351. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #177320 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Etiquette is also thought to be something moral - it's thought to be the right thing to do to observe etiquette.

Proper-Function is excluded yes - but I believe you are competent enough to know that I meant every statement that says something is morally good/bad/necessary/permissible is about morality.

Since I am an anti-realist and a consequentialist, yes I think moral statement are hypothetical imperatives, but I never meant to say that all hypothetical imperatives, like "If you want this door to open, you will have to unlock it" are about morality.

I took these qualifications to be self-evident and therefore didn't include them.

To your last post,

Why didn't you say so from the beginning that you meant it's not "properly basic".

I was merely saying not only the "axioms" of morality are part of the individual's/group's morality, but also the derived statements about moral ought/shall etc.

352. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177309 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 10:50 pm

If ever the Kaaba should be physically destroyed, I bet their theology will just shift to say that what the angels are protecting is still there... it's in fact the non-physical, spiritual Kaaba.

:)

353. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177300 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 10:16 pm

fontor,

I hope you're not saying we need to employ means to make them die out.

354. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177299 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I wasn't trying to explain why Christianity is losing popularity, just why the percentage of Muslims is rising.

But if I was to try and give an answer to that - I would say it's because, just like in Sweden and Denmark (and Germany, but less so) - and in direct, stark contrast to the US, religion isn't free enterprise. It's a fixed social institution, linked with the government, it's in some way official.

Where religion is free market enterprise, there will be advertising, doing everything to get people to "buy" your "product" - including brainwashing etc (which is what advertising does, but in a slightly different way).

That's just one factor, but I think it's an important one. The prevalence of religious faith as a crutch, as a major pillar of personal life is also one. And I think it has to do with the above. Since in the UK, Denmark, Sweden, (Netherlands in general) it was and is somehow official, it was taken as a given, and something you have to keep sacred, to fight for and do destroy everything that threatens your personal faith, including indoctrinating your children as strongly as possible.

Of course I could be entirely wrong, but it seems to be a valid explanation to me.

355. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177286 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm

The prevalence of Islam in western civilisation is increasing mainly because of the fact that Muslims have far more children than non-muslims... and yes, because of immigration, which in itself isn't a bad thing.

356. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177284 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Someone else take this one, I'm tired, and don't want to get my hands dirty now...

357. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177279 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:12 pm

It's because from P and the premises it follows that R is true, and because a conditional can't be false when the consequent is true - yes.

If everyone deleted posts that are not adding to the discussion, but only their personal understanding (or less), then there would be a few hundred, if not thousand comments less on this site :)

358. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177276 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 9:02 pm

So the statement to prove is

((P->Q)AND(Q->R)AND(~(S->R))->~P

S->R
is true iff
- S and R are true
- S is false and R is true
- S and R are false
and false iff
S is true and R is false

But R is true, (From P, (P->Q) and (Q-R))

Since R is true, (S->R) must be true, therefore ~(S->R) must be false.

But ~(S->R) is a premise. Assuming P leads to (S->R), so P must be false.

359. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177259 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm

markg,

I apologize if what I wrote came across as a bit harsh... no offense intended.

360. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177255 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm

On second thought, maybe a more precise definition of fact would be "An state-of-affairs that obtains in a spacetime or a logical truth"
(by including "a" before spacetime, I am accounting also for facts in possible worlds)

361. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177249 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Brian, your reductio wasn't bad - but not a conclusive argument, because the conditionals, the premises weren't elaborated on enough. At least that's how I see it.

And I was trying to give a coherent definition of the term "fact" before - not an etymological one :)

I defined fact as "an event or series of events in spacetime, or a logical truth". So facts do not change, since they already include temporal qualification.

362. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177248 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 8:24 pm

markg,

you evidently didn't read my post very well.

Statements arent't facts, they can be factual though.

I said for a statement to express a contingent fact, it has to specify the temporal point or interval.

So that would be "On May 9th 2008, Barack Obama is not the president of the United States of America".

If I say "On May 9th, 2009, Barack Obama is the president [...]", that will still be either true or false, it will express a fact or not no matter at what time it is made.


I specifically stated that in my analysis, you have to include the temporal qualification in the description.

A statement is not a fact - it can describe one. But this description has to include the temporal qualification.

Please read carefully what you criticize.

363. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177237 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 7:59 pm

The bible just said you shouldn't beat up your slaves so badly that they are of no use anymore.

But the metaethics-part is the important one.

364. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177221 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 7:25 pm

righton,

Well, the maja played something like soccer for the honor to be sacrificed, the headhunters thought killing another in certain ways was quite alright.

