Comments by Brian English

Comment #233183 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

DR 694

Come back to your other comments later but meantime I have a challenge for you.....

My book the Dawkins Letters has been reprinted several times but my publisher now wants a revised edition which deals with some of the criticisms of it. Here is a question for you....in what way could it be improved?

152. A flea we missed?

Comment #233174 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 8:36 am

So, DR is getting his letters republished and wants our help to polish them up? I doubt it, he probably wants a few sound bites to put in the inside cover. Anyway, apart from Paula, who has read the 'Dawkins letters'? Where would one find such treasures? (I'm not paying for them at this point. I'm banned from buying books.)

153. A flea we missed?

Comment #233013 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 3:02 am

If David A. Robertson passes by again, perhaps he will give a considered answer....

As for the Mayan, Aztec etc I have looked at Hindu, Pagan, Celtic, Greek, Sikh, Roman and Nordic myths (not yet at Mayan or Aztec) - none of them compare with Jesus Christ.

By what criterion? To all believers in those religions nothing else compared. So how does one decide? There is scant historical evidence for Jesus, the Bible cannot be used as evidence for what it attempts to prove, and none for miracles*, unless one presupposes the Bible is true and God exists, which is exactly what is in question and thus question begging :)
So how do you decide? Emotional attachment? Personal experience - which is subject to the vagaries of human error, which I'm sure you claim is very common due to the fall, and thus personal experience is unreliable (you would be to smart to make the same error as Descartes and assume that your clear ideas could not be the result of error or a malignant demon as these are both part of the inventory of a believer). Unless you think that we are all fallible, but not fallible in personal experience which is a flat contradiction.

*Ignoring miracle claims from non-Abrahamic religions as their truth would demonstrate the falsity of christianity.

154. A flea we missed?

Comment #233009 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 2:55 am

Again I'm ignored. And Bonzai too. Ah well. David has to spread the propaganda and call it Good news.

155. A flea we missed?

Comment #233004 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 2:51 am

Steve, I agree with that. Faith is the last refuge of the scoundrel or the desperate. If the average believer understood the philosophical implications of science from the last 100 or so years or was conversant in the philosophy of the modern era then the only thing that would keep them proclaiming that religion was true would be profound faith in the impossible (empirically speaking) or that the proclamation was the act of a scoundrel.

156. A flea we missed?

Comment #232996 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 2:15 am

I didn't even get any response from David A Robertson. I'm not worthy.

157. A flea we missed?

Comment #232950 by Brian English on August 19, 2008 at 1:02 am

David A Robertson

As for the Mayan, Aztec etc I have looked at Hindu, Pagan, Celtic, Greek, Sikh, Roman and Nordic myths (not yet at Mayan or Aztec) - none of them compare with Jesus Christ.

By what criterion? To all believers in those religions nothing else compared. So how does one decide? There is scant historical evidence for Jesus, the Bible cannot be used as evidence for what it attempts to prove, and none for miracles*, unless one presupposes the Bible is true and God exists, which is exactly what is in question and thus question begging :)
So how do you decide? Emotional attachment? Personal experience - which is subject to the vagaries of human error, which I'm sure you claim is very common due to the fall, and thus personal experience is unreliable (you would be to smart to make the same error as Descartes and assume that your clear ideas could not be the result of error or a malignant demon as these are both part of the inventory of a believer). Unless you think that we are all fallible, but not fallible in personal experience which is a flat contradiction.

*Ignoring miracle claims from non-Abrahamic religions as their truth would demonstrate the falsity of christianity.

158. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232928 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Not to matter, I have to go. Hometime. Ciao.

159. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232926 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 11:26 pm

I'm leaving soon. Stay, I won't bother you.

160. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232924 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Diacanu, stab moi? Why?

161. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232922 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 11:21 pm

OK, you seem to have missed the point of my argument. If a person uses personal experience to justify belief, then that person is question begging. Because, they are using something that has many possible explanations to claim the most unlikely (one that contradicts all our knowledge of the world), and when weighing up the likelyhood of any explanation we have to go with the explanation(s) that fit best with everything we know about the world, and can corroborate. It's also a vicious circle. I had a personal experience which proves God and that person experience must be real because God exists. Which is the very thing in question.

