know that it applies there, although until now, every theist I know has engaged in ex post facto ad hoc semantic reinterpretations to get around these contradictions - and in the course (I'm sorry, this may seem unkind, but sadly it's true) has made himself look ridiculous by proclaiming that the contradictory statements in the Bible mean something entirely different (and very obscure) from what the statements obviously say. And the fact that these reinterpretations are ex post facto and ad hoc makes has made it look pretty sad.

1878. Fleabytes

Comment #131403 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Bonzai,

concerning "Modus Pollens" - we could of course just delete the pertaining sections from our comments.


Concerning "P->Q"... I see. You mean when people mistakenly assign the value 1 to P and assume the truth of P->Q. Yes, that would lead to Q being assigned the value 1 via modus ponendo ponens. Must be that I wasn't paying attention - and missed that you were talking about people already having assumed that P is true.

I furthermore agree that for people who want some "excitement" and a sense of awe while also being taught about a subject GEB is the book of choice, rather than technical introductions into formal logic. Much like Hawkins or Greene for physics.

1879. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131398 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Teaching something is never an ideology. An ideology can be behind it, or the teaching can be done so as to indoctrinate someone into an ideology, in this case rationalism - But teaching itself is never an ideology per se.

Anyway, teaching children science provides rational answers for these questions, and that these are "..." while also teaching them that people believe this and that out of a certain motivation (easy, comprehensive answers with little to none evidence and a lot of contradictions in the case of myths) - I would call that benign, as long as you also teach ethical behaviour.

1880. Fleabytes

Comment #131390 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 11:55 am

al-rawandi,


you naughty boy! Nudge nudge, wink wink.

1881. Fleabytes

Comment #131386 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 11:47 am

Good post, Bonzai.

But concerning the fact that P->Q is always true when P is false... I've never heard of "Modus Pollen". I know Modus Ponens (ponendo ponens), Modus Tollens and Modus tollendo-ponens (where you infer B from AvB and ~A).

But technically, you cannot infer Q from P, when P is false in P->Q, because that would mean that from P having the value 0 (false), you could infer that Q has the value 1 (true). But this is not the case. People often make this mistake, but it's really just the case the the entire statement "P->Q" gets the value 1 whenever P gets the value 0, because, as you said, "P->Q" only has the value 0 (is false) when P gets the value 1 and Q gets the value 0.
Once, however, P gets the value 0, Q can be either true (1) or false (0), and the statement will still be true. So you cannot infer the Q is true (1) from "P->Q" and P being false.

So in conclusion, you can't infer the truth of any Q from the falsehood of any P, but you can infer the truth of any "P->Q" from any false P.

Gödel Escher Bach is a very good book indeed. Interesting, magnificent even. But as an introduction into formal logic, there are more comprehensive and less, well, verbose works. GEB is more a work of art, but still a superb read.

1882. Moral thinking

Comment #131385 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 11:47 am

I know I should have known better... blinded by love - not sex. Although that was great, it wasn't essential - we had been best friends for half a year before we got together - and had about everything in common: Same taste in music (went to some great concerts), in films, in series, in literature (mostly poetry and the classics from Goethe to Hesse and Mann), science-geeks, atheists, you name it.
Didn't work out - she became somewhat of an asshole ;)

So yes, you're shallow ;P

And she didn't get half my shit - just half of what we bougt together... which was about 40 movies and a lot of Star Trek DVDs and VHS.

As I said - won't make that mistake again.


Spinoza,

I agree. Actually, I've made that point above - although you're wording is a little careless: "What people CALL ethics and what IS ethical" - sounds as if you're presupposing moral realism and a priviliged insight into first-order moral statements by philosophers. I'm a philosopher and I would doubt both :)

1883. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131364 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 10:45 am

Indeed - with the past election in Turkey, the military actually stated that it might be 'displeased' (fight against) a non-secular government. Now they're allowing the headscarf back into universities. (Honestly, I don't have a legal problem with that - after all if it's only the students and not the teachers, it's their personal freedom of expression)

But the fact that Turkey is de jure secualr (Laizistic) has not much bearing on everyday life. I've been to turkey on holiday about 5 times. Outside of the club hotels and the tourist-centres, you still have a highly religious society, and the courts are not all that unbiased.

