In his latest column, OSC calls Hitler a Darwinist, and goes on to say that Richard Dawkins cites religion as a cause of the evils in the world.
I want to quote both OSC and Dawkins directly to give some perspective to these statements.\
OSC on the subject of the Stein film: "Expelled no Intelligence allowed."
quote: Some will complain about the fact that Ben Stein links Darwinism with, of all things, the Holocaust.
But that is one of the most important -- and valid -- points in the movie. First, Hitler w as a Darwinist. We have forgotten, in our post-racist philosophy, that one of the prime results of Darwinism was the "science" of eugenics. Planned Parenthood began, just like Nazi death camps, with the prime goal of improving the human race by eliminating any chance for "inferior" groups to reproduce. It may be rude to say so, but it's still a fact.
Darwin's theory did not contain these atrocities, but he himself reached those conclusions, wondering why we coddled the feeble-minded and other inferiors, and allowed them to reproduce.
When I hear zealots of atheism like Richard Dawkins cite religion as the cause of most of the evils in the world, I would laugh if it were not such a profoundly ignorant statement. (It is proof, if you want it, that historical causation is not a scientific study.)
And now from Dawkins, on the same subject
quote: 3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
quote: 6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
The rest of his open letter to the viewers of that film is on his website
Dawkins very clearly presents a likely alternative to the idea that Hitler was a "darwinist." First of all, by showing that social darwinism and evolution by natural selection are not the same things.
He clearly demonstrates that the false wisdom upon which eugenics was perpetuated as a belief exists OUTSIDE OF darwinism and that its proponents used darwinism as support for their racist and incorrect theories. Eugenics as an idea clearly predates darwinism, in the same way that theories of evolution predate darwinism- darwinism deals with natural selection, and applies knowledge of intergenerational transformation between parent and child that people were already WELL AWARE OF, but had inadequate theories to explain.
My greatest concern here is that while OSC calls Dawkins a zealot, who blames the evils of the world only on religion, we can see here that Dawkins is looking past the issue in question to try and look at the situation of the Holocaust with some kind of objectivity.
We don't see OSC doing that in his article. We see him actually perpetuation the misinformed notion that Hitler was a darwinist, or that darwinism played some unique empowering role in the anti-semitic movement of the time in Europe. This is a man who claims to have an informed knowledge of the subject, who would go so far as to attempt to educate us on it. And yet, the subject of Eugenics is flattened and simplified into meaninglessness. The very root cause of the ideology is identified incorrectly.
Finally this from OSC
quote: When there is no moral restraint, no sense of transcendent responsibility, then why shouldn't powerful people do whatever they think is right? On what basis would a committed atheist like Richard Dawkins prove to us that Hitler was wrong? Science is simply mute on issues of values. Dawkins has no scientific basis for opposing or even criticizing Hitler or Stalin in any way. I'm sure that he would condemn them -- but he could not tell us why in terms that were even slightly more rational than any religion.
How dare you sir?
That a person has divorced himself from the theological concepts that are shared by religious people does not divorce him from the ability to recognize his innate morality. Who is a zealot? Because here, you deny Dawkins and anyone like him the ability to express the concepts of morality, or the responsibility that humans have for each other. Rather than try to understand, rather than invest any faith in the idea that people may redeem themselves to the world through honesty and hard work, you excoriate these men alone on the basis that they do not believe in your God.
And you do all of this, in the name of a documentary that is in favor of an agenda you don't even believe in? You support that documentary just because it appropriates the historical facts in a way that pleases your ego? Because it confirms the tirades you've gone on, and forgives the bridges you've burned along the way? Why do this?
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Orin, quoting Dawkins is a bit weak. The man is a biologist, not an historian. There is actually pretty good evidence, historically, that Darwin did profoundly influence german thinking & zeitgeist back to prior to WW I.
E.g.: Richard Weikart IS an historian (Cal State), expert on Nazis and WWII, and has a scholarly book to the contrary of Dawkins: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. He argues that Darwinism did profoundly influence the Nazi movement.
Have you seen the movie? Stein is letting people speak for themselves, including Dawkins who thinks that flying saucers brought life to earth. OK, that is not fair, but almost, and it is still a good moment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Stein is letting people speak for themselves, including Dawkins who thinks that flying saucers brought life to earth.