If the person already believes in God, then they would hold that this personal experience is not proof of god, but part of an ongoing relationship. Thus the experience in their eyes isn't what they base belief on and isn't question begging.

162. No credit for creationism

Comment #232914 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 10:27 pm

You sell our hero short, I'm afraid.

Hero? Don't know about that.

163. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232908 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 10:08 pm

If we can explain the supernatural, would it still be supernatural then? ;-)

Well, we probably couldn't explain it, but we can't explain everything held to be natural either. All we need to be able to do is demonstrate that there is such a thing as supernatural. How one would do that is beyond me, but it's not logically incoherent to say their may be something supernatural. It's not up to us to disprove the supernatural. Whoever postulates a supernatural realm, or supernatural beings has the onus of providing convincing arguments and evidence.

Jesus86

I don't have access to their qualia,

Careful with that word. There are those among us who dispute the existence of qualia.

Personal experience can never demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. Not even to the person experiencing what they take to be supernatural. Which is more likely? That I'm having a chat with God, or that I'm having an experience that I take to be a chat with God?
What the theist needs to do is demonstrate that God exists and that he communicates with us before we even consider miracles or personal experience of God a possibility. Which is not to say that miracles are impossible.

164. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232899 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:50 pm

If any god exists, and it is immortal or eternal, then it has always existed and will always exist. The fact that we have no evidence of any god doesn't change this. Either there are gods or there are not. At this point the evidence is against them, but like a black swan to the ancients, lack of evidence doesn't make them not exist.

165. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232898 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Goldy, I don't understand your point:

I don't accept the concept - gods can only exist is they don't exist. Once they appear, they become a being, not a god

Where did you get this from? If a god exists, it is a being, for what else is existence?

166. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232895 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm

The supernatural part I cannot accept - there simply is no data available validating it.

Nor I, until evidence is presented, or it's demonstrated to be logically impossible. If I can't categorically rule out something, then I have to allow that it is a possibility, however minute. To do otherwise, seems to me, to be going further than we can say.

167. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232892 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Goldy, I started arguing with you to take the piss. But anyway, I'm not sure if you're getting a bit agro or not, which wasn't my intention.

I'll put it again. If you can't rule something out, you can't claim it isn't so definitively. For example, you can't show that Russell's teapot doesn't exist out in space, even though you know that Bertrand Russell just thought it up as an interesting counter to the theist argument that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For all we know there my be a teapot and Russell just hit upon a that truth with ridiculous serendipity. For all we know God or the Hindu deities have always existed, and humans just chanced upon this truth.

Another example, did the solution to complex maths problems exist before they were discovered? Trick question for the Platonists out there. Such solutions occupy no time nor space.

By the way, I'm not sure I totally understand the difference you make between atheism and agnosticism. I consider myself atheist, though I don't claim to know for 100% sure that there are no gods. For me it's a tentative conclusion. That means I'm agnostic (lacking knowledge) to the existence of any god. I guess we all use words in a way that suits us.

168. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232887 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Goldy, consider these two propositions:
1. I do not believe any god exists because I see no evidence of any god.
2. I do not believe any god exists because I know that no god exists.

The first statement is reasonable, based on lack of evidence you can't say necessarily that something doesn't exist, all though in all likelihood it doesn't. You just get on living your life as if it doesn't until shown otherwise.

The second statement is no better than saying I believe in God because I know that God exists. There's no evidence for the existence of any god, but there's no logical necessity that there could not be a hidden god who takes no interest in the universe, or is very shy and scared of Goldy.

Basically, 1 is scientific, 2 is a faith claim, unless you can prove that any god is logically impossible.

Your definition of a god not being isn't one any theist would accept. They go along the lines of a personal spirit that created and sustains the universe and can get all pissy with you when you don't suck up to it. That most certainly is a being, just one we've never evidenced.

169. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232881 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Goldy, as much as it pains me, you are stating a faith position. The idea that there's no reason to suppose there are any gods, due to lack of evidence, so therefore it's reasonable to say there are no gods until evidence arrives is different from saying there are no gods full stop. Unless of course you have an irrefutable argument that proves the non-existence of god(s).

/scurries away.

170. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232873 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Goldy, the formatting and structure of your essay was very poor. You did not meet the required word count (2000 words /- 10 %). Please resubmit with necessary corrections/additions before I assess the content.

171. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232867 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Lauria, APA essay format will be sufficient.

172. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232862 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Goldy, to demonstrate that you understand the subject I expect more than just cutting and pasting of others' work. This is not primary school.
Please give a critical analysis demonstrating you understand the issues involved and the arguments for and against. In particular, I want you to cogently express your opinion based on your analysis, citing evidence to support you position. Formating and references as per the required standard.

Extra marks will be awarded for novel insights that are well supported.

173. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232858 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Goldy, Laurie, the topic is Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls.

Discuss.

174. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231359 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 7:09 am

Quetz, when one holds a social ritual, one does so because it is customary. Thus I want my 10 ^ -23 of sympathy.

175. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231351 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:50 am

our affair was meant to be secret.

Your's and Lauries? Or your's and mine? And in that case why wasn't I informed? I'm sick and tired of being treated as a sex toy and not being informed. No respect these days....

176. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231350 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:49 am

Did or do? I logged on a few hours ago. Most of my day was divided between sleeping ('till 11am), cooking, studying, and other stuff....

177. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231347 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:35 am

Nite Laurie. Thanks for the interaction. Have a good one.

178. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231346 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:33 am

And you have all my sympathy and friendship, of course. :)

Bastard! Where's my quantum of sympathy?

179. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231339 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:23 am

Bonzai, how did I know you'd agree with Decius' statment? I agree with it too. I'm sort of stuck in an untenable position. I think science has precedence of all knowledge (if a logical contradiction is demonstrated by empirical methods I'll go with the empirical methods e.g. Kant's every effect has a cause has been shown wrong by virtual particles having no cause.), but philosophy can justify science's claim and correct it when it staggers into the purely speculative (M theory?). But the trouble is, to me anyway, most philosophers don't understand the science, at the cutting edge at least. In Kant's, Liebnitz' or Hume's time, the philosophers could know the state of the art.

180. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231335 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:15 am

The id popping up again Laurie? Well, the mind keeps popping up again, doesn't mean it's a part of our ontological inventory does it?

181. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231332 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

Decius, I don't think anyone can claim to be the father of something that was so inter-temporal and collaborative. Perhaps the greats could claim to be ushers of the truth or something. The ancients, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, (and so many who deserve mention but have been forgotten) etc are all just candle bearers or guides of the slow, refining method of approximating what may be the truth that we can understand...science.

182. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231323 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:03 am

Beware the Jabberwocky? Well,I haven't watched any python for a while (although I read it may have been Lewis Carrol's idea).

183. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231322 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:01 am

frabjous

A combination of Fair, fabulous and joyous.
Usually defined as wonderful.

I thought it wasn't a common word so never looked it up before...

184. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231321 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:00 am

I've not read any Nietzsche. Apparently Christians think he's the devil, but philosophers don't. Why is that?

185. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231316 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:57 am

(oh frabjous joy),

What does frabjous means? The only time I've see that word before was as part of Richard Morgans email address....

186. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231315 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:56 am

Those birds were sparrows, not finches.

187. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231311 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:51 am

Laurie, don't be sorry. I would think that reading my meanderings would drive any sane person to distraction. I use the net as a sort of catch up place/discussion place/work out stuff place. I probably am more erratic than I imagine. :P

188. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231308 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

Some would say they look like this:

others would say like this:

189. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231302 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:41 am

8teist, if those are finches, then I have no idea what a finch looks like. :)

190. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231300 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:37 am

Bonzai, yes, I guess I am doing a psy major not that we term it thus here. That book looks interesting. Probably better than my two statistics books. However, today I bought the only material item I've coveted for the last 20 years. It was quite expensive, and to be granted such a luxury I have agreed to call the item my next 2 birthday and Christmas presents and not buy books for a year.

I'm happy, yet sad. Such is life. :)

191. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231296 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:34 am

Jeez, you're into a bit of self-flagellation tonight, Brian

Laurie, you have done the same thing as Mike did a while ago. You assume that because I don't claim genius or expertise that I think I'm useless. Must be a Kantian thing. Anyway, I thought it was Socrates who said that 'I know that I know very little' and that was supposedly something worthy. I claim that tradition!

192. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231285 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:10 am

Why not Laurie. He can't be any less knowledgeable than I. :)

193. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231282 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:06 am

Bonzai, correct again. The idea that we can randomize a sample and then claim it be representative of a population and our significant result be generalizable to that population seems to me to be a bit unjustifiable.

But I want to finish my degree so I don't argue that point too much. :)

194. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231279 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:02 am

to utilise the synthesis of empiricism and deductive and inferential rational method. In other words, it's arguable that it was Kant who was the genuine father of modern science.

This is what I don't understand. Hume correctly said that time and space weren't infinitely divisible, presaging the Plank time and distance using logic alone, and he followed Newton. Kant reinterpreted Newton and for all I know held that there was an infinitely divisible time and space etc like reality was mathematical infinitesimals. Why was that the key that unlocked the scientific revolution?

195. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #231278 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:58 am

Brian, if you cannot see the design in the universe and designed creatures and in us, just watch the movie, evolution.

How could I see design? I have not seen any designer. I have not seen any designs. Where can I meet the designer? Where can I see the designs? Do I need to buy a shuttle ticket to Galactic central?

Wooters argument:

If one sees a painter creating a painting, one can say the next painting one sees has been painted by a painter.
If one sees a creator creating a universe, one can say the next universe one sees has been created by a creator.

So, how many creators and created universes have you seen?

196. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231276 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:49 am

Bonzai:

Of course pyschoanalysis is not science, but then it doesn't mean it can't be useful.

How does this disagree with my point that psychoanalysis is not scientific? I'd say a lot of psychology isn't scientific. I had a recent discussion with one of my lecturers (by email, as I am off campus) because Piaget's ideas didn't seem scientific, they just seemed to be rationalist justifications for his observations. I agreed with the observations, just not the justification. I asked what evidence, or neurological correlates there were to support Piaget's ideas. I was told that it has never been investigated. This doesn't mean that Piaget was wrong, just that you can't call it science, just arm chair philosophizing I think. Oh well.

Also, I agree with your comments on statistics. What I found difficult in studying psychology is that the p value ( p < .05) can get so many false positives (but they do it so as not to get type II errors) that some person on the normal distribution can be classed as abnormal by a significant result. It would be nice if the p value was (p < .0001) like physics or something.....

I guess this is why when you get a test result that states that it's 99% likely you have a disease most people think they have the disease. Without taking into account the base rate, the positive result could be meaningless.

197. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231274 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:43 am

Mike, I've been told the Bible is the greatest book ever written, but I don't get it. I've read the first 100 or so pages of Kant's (not cant) critique and it doesn't resonate. It might be fantastic, but a lot of it to me seems well, just assertions. I failed a lot of math because it was just assertions, not anything that I could experience. This is not a criticism of Kant (or math), just perhaps a limit of my understanding.

Doesn't matter. I embarrass myself when I point out that one of the greatest thinkers ever can't speak to me (yet!).

198. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231270 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:32 am

No dramas Laurie. Don't fall into the trap from my comment that I'm unhappy or whatever. I just am skeptical of all things, perhaps that's why I like Hume. ;)

199. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231268 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:31 am

Hume repudiated it first as far as I can tell. But then again maybe I missed it. When you read the first part Hume's treatise (which Kant never read and preceded Kant's critique by 30 years) you get arguments that to me anyway, shred rationalist thought. Hume was arguing against Malebranche and other rationalists.

Forget it, this happens to often with me. I get Hume, he thinks like I think (but I don't think on the level he did). I don't get Kant. I'm waiting for the Cambridge guide to Kant to explain why his thought was so important.....I don't want to argue with people who are not ignorant like me. I do that too often. :)

200. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231265 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:22 am

and still managed to produce undeniably coherent theses about what consciousness is. Thanks Laurie, make me feel stupid. :)

I don't see the coherency. I just struggle with the rationalist idea that because we think something is clear that it must be so. I can't count the times I've had a clear and definite idea of something and been so wrong it's not even close....I think that's why I like Hume (not saying he was right), but at least he didn't assume a clear idea had any relation to the truth.