1884. Fleabytes

Comment #131359 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 10:32 am

And then of course there's this classic:

Monty Python's International Philosophy

1885. Fleabytes

Comment #131355 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 10:22 am

al-rawandi,

nice one, though I know it as concluding with "Fag!"

Got something for you, too: David Chalmers' collection of philosophical humour:

http://consc.net/phil-humor.html

A few of these are quite hilarious, such as "nominalist things" and "brain in a vat at the wheel of a runaway trolley" (if you happen to be familiar with the positions and thought-experiments these satirize).

The second one had me rolling on the floor.

1886. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131337 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 9:20 am

notsobad,

yes, but by far the most believe in a "higher order" or "guiding force" of some kind... ain't it sad?

As for America - as I have stated on another thread, I think the religiosity there has a causal relationship with the church-state separation and the free market ideology.

Once religion is free enterprise, it will get advertised accordingly - fervently, with psychological advertising tricks, even obtrusively.

1887. Moral thinking

Comment #131336 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 9:11 am

Well, she wasn't my wife (I'm 24 and that relationship lasted from 2002 to 2005), but my girlfriend - and we were so madly in love, and badly in need of Star Trek DVDs that we said we'd put our money together to buy them... what can I say? "I was young and I needed the DVDs"

Still - That bitch got my Star Trek DVDs!!!
Well, another mistake I won't repeat.

Actually I thought the first two seasons of Sliders were pretty good, especially since they incorporated some real science and had a few sociologically very interesting plots.

We both didn't like Stargate though... just not our thing.

And while I love Babylon 5 and think it has the most coherent, fluent, nuanced story-arch over 5 seasons that I have ever seen - it can be a bit militaristic at times.

Hmm... Iran or Saudi Arabia? No thanks, think of what I as an outspoken infidel would have to go through... I'm having a hard time with moderate central-european Religion as it is.

Shaden,
no, we split it equally - When it came to the DVD versions (TNG) "you get one season, I get another". With the VHS of DS9 and VGR it was "One video for you, one for me"

And while Wesley wasn't Star Trek's best invention, I don't dislike him as much as most people. There were a few good plots with him. Just my humble opinion.

(And let me apologize for the hi-jacking as well. Josh, you're free to move this to the alternate thread :)

1888. Moral thinking

Comment #131329 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 9:01 am

notsobad,

very true. They take Matthew 5, 3 to heart:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

(In the German Luther-translation it actually says "blessed are the poor in mind"... fits much better)

1889. Moral thinking

Comment #131327 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 8:56 am

Actually, it's reason #6 not to have a shared account and not to buy stuff together.

And not only did I lose half of my Star Trek collection - sadly, she owned the complete Babylon 5 collection and the first two seasons of Sliders (after that it got crappy anyways)...

They're further down on my "to buy" list, but until I can afford it - the internet can be very helpful sometimes :)

1890. Moral thinking

Comment #131323 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 8:52 am

Shaden,

I know... huge fan, you should see my collection: All of TOS, all of TAS, about 90 % of TNG, half of DS9, 2/3 of VGR, all of ENT except for most of the miserable season 3 and all the movies :)
Acutally I once had everything, but my ex got half of the collection when we broke up, so I'm still working on completing my collection again... if only it wasn't so expensive.

al-rawandi,
One hit wonder indeed, X-Factor was crap. But he's quite a good director.


On topic again: I don't know if it's just me, but it seems somewhat of a stretch to say 'We've got an evolutionary explanation for this' and then invoking group selection of all things.

1891. Fleabytes

Comment #131312 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 8:21 am

al-rawandi...

I know - but not only my field of logic, also my field of philosophy of science.... and philosophy in general. And while Dan Dennett isn't a philosopher of science, I still admire his work greatly.

Your reply to that theist friend - nice :D

As for proving negatives and evidence - mustn't even depend on that - you can show from the defintion of "tuna" and "mammal" that "Tuna are not Mammals" isn't true. Of course, to construct these definitions you need evidence - but once they have been established, it's a matter of pure logic :)

Also, you can disprove the existence of something for which there can be no physical evidence - namely if the description/conception of it is contradictory. In that vein, I cannot prove that no deities exist, but I can disprove the Christian god without a problem, since the Bible is contradictory in its description of God, and some concepts of his attributes are even inherently contradictory. Of course theists never accept that, they attempt to weasle out of the contradiction by ex post facto ad hoc redefinitions so to twist the meaning of what is written to an extent that the proposed "true" interpretation has nothing to do anymore with what the statements actually say. I find it rather despicable and cowardly.