Based upon comments from many of the people interviewed for the film, they "speak for themselves" in the same way they do in any Michael Moore film: heavily edited to appear ridiculous.
As far as the whole "Hitler was a Darwinist" bit goes, I think it's more than a little ridiculous. Hitler was a racist and a fan of eugenics, true, and it's certainly true that many eugenicists of the early 20th century were inclined to cite Darwin; after all, doing so lent a certain air of scientific inevitability to their breeding programs. But what's ironic about this is that eugenics itself doesn't need Darwinism; Darwin simply explained macroevolution, while eugenics -- and certainly any discussion of human "races" -- deals with microevolution, a process that's been well understood and actively practiced by breeders of all stripes for hundreds if not thousands of years. You want a bigger dog? Breed together some big dogs. You want a blacker person? Breed together some blacker people. Darwin doesn't speak to this process at all; in fact, his work takes it as a given that this process is understood.
Let me be clearer about that: eugenics is actually a form of Intelligent Design. It's deliberate breeding, with the manual removal of undesired but not actually weaker stock from the pool. What it is not is Natural Selection.
---------
But this is irrelevant. That Hitler liked the color green doesn't speak to the quality of the color green. The real issue (to which Card alludes) is whether atheists are somehow unable to satisfactorily answer the big questions: why are we here? Why should we be nice to each other? What's the point?
Card's essay seems completely ignorant of the fact that atheists and agnostics (and religious philosophers) of all stripes have in fact dealt with these questions for thousands of years. These aren't new questions. Ironically, it is precisely this sort of question that Dawkins enjoys answering; rather than catching Dawkins somehow unprepared to answer a question like "why should human beings not murder each other in droves," Card has actually thrown up questions that are at the core of Dawkins' personal expertise and which are actually the primary topics of most of his scholarly work.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Have you seen the movie? Stein is letting people speak for themselves, including Dawkins who thinks that flying saucers brought life to earth. OK, that is not fair, but almost, and it is still a good moment.
Richard Dawkins has never said that "flying saucers" brought life to Earth. He has hypothesized that it could be possible that DNA was "seeded" on Earth by an asteroid or a comet (or, yes, possibly by aliens! Why not?) but has always been *quite* clear whenever he admits this possibility that the possible phenomenon of DNA molecules coming from off-planet doesn't excuse science from discovering the mechanisms behind abiogenesis.
I haven't seen the movie in question yet, but if Dawkins' usual spiel about possible "seeding" of DNA on Earth and its regress into still needing to understand the mechanics of abiogenesis was edited all Michael Moore-style and made to look like something it was not, it's just one more reason why this film is not really worth seeing. What a mess.
To the original poster, I didn't get from OSC's commentary on the film that he is completely writing off the morality of atheists. Rather, he said that atheists can't explain their own morality in scientific terms. I disagree with his claim that atheists can't explain morality scientifically, but I did not think that he was implying that atheists are inherently immoral people.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:including Dawkins who thinks that flying saucers brought life to earth.
This grossly misrepresents what Dawkins said.
But even if it didn't, you do realize that the idea that aliens seeded life on earth, while sounding ridiculous, is much more likely than an all powerful supernatural being creating everything in the universe.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
The point is that Dawkins is not an authority who can be trusted on matters historical and sociological. Richard Weikart might be trustworthy; at least he is an actual historian. Was Nazism influenced by the "Survival of the Fittest" meme, to borrow Dawkins' term? Weikart argues yes, with some sound basis.
Ideas have unforeseen consequences. I wonder if the Eugenics movement had as a proximate cause Darwin's ideas?
Lots of criticism for the film (some well deserved) without having the actual experience of it. Let's see the film before we discuss it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Card's essay seems completely ignorant of the fact that atheists and agnostics (and religious philosophers) of all stripes have in fact dealt with these questions for thousands of years. These aren't new questions. Ironically, it is precisely this sort of question that Dawkins enjoys answering; rather than catching Dawkins somehow unprepared to answer a question like "why should human beings not murder each other in droves," Card has actually thrown up questions that are at the core of Dawkins' personal expertise and which are actually the primary topics of most of his scholarly work.
And I should have gone deeper into that point. The reason Dawkins is a target for those kind of ad hominem attacks is precisely because he continually engages in moral discussions from the perspective of a devout atheist.