As for the Bible, take a look at the right side column of this site:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Anyway - the argument they bring is bullshit, absolute bullshit:

they say
1. we always know that certain things are right
2. evil influences have convinced people otherwise

This postulates that everyone who ever did something morally wrong knew that it was wrong. This is ludicrous... so Hitler really knew that harming people was wrong. So in 1 Samuel, what does this tell us about the following?

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
(15:2-3) "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago.
To kill or not to kill
Is God merciful?
What the Bible says about genocide, family values, and God
15:3 >Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So the people knew that god was wrong? And it then seems that God was that evil influence... ?


But that's all beside the point. It's just a postulate, untestable, and even unfalsifiable to say that everyone always knew that something was good or bad - when all the evidence tells us otherwise. This is just a vain attempt to reconcile history with this person's ideals - and it's not working.

But even if - contrafactually - it were the case that some moral judgements were and are always shared, that does not mean that there are metapyhsical, objective moral values. It only means that people have accepted the same standards. It wouldn't prove at all that there are objective values, just that people share moral judgements - they can still be entirely subjective.

Throughout the entire history of philosophy, many have tried, but no one has ever managed to produce a detailed and coherent concept what "objective, intrinsic moral values" would be like.
Plato's "Form of the Good" is just an obscure notion, irreconcilable with what we really know about the world.

What would objective moral values be? Some strange metaphysical entities (what is that supposed to be btw?) that are YET connected to certain actions, states-of-affairs, intentions etc in a way that they "cause" them to be morally right or wrong or entail that they are right or wrong....

We cannot conceive of such a thing, how would that work? What would that be?

And the biggest problem: Even if they existed, how would we know of them? If it was knowledge, it would be demonstrable - but it isn't. You can never prove that something is intrinsically good.
It couldn't be through scripture, because that presupposes that what the scripture commands is morally good, but that is circular. You would have to prove that without recurring to the bible.
It cannot be internal revelation from god, because you could not know that you didn't just suffer a hallucination - and you would again already have to presuppose the goodness of what god commands - that is circular.

What it comes down to:

1. We have no justification whatsoever for believing in metaphysically objective, intrinsic moral values because we cannot form a coherent concept of that.

2. We have no justification whatsoever for believing in metaphysically objective, intrinsic moral values because even if they existed, we could not know that this was the case, much less what those values are.

It is perfectly conceivable that if there were objective values, it would still be possible for everyone to just get it wrong. - So we cannot prove that they exist. And since the concept of metaphysically objective values is obscure, untestable and incoherent - we can conclude they don't exist.

Also, righton...

.... you should read (and recommend to your debate-partner) the book

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

365. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176828 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 6:10 am

Incredulous,

I am assuming that we have a calling or even a right to do this

I'm not sure what would be meant by "calling" in a non-superstitious way... don't see that this is an applicable concept. I'd say our "right" derives from the pragmatic necessity of reason for the survival of us, civiliation, human life and life in general. Sam Harris makes the point quite well that unreason is dangerous to others, not just to those unreasonable. Imagine a large society stuck with the concepts of illnesses as demonic possesions - and rejecting medicine. When a dangerous virus spreads through that population, they become a danger to others - we would have to completely contain them or force medicine upon them.

Secondly, we recognize certain political liberties as properly basic - and I think these are rationally derivable with taking only two things for granted: 1. A willingness to be social at all and 2.having the capacity for reason and for developing a concept of the good. (for more on this, see John Rawls "A Theory of Justice", "Justice as Fairness - A restatement" and "Political Liberalism")
The only rational conception of justice would be granting to all people the most extensive scheme of liberties rights, and freedoms that is compatible with same scheme for all others in society.

Among these are liberty of conscience, freedom of thought and expression and thus also the freedom to embrace or reject any religion. Also, it would include the requirement that everyone be made aware of these rights and that no exercise of them (where the exercise does not conflict with other granted rights) is in any way an offense.

Thus, certain religious practices, certain ways and contents of religious indoctrination cannot be rationally allowed, and are also morally deplorable.

Parents have the right to fuck up their own life as they want - but not that of their child. They must not cripple the child's ability to recognize and make rational use of the basic liberties, rights and freedoms - or the ability to interact socially.
They must not commit mental torture on their child (seen "Baby Bible Bashers" for example?).

Of all the people I have met who have religious experience very few really, really believe.

I wasn't making the "pathlogical"-"responsive to reason" distinction in that way.
1. I thinks ist problematic to talk about a difference between believing and "really, really, really believing" - what would the demarcation be. There can be feigning belief( for example out of belief in belief) and believing, but that is beside the point.