1892. Moral thinking

Comment #131308 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 8:13 am

Though I am intrigued by this association of liberality and loneliness. The article doesn't quite say which way Wilson and Storm think the causation runs however - whether liberality causes loneliness or whether loneliness causes liberality. Or, indeed, whether there is another, independent, factor causing both concurrently.

Or maybe they didn't speculate about causation and left it at having found a correlation?

al-rawandi,
yes, and in an admiral's uniform at that :)

1893. Fleabytes

Comment #131301 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 8:03 am

al-rawandi,

you are of course right, but it is still a helpful tool for us, so as to be able to point out exactly what the fallacies and inconsistencies etc. are, and to prove them. Once you got someone as far as (and this has happened to me in discussions with particularly naive theists) getting them to state something akin to "Well, then maybe logic is wrong or god isn't bound by logic", that's checkmate, because then they actually affirm a contradiction and by Ex falso quodlibet they cannot have any meaningful beliefs any more - so they better think again.

1894. Fleabytes

Comment #131299 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 7:57 am

Sorry for being so pedantic, but of course you can prove a negative. Either in a formal system with axioms and inference rules like predicate logic, where it really isn't a problem (and can for example be proven by first assuming the negation of what is to be proven and then deriving a contradiction from it)or by completely accounting for every element in a closed system and seeing that the sought-after element is not in it. How about this example of all of the above:

Let M be the set {1,2,4,5}

to be proven: 3 is not element of M

1)assumption of negation: 3 is element of M
2)From definition of set M: For all x that are element of M it is true that x is either 1 or 2 or 4 or 5 and there is no x that is element of M which is not either 1 or 2 or 4 or 5
3) from 4): 3 is not element of M
4) from 1) and 3): 3 is element of M and 3 is not element of M | Contradiction
ERGO
3 is not element of M

________________

(PS: sorry for being off topic)

1895. Moral thinking

Comment #131291 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 7:32 am

Why do I suddenly get the feeling that I have to watch the TNG episode "All Good Things.." again? :)

1896. Fleabytes

Comment #131287 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 7:29 am

al-rawandi,

yes "law of excluded middle" is just the English name for "tertium non datur".

But strictly speaking, ex falso quodlibet doesn't mean that there is no logical value to a conclusion derived from mutually contradictory premises(or one inherently contradictory), it means that from a contradiction it follows that every statement gets assigned the value 'true' (including the negation for every statement). Thus you get infinitely many contradictions.

What this means for the logical structure and value of anyone's whole system of beliefs is that if there is even one logical contradiction in it, everything breaks down, and the system then implicitly includes infinitely many contradictions which render everything worthless.

Ain't it fun?

1897. Moral thinking

Comment #131284 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 7:19 am

"Group selection", eh? Oh dear. Don't let Richard hear about this :)

And (I know, I have to say that) of course, that doesn't mean that ethics isn't still a major topic in philosophy. This study is about the why of behaviour, not about the existence, nonexistence of objective values, the justification or lack thereof for certain ethical systems... so I'm safe :)

1898. Fleabytes

Comment #131226 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 4:46 am

Just a quick note concerning logic.

We have
-tertium non datum (a third is not given, a statement is either true of false)
-ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (from a (logically) false statement follows anything, meaning from a contradiction)
AND we have the fact that a conditional A->B is always fulfilled when A is false, which is an important point, too.

1899. Fleabytes

Comment #131136 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 2:15 am

The one who is the way? Must be a metaphor... the way to himself I guess. So if someone is a way and at the same time what lies at the end of the way, can we stop on him to pee while we're on the way to him? With the amount of water I drink, I always need such a break on long trips.

1900. Fleabytes

Comment #131132 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 2:11 am

Oh, did I write "poofs"?... Well, I'm not gonna correct it now - it may be bad humor, but it made me laugh.