What is most shocking to me is to read the statement that Card has committed himself to, that he really believes that people like Dawkins, people like me, atheists, are less equipped than he is to reason morally, or to express moral concepts. Why must a person who denies a belief in God be responsible for moral rationalization on a "higher" or even a different level than a believer? For me, the very fact that I remain moral without religion or faith proves to me that religion and faith are not responsible for those qualities.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Javert, it is logically unsupportable to say that life on earth was seeded. It is just an infinite regress, it adds nothing to the explanation. So for Dawkins to say that lowers my respect for his explanations. He has to deal with how life itself originates, and cannot pull explanations out of the air.
I recognize that to an atheist, the notion of God starting the universe is also a regress, but to prefer one over the other is simply taste. Neither is a real explanation.
Also, you failed to read carefully what I said immediately after. Pointing out what I already pointed out.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: The point is that Dawkins is not an authority who can be trusted on matters historical and sociological. Richard Weikart might be trustworthy; at least he is an actual historian. Was Nazism influenced by the "Survival of the Fittest" meme, to borrow Dawkins' term? Weikart argues yes, with some sound basis.
Ideas have unforeseen consequences. I wonder if the Eugenics movement had as a proximate cause Darwin's ideas?
Lots of criticism for the film (some well deserved) without having the actual experience of it. Let's see the film before we discuss it.
First of all, Dawkins is talking not about the zeitgeist of 1930's Germany. The problem with talking about zeitgeist is that it is so easily appealed to. Dawkins makes a very basic set of points.
1. Eugenics is not based on darwinism.
2. Hitler does not mention darwin as an influence in his book.
Now you can claim a whole range of connections between darwinism and Eugenics and Hitler, but you can just as easily claim, as it has been said, that the color green had an influence. All things have influences. We can as easily blame the zeitgeist of 1930s Germany for the co-opting of darwinism, as we can darwinism for being co-opted. In fact it is the zeitgeist, and rarely the individual ideas, that are normally blamed. Very few individuals are held personally responsible for the Holocaust, considering the number of people involved. Reasonable people recognize that it wouldn't matter even if Darwinism did "inspire," the Eugenics movement (though it clearly did not), because it is also recognized that the Eugenics movement is based on the lack of proper perspective, the lack of understanding that allows racism to persist- and allows people to co-opt and distort science into folk-wisdom that really reflects only what they already want to believe.
This is why Hitler was not a Darwinist, or why if he was (though there remains no evidence of this) it would be immaterial: Darwinism antedates the concept of racial superiority and Eugenics. The very folk-wisdom that eventually became Eugenics was the same folk-wisdom that got Darwin interested in evolution, and which eventually caused him to develop theories about macro-evolution that are based on the same observations, but deal with the natural world.
Eugenics is the awful end result of a long chain of missteps in thinking. It is collected and codified blindness of intelligent people, trying to rationalize the fact that other people could live in the world, and be different from them. It's an expression of the terrible rage and shame of a people who tried to conquer the world and failed, and sought a scapegoat. Darwinism is exactly none of those things, and that makes all the difference between them.
Lastly, the film is not available to me for review, and it has been resoundingly, emphatically rejected by the critical community, the scientific community, and virtually every person who has come into contact with it, including several critics and people I tend to put my trust in. And besides, I am talking about OSC's statements, not the film's.
Edit: and the idea that Dawkins cannot be trusted on historical or sociological issues is absolute bunk. You can question his research and his facts, because out understanding of the facts changes- that's the study of history. What I can't excuse is the idea that he has no say.
In fact I trust the historian less on the issue, if the historian is not properly acquainted with the facts of darwinism v. social darwinism, and other matters of science that were relevant to the Eugenics movement. Dawkins will, as a specialist, come in with a different way of looking at things, but to say that he can't be trusted is too much. I should say that if anyone cannot be trusted on this issue, it is clearly Card, who is neither a scientist, nor an historian, and who's Curmudgeony anti-intellectual agenda is crystal clear.
[ May 18, 2008, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Javert, it is logically unsupportable to say that life on earth was seeded. It is just an infinite regress, it adds nothing to the explanation. So for Dawkins to say that lowers my respect for his explanations. He has to deal with how life itself originates, and cannot pull explanations out of the air.