I also don't think we can apply the criterion of "having a full understanding of the logical and evidential status of the proposition believed to be true" - since that is largely unconnected to the question of belief - which is consistent, tacit or open and tacit affirmation of that proposition.

I think many many people (perhaps most) REALLY believe this stuff, but have a compartmentalised mind and/or very unsophisticated, unreflective concepts of what they belief. Thus they are responsive to reason, they are just i) not trained enough in it or ii) not consistent enough in its application, - or both.

The psychopathological then are those who are compeltely irresponsive to reason - ie having seen people die because they handled snakes, having suffered from snakebites, but still firmly believing that they are - in virtue of being true christians - immune to that.
That which in psychology is properly defined as the pathology (or pathological symptom of) delusion.

Fundamentalists are closer to this than moderates, but they are all still in some part of their minds and to some extent even in the religious part responsive to reason... I was distinguishing these people, for which it is not impossible to give this up for reasons of rationality from those for which it completely is.

Don't get me wrong the wooter's and DR's of this world should get short shrift, and they do. The important thing is that it becomes evident that evidence is what should drive beliefs and hence actions.

And not just over time. With support, understanding and patience. But mostly by being prepared to accept that all habits are hard to break and that relapses are common.

I can only subscribe to that in full.

The next sentence however needs, I think, a minor alteration - it is not wrong beliefs per se that do harm (many wrong beliefs are neutral, some very beneficial, some - or many - may, but not in virtue of being wrong, as the fact shows that there are neutral wrong beliefs and beneficial wrong beliefs). Also not every irrational belief (arrived at and held not because of logical arguments and evidence but because of something else) is harmful...

It is - as I stated above - non-rationalism itself that is dangerous, because once you abandon the requirement for rationality (not in all actions have to be rational though - there's nothing inherently, generally wrong with falling irrationally in love with someone)... once you model your beliefs about states-of-affairs in the world, about the truth-value of propositions not in a reasonable and rational way, there is no formal barrier against the many, many, many false propositions to become believed and potentially cause harm. (Like the one mentioned above with the virus) Also for other reasons, but I'm far too tired now to go into this specifically in more detail.

Better education - especially science and maths, better economic circumstances and leaders who show moral fortitude as a human drive and not as an illusion from an illusion.

Yes, absolutely - education is a major element, perhaps the most important one. But not only in science and maths, not even primarily, but primarily in thinking rationally. In its purest form, this is logic and philosophy - mathematics and empirical science also employ this method solely - but it can also be taught in itself - teaching critical, rational thinking skills, in other words philosophy. By learning philosophy, you learn to think critically about everything (which is why there is a "philosophy of" nearly everything :)

But also communication, papreciation, analysis and proper usage of language, as well as the appreciation for value and beauty (i.e. languages, ethics, music, art) are of importance.

So we have logic/philosophy (critica, logical thinking in general), mathematics, empirical sciences, ethics, languages, music, art....

See, we've almost got a classical curriculum there - proper education in these would certainly make the world a far better place.
______________________________________

phatbat,

isolate them, and then take em out one by one? Sounds like guerrilla-tactics to me... :)

...anyway - gotta sleep now. Good night people!

366. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176798 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 3:37 am

Incredulous,

I think you misread my post... or read over a "not".

Most people have a strong emotional tie with religion. Indeed this indoctrination appears to work by adopting emotionally effective techniques.

I never doubted that, in fact that is part of what I meant by "not by being taken through the arguments and being shown the evidence".

Are you saying that people are either duped, seduced or browbeaten whilst vulnerable into believing?

Yes, among other things but this is in no way contradictory to the "emotional reason for belief"... because these emotions are conditioned as well in the indoctrination, because of the content of the indoctrination.

AS for your statements about reason being unable to "beat" emotion... partly true.

I was emotionally invested in the belief that objective moral values exist, as most people are, as all (pious) theists are. I feared what would be the case if these didn't exist.

When I studied the matter, I found out that morality is still possible without them, that we can still get what we need from morality without them - and the fear disappeared.

This requires some responsiveness to reason - but except for pathological, extreme cases, this is a given, it has to be there in order to live. Especially in a society.

My current girlfriend was brought up in an extremely religious home, and was religious when I met her - and very emotionally invested in the religious beliefs. I talked to her about all these things, and she had thought about them herself before that (she studies biology, btw)... and now she is an atheist. Even an anti-theist.

So all that is needed is some responsiveness to reason, which is there in almost all cases.

Of course there are the pathological cases, the seriously fucked up minds, and it will be necessary to just keep them from doing harm to others, but these are by far a small minority.

Many cases are very hard to crack... but the responsiveness is there. The psychological barriers are just extremely strong... and they can be torn down over time.

Also, if this was not possible, we wouldn't have made it past believing that lightning is god's anger, that starlight is the light from heaven shining through holes in the canopy over earth that god poked in there to illuminate us.

But that happened... so it is possible.

I'm not saying religion will vanish completely - that reason "will win"... but it can get more foothold, and -as it does over and over again- get more people in its side.

367. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176787 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 3:12 am

Well, it is not necessarily true that intelligence helps you survive in a niche, which is all the article shows... but human evolution and culture show that substantial intelligence can free one of a lot (most) of the environmental pressure. We increase resources, make the environment fit our needs, medicine, technology... we are above "niche" in some sense - through intelligence.

368. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176786 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 3:09 am

I propose that we should introduce a distinction between what in German is called "Ueberzeugen" versus "Ueberreden", and in latin between "persuadere ac" versus "persuadere ut"...

...namely being talked into believing something (not by going through the arguments and evidence) and being convinced of the truth of a proposition through logical arguments and evidence.

Most people are indoctrinated into theism, not being taken through the arguments and evidence which show that it is (supposedly) true.

You can get away from that belief through reason if you're lucky (if the indoctrination and fixation, the psychological barriers etc haven't achieved a certain strength/level).

But you can get away from a belief through reason far easier if that proposition is believed (mainly) because it was come by through reason (faulty).

Agreed?
____________________


riandouglas,

in "Baby Bible Bashers", when the little kid talked about hell, that "you will burn forever", "worms will eat your flesh" - that's when I cried.

You could see that this child takes this literally, children have a very literal mind - even if the parents mean it as a metaphor, a small child cannot grasp the concept of metaphors. But these parents meant it as they said.

The child is certainly tortured by the thoughts that all these people around him will literlly be burning forever, will scream and wail, will suffer eternal torture, that worms will eat their flesh. He is definitely tortured by this, but he is a kid, a human - he doesn't want people to suffer like this, so he has to save them. And anyone finding what he and his parents do offensive, or not agreeing etc is totally incomprehensible to him.

This kid was mentally tortured - the worst kind of torture. And you could hear it in his voice, see it on his face and in his behaviour.

That was so sad, so infuriating, so sickening that I cried and almost vomited. It really made me feel physically ill. No horror-movie could even get close to making me feel that way.

This kind of torture, of crippling the child's mind has to be forbidden - it's mental cruelty, it's torture.

Fuck, I'm already feeling ill and infuriated again just thinking of that kid and that film.

369. Two More Fleas

Comment #176782 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 2:54 am

Well, I disagree, King of NH,...

Science can per definition only study the natural.

If god is defined as supernatural, then science cannot prove or disprove the existence of that entity. Science can disprove supposed effects that this supposed deity is sad to have caused in the natural world, but that doesn't disprove god as a supernatural being.

The Definitionsraum of science, the class of things which are so that empirical science can make statements about it, is - per definition - pairwise disjoint from the supernatural. It can make no statements about that - nor can any statements about that be inferred from this. (There is more to this, but I won't get into it now)

I have studied philosophy of religion, logical arguments for and against for about 8 years now, I have also formally studied philosophy of science, logic and philosophy. That is to say I have substantial knowledge of what I'm talking about (I don't want to be arrogant at all - just establish that I know what I'm talking about :)

Logic has not proved incompetent at all (it is at the basis of all rational endeavors, thinking, observing, doing science, communicating. If you accept it there, you have to accept it everywhere, otherwise you are inconsistent)... you could only claim this if you do what the creationists do, namely say "Well, if it doesn't manage to do x, then it fails"... in the creationists case it's proving god or proving that belief in god is rational, in your case it would be the opposite - but have to follow logic and evidence wherever they lead.

Science can (in principle, not necessarily in practice) disprove all those and only those claims about states-of-affairs in the natural world - per definition.

You might want to look up "methodological naturalism".

Also, by the accepted demarcation criteria, all accepted theories and sentences of empirical science are provisional, which means accepted as the best explanation, not as known to be true with 100% probability.
You might want to look up falsification and the problem of induction. No amount of data and science can tell us that the next test of a theory won't tell us that there's something wrong with it.

Logic is still the gold-standard when it comes to proofs and disproofs, because they are not thus limited.

But that is only marginally interesting, because - per definition of science as investiagtion of the natural world and God as being supernatural, science cannot make statements about that, nor can such statements be inferred solely from statements of empirical science.

Suppose a religion states that "God has put the moon exactly 500 million kilometres away from earth". Science can show that it is not the case that the earth has that distance to the moon, but that would not disprove god, only the claim that that a god had done that - and not even in virtue of being done by god, but in virtue of the state-of-affairs not obtaining.

Btw, I have read Victor Stenger's book on how "science" disproves god. He fails to establish his premise. All those things in the book which actually approach that are philosophical statements, and all the statements about physics and the incompatibility between what it shows and what people think god has done do not establish that god does not exist, but at most that god has not done these things.

It is logic that has proved extremely competentin this matter: Every supposed ontological proof of god has been logically refuted, and philosophy has produced a substantial amount of actual, logical disproofs of the existence of anything that conforms to various specific concepts of god because of the logical contradictions in the concepts.

New arguments for theism are developed, and they in turn are refuted. It is not a failure of logic or philosophy - it is simply the nature of arguments properly pertaining to non-empirical matters.

That is to say, philosophy has produced logical arguments that disprove the existence of entities conforming to various specific concepts of deities to the same degree of certainty that logic disproves "There exists an entity which is at the same time entirely cubical and entirely spherical".

Furthermore - any argument for epistemic improbability of god's existence is itself philosophy, not empirical science.

For further reference, I strongly recommend these books:

-"The Miracle of Theism" by the late, eminent John Leslie Mackie (general discussion of arguments for and against theism...far more depth and rigor than The God Delusion or similar books)

-"The impossibility of God" by Michael Martin (Ed.) and Sobel's "Logic and Theism" on the logical arguments against theism.

and
-"The improbability of God" by Michael Martin (Ed.) for the a posteriori arguments against god's existence.


Very good books!

-Michael

370. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176776 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 2:23 am

JimJ,

I found "Jesus Camp" to be disgusting as well... my (now, thanks in part to me) ex-Christian current girlfriend actually cried when she saw this.

That was hard to stomach... but if you reached your limit of disgust by watching this movie, do not (or do, depends how far you are willing to go) watch the documentary "Baby Bible Bashers", it's on youtube in several parts... especially the story of the american white kid traveling to New York. That was far beyond Jesus Camp... focused on individuals rather than a camp, but it was so incredibly disgusting... I think parents should be forbidden to do that to the mind of a child...

I have a pretty strong stomach... and I literally got physically sick to my stomach when I saw the boy talk about his idea of hell...

If you think you can take it - watch it. But don't say I didn't warn you.

371. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176775 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 2:18 am

phatbat,

When that phrase says '....weren't reasoned into' i think we just need to assume that it is a position that they actualy arrived at, having not had it before, as a result of something other than reason. I'm not sure you can say the same about mind as something other than the body, objective moral values, etc.

I'm not sure about this. These notions may be rather unreflected, but they are not innate - and as such they are "come by" by something different than reason.

Also, think about belief in Santa Claus... quite the same. The reason to "talk you out of this belief" is extremely simple, but it's reason nevertheless: "We, your parents have been buying the presents, have been eating the cookies and drinking the milk. Reindeers can't fly" etc.


So I think it still applies, whether the notions are specifically induced in a non-rational way (Santa), or intuitively derived from cultural (and specifically linguistic) conventions. You learn phrases like "my brain", which are commonplace - and develop the idea of "You" being different from "your body" because it is implied in the language and reinforced by other cultural and intuitive factors.

372. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176770 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 1:58 am

Ninas Grandpa,

funny as your post is (I thought it was) - you do make an important point.

Unless you specifically define "x% of an eye" in a functional way, a derivation of n% from "x% of an eye" must not correspond to an n% increase or decrease in functional accuracy, or broadness etc.
If you take away 1% of the colouring-pigments in the iris, that doesn't make the eye 1% less able to see.

Thanks for that insight!

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

Comment #176763 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 1:13 am

Blaming Darwin OR his theories for 'Social Darwinism" is as silly as blaming Karl Marx for the atrocities committed by the dictatorial societies that choose to call themselves 'Marxist'.

Not true - science is purely descriptive, Marx's theory was not purely descriptive, but included also moral judgments.

Also, while no actual communist state implemented the society Marx said was necessary, in an historical/ontological/metaphysical as well as a moral sense, (the Hegelian Synthese applied to the "progression" of society is also conceived of as a progression of moral status), he did advocate something quasi-collectivist, which itself is morally dubious.

Furthermore,
In addition to the fact that there is dispute over whether "the Jesus" that is supposed to be described (even if you substract the divinity and miracles) in the bible even ever lived, he did propose a morality so diverse and partially incompatible (explained by the fact that the stories about him and his ethics are largely fabrications, the writers of the texts imposed their own morality upon this character), partially very "inhumane" that there can be said to be responsibility given that he existed (which I doubt) - the responsibility lies with those who fabricated the stories, those who made the claim to their authority and those who defend and indoctrinate the dogma.

The teachings of "Jesus" are not all fluffy "love everyone"-morality.

374. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176759 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 1:01 am

Epeeist,

you already typed the solution to your problem with my position: "not ascertainable".

Let's consider this:

The statementthat the distance between a specific point on the surface of the earth and a specific point on the surface of Mars is exactly b units of measurement is true only at a certain time (leaving relative time aside for now, this is after all, just an example of a principle). But (given the above) there is a fact that at time t_a (or at times t_{1, 2, 3,...,n}) the distance between that point on the surface of the earth and that point on the surface of Mars is exactly b units of measurement.

This fact is time independent, because the time-qualification is contained within the fact.

A statement can be true or false, it can express a truth, so that it is factual. I propose to define (and I'm not the first) "fact" as "Either an event, or series of events(trajectory) in spacetime - Or a logical truth".

As such, something cannot be a fact at one time and not at another or vice versa - though it can be the case that we can/do ascertain it at one time, but not another.

375. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176750 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 12:18 am

So, basically everything then? :-)

Almost - he seems to understand the concept of "DNA", "gamote", "Cell", "enzyme" etc...
The concepts of the processes, the mechanisms - faulty.
:)

376. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176746 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Also, since I just know this is going to come up (it was already implicated)... the definitory distinction between micro- and macroevolution is an artificial one, because there are no clear, natural boundaries in nature, the one that is there, and which we use, is interbreeding.

We observe "Macroevolution"... a recent example (credit to Dr. Steve Zara) is Spartina Anglica - a recent, observed example of fast "macro"evolution.

See this entry on Dr. Zara's blog:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/118526.html#cutid1

377. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176745 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 11:48 pm

How you can reason someone out of a position that they haven't reasoned themselves into

I don't think that's a good phrase - because the answer isn't "you can't". For example, I did not come to the position that the mind is something other than the body or that there are objective moral values not through reason - but I abandoned them because of reason.
That's just one small demonstration - there are lots and lots more.

378. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176741 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Mass consensus can be a great enemy to reason, since it plays to the general human intuition that the majority is almost always correct, regardless of precisely what it is that the majority is saying or doing

Can, mustn't... when the nature of the event has nothing to do whatever with propositions, with positions, then it is no enemy to reason at all - like a (non-political) rock-concert. Also don't forget that art can also express reason, can promote rationality.

"Faith in God" and "Faith in the Band" - the latter makes no sense. Religion, or political mass-consensus, or moral mass-consensus is about propositions. An event where many people feel good about hearing for example one of the Brandenburg Concertos by Bach... hardly! It's not about propositions!

Also, is mass-consensus that committing acts of deliberate cruelty is wrong dangerous, and enemy to reason? Definitely wrong. It's not consensus, or mass-consensus that is dangerous - it's consensus about propositions without proper justification.

379. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176735 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Have you read the links I provided? They have questions to all your answers.

Your misconceptions lie in
1. The numbers
2. The concepts
3. The calculations of probability (dependent on 1 and 2)
and
4. The neglection of time.

Please read the links!

Concerning the last comment about the eye, you think in false categories

This is a video by Prof. Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye (for children, so not technical, but explaining correctly the appropriate mechanisms and concepts):

Richard Dawkins about the Eye

Basically, the principle is that every stage is useful - two animals in the same environment, one of them has some light-sensitive cells (no eye) will have an advantage over the other. It can move towards well-lit areas and away from dark areas. A slightly higher sensitivity is further beneficial. The light-sensitive cells being only very slightly more "inwards" than the surrounding tissue gives another advantage by improving the recognition of direction of light... and so forth - watch the video.

In the same manner - an animal with a mutation that produces some tissue that has more aerodynamic resistance will survive falls from a slightly greater hight than an animal without, so its beneficial.

Think cumulative.

Read the papers, watch the video.

Sorry, you got it wrong. (There is also no paradox, it's a balance)

380. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176726 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Oh, alright then... still applies :)

381. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176721 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Very good Brian,

Programming languages are formal languages, and the logical structure is very evident.

I've always said, learning programming-languages, especially learning informatics in general, is practically learning formal logic in a specific application.

Now you basically get to learn formally what is at the basis of programming-languages... and more. (Axiomatisation, proof-theory, later - in a different book perhaps - model theory etc)

382. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176716 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I know you weren't proposing that evolution was random or teleological... (I know you that well at least) - I was just sneaking in these points for the general public.

383. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176713 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Brian,

I would appreciate it if "MontyPhil" won't become commonplace... Today/night is okay, though :)

384. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176712 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Brian, you are of course correct... but the substantial, the important part of the theory of evolution is natural selection - and as such it is a theory that describes a non-random process over randomly occurring mutations - so the effects are non-random.

Do not confuse proper randomness (as being non-deterministic - like radioactive decay, causing the radioactivity that mutates -partly- the DNA)
and low probability (the dependence of one value on several others, which are not calculable in advance (even in principle)).

The mutations that are caused by radioactive decay are genuinely random. The specific mutations caused by copying errors have a low probability each, and that are not calculable in advance. Both cannot, therefore, be teleological.

The latter case is that properly described by the analogy of mixing a deck of cards and then drawing one. The probability of any specific card (ace of hearts for example) being drawn is 1 in (number of cards in the deck)... that probability is the same for every card, even the one being drawn - still, one IS drawn, and saying that the low probability of that specific card appearing makes it unlikely that it would have ever happened, so that card cannot have come about by shuffling and then drawing presupposes teleology, is spanning the cart before the horse.

So, evolution is not a theory of chance - it is a theory in which a non-random process runs over random values (and 'not pre-calculable low-probability-each-values' which for all intents and purposes, can be treated as "random").

385. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176707 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:14 pm

See substantial edit above.

386. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176705 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Also, these two links address specifically the question of beneficial mutations:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

Also, it is perfectly right to ask for evidence, in fact it is commendable... but you need to be informed and unbiased to evaluate it properly.

Finally, even if, contrafactually, the theory of evolution were not the best explanation available, that wouldn't make creationism or ID more likely - they're still just not science, they have no real explanatory value since they don't specify mechanisms, and they aren't epistemically tenable at all.

387. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176700 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 10:03 pm

txpiper,

I suggest you first read through (and attempt to understand - the terminology is sometimes technical) the following introduction to biology:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html


Don't you think these questions have been answered by biology? Otherwise, no serious scientist would think the theory of evolution to be the best available explanation? The methodology of modern science, the rigorousity, the peer-review process, the reproducibility of experiments, the intersubjective accessibility of evidence - they all guarantee for the maximum possible reliability.

388. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176698 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 9:59 pm

1. The mutation is still random, nonteleological.
2. Mutations are not rare at all. We are bombarded by radioactivity all the time.
3. Furthermore, DNA doesn't get copied with 100% accuracy, resulting in further mutation. (It's mutation by radiation and by copying errors, not just copying errors)
EDIT: In fact, my points #4 and 5 were not entirely true. What is true is the following:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Also, the major point you don't seem to get is that it's not just random mutation - it's non-random natural selection that leads to to the millions of complex species. Beneficial effects are cumulative, there is no irreducible complexity, and as Richard Dawkins famously said, "half an eye is exactly 1% more useful than 49% of an eye".
The beneficiality of mutations is defined in terms of the effects of the ability to produce surviving offspring - and as such, it is also dependent on the environment, a mutation that would be detrimental in one environment can be beneficial in another - the niche is relevant.

Evolution is not a theory of chance. Natural Selection is non-random - and the evidence for common descent is incontrovertible.

389. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176684 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Interestingly, in the vast majority of cases, I don't like big crouds either... but for me, it depends on the atmosphere, the people, the event... I deplore beer tents, I don't like country fairs - but lectures in a big auditorium, a congress of scientists (or philosophers) - or a concert of music that I really like.... in such cases I like it.

Anyway, wow - I couldn't even imagine not finding music fascinating, entrancing, stimulating intellectually as well as aesthetically...
I'm not making a moral judgment here, as long as those who aren't particularly interested in music realize that it is an essential and valuable part of culture, art etc... I don't see anything wrong with that.
I simply cannot comprehend not being a music fan/interested in music/etc...

But then, as my parents tell me, I've been a music fan ever since I was a year old... as soon as I could talk, I began "singing" to the radio when we were driving somewhere, or to LPs/CDs at home etc.

:)

Still, for anyone wanting to understand the power of mass-gatherings, actually attending a rock-concert of music that one likes at least in some way is probably the only feasible way of really getting to know that. (or at least the most benign, - I don't recommend things like the Nuremberg Nazi party gatherings :)

390. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176673 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Well, my wife hates you. But that's a given as I'm an MPhil minion in training.

*Makes Monty Burns gesture* Excellent!

Soon, you will become part of my mindless... no wait, reasonable international army of minions... as I said, just the way I planned... *evil grin*.

391. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176672 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Diacanu,

I know - I feel quite the same way.

How many times do I gotta get shoved before I can take a swing, y'know?

If a bunch of kids single you out for annoying pranks, to which one should respond by simply taking it and sending them on their way, perhaps making them see that they shouldn't that... how often must this happen before it becomes right to yell at them, insult them and personally carry them off your lawn?

I don't think - I don't think it does... but I can certainly see how that would be the natural reaction after a while, and I'm not saying I would never do the same :)

392. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176669 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Rian and Brian,

my evil, fiendish plan that is truly, magnificently evil and fiendish [...] of getting you to buy these books, become entranced by these discussions, the arguments and by the learning-experience, thereby neglecting all your other duties to friends, family , work [...] is turning out just the way I planned... MWUHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Nah, seriously, I'd like to hear what you think of the books (in general and of the parts you get to read in the next weeks) :)

393. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176665 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Ah, thanks riandouglas... I could of course have checked the "other comments by" myself - but I didn't think of it at the moment. Oh well - I'd be glad if it turns out not to be trolling or hit-and-run strategy.

Great to hear that "The Miracle of Theism" arrived. For all its shortcomings (meaning theists have weaseled around his criticism, but it was later reinforced by others, and also - as I said - some arguments are not discussed), it is still one of the best books on the subject - and vastly, incredibly deeper than anything by Richard, Christopher or Sam (and also Dan, since he has a more descriptive approach). This is not to say that the works by our four horsemen aren't great... just that the actual arguments and discussions thereof on both sides are actually far deeper, although Richard and Christopher make excellent arguments for anti-theism.

394. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176661 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Diacanu,

I'm not saying you're criticism isn't appropriate (or stylish as always) - but to be fair, everyone has to start somewhere. The vast, vaaaaaaaast majority of believers are have extremely unsophisticated arguments for their position and against rival ones. And for a tiny minority, their learning about the counter-arguments to the ones you enumerated (and others) show them that the case for atheism is actually better than the case for theism.
I've seen it happen.

All I'm saying - it's not necessarily (or even probably) Alien64's fault s/he wasn't aware of that - especially if s/he was subject to creationist indoctrination for a long time, perhaps since childhood.

395. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176658 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm

... So, what will it be? Hit-and-run, troll or willing to engage in rational debate and learn?

396. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176656 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Any news from Catho on here? Hmm.. seems not.

397. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176655 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I'm interesting to see if this (the Alien64 post) turns out to be a hit and run thing, a troll, or someone willing and interested in learning and engaging in rational debate.

398. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176654 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Indeed Quine. That's what's at the basis of all learning, of acquisition of faculties, and it is also at the basis of conditioning in the way that cults do it... all learning is in some way such conditioning, such restructuring of the neural network.

What should be noted though is that it isn't only the creation or dying off of synapses, the most part of that happens in the first few months after birth. A lot more synapses are created than are needed, and those that don't receive enough synaptic bias and enough input die off. So what it's mainly about is the adjustment of synaptic bias (or the neurophysiological implementation of that, since it is a term of neural network theory).

399. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176640 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Thanks, steveroot...

... I should however make one amendment:

It can be objected said that 150 years ago, it was a fact that Newtonian mechanics was the best theory available, and since now this is no longer the case, statements can become factual or cease to be factual.
I don't think this is the case. This can easily be restated in a way coherent with the hypothesis that facts are non-temporal:

"It is a fact that 150 years ago, Newtonian Mechanics was the best available theory about the behaviour of its objects."

Facts are non-temporal. A statement of fact is a statement that correctly describes either an analytical truth (A=A; NOT: P AND ~P) or an empirical truth, i.e. they correctly describe (part of) something that exists in spacetime. By seeing time and space as connected dimensions, and spacetime as the frame of reference, facts are non-temporal.

400. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176635 by MPhil on May 7, 2008 at 8:10 pm

That is not to say that I use every opportunity to go to a concert - for me it's about seeing masterful instrumentalists playing wonderful music in an atmosphere of appreciation and excitement etc... quite wonderful, actually.

I even got the opportunity to talk to and get autographs from 6 musicians I consider to be among the best in writing complex, beautiful music and instrumental virtuosity: All Members of Dream Theater and Steve Vai...