And he said just that. Dawkins was asked if, hypothetically, he could come up with a theory of ID that could be scientific. He mentioned aliens seeding the planet as a possibility, and also pointed out that you still needed to explain where the aliens came from.
He wasn't giving his own ideas, he was trying to throw ID proponents a bone.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And the extraterrestrial origin hypothesis (note, not a theory), is not unique to Dawkins. It's simply the statement of a possibility that could affect the way we deal with possible contact with extra-terrestrials when and if it occurs. We have to be aware that it is a possibility, and we have to be aware that an alien civilization may also consider it to be a possibility for them.
Because, for researches involved with SETI, the mindset is not "if" there are civilizations out there to find, but "when" we will find them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: Planned Parenthood began, just like Nazi death camps, with the prime goal of improving the human race by eliminating any chance for "inferior" groups to reproduce. It may be rude to say so, but it's still a fact.
Last I heard, Planned Parenthood was rooted in an earlier organization that aimed to exempt birth control materials and informational pamphlets from federal obscenity laws... Does anyone have information that contradicts what I have understood about their origins? 'Cause I've never even heard that assertion before.
I've heard that they took money from donors who wanted to fund black womens' abortions. But that's not the origins of the organization, and I've just never heard it before.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's because it's a distortion.
I'd have liked to be privy to the meeting where a bunch of people got together in the late teens and talked about their secret long term goal of improving the human race through giving abortions. It'd be just like that HBO film about the final solution.
Oh, but a birth control clinic isn't as sexy an image for OSC as a Nazi death camp. I'm rather tickled though, that the film has inspired him to flirt with Godwin.
For the record, Planned Parenthood started off as the "National Birth Control League." Now I'm sure the only reasonable explanation for the support of birth control is and always has been Eugenics. Yes, that's perfectly consistent. A fact. Reductio ad Hitlerum.
But let's talk about why saying that "Hitler was a darwinist," is such a fallacious argument.
In the film I mentioned, "Conspiracy" starring Kevin Branagh, it is pointed out that the organizational principles of the Holocaust were inspired by the American assembly line.
Now you could very easily argue that the "zeitgeist" of 1930's Germany was deeply influenced by American economic power. You'd be right to point that out on many levels, but you'd be perpetuating a fallacy to conclude that Ford's assembly line concept bears any kind of responsibility, any kind of guilt by mere association with the Nazis. The fact is that the evil of the Holocaust is difficult to fathom, and the temptation to assign guilt is all too great because of that.
But we can all agree quite readily that the results are a perfect storm. A power vacuum, created in a nation of prideful people, with the potential for great technological advances, a history of singularly powerful and monomaniacal artists and philosophers, a set of deep prejudices and a worldview skewed terribly by the end of the Romantic period and the rejection of 19th century mysticism- the shame and rage following the first war, and the dejection of an entire people. All of these things created them, and none of these things are theirs alone.
We may as well blame Wagner for the Holocaust. He actually did hate Jews. And his music added to the "zeitgeist," just as his followers and inheritors, Mahler and Schoenberg (both Jews by the way), add to ours. But you can't listen to The Ring and blame the Tristan Chord for the Holocaust- even though it's an historical fact that most of the Nazi leaders were familiar with it, and many loved it.
[ May 18, 2008, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wonder if the Eugenics movement had as a proximate cause Darwin's ideas?
No. As I said before, eugenics is definitionally not natural selection, and that's what Darwin brought to the table; deliberate breeding for certain traits predated Darwin by hundreds if not thousands of years.
quote:Javert, it is logically unsupportable to say that life on earth was seeded. It is just an infinite regress, it adds nothing to the explanation.
This is not entirely true. For one thing, it's presumably testable; if we find some form of bacteriological life on Mars, for example, and that life has something like DNA or RNA very similar to our own, the issue of whether we're dealing with parallel evolution or a similar ancestor becomes very relevant. Until then, of course, it's largely pointless speculation -- but Dawkins freely admits that.
In other words: it's no big deal for Dawkins to say "okay, maybe life didn't get accidentally planted here by a comet." Is it a big deal for you to say "okay, maybe God didn't create humanity?"
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: eugenics is definitionally not natural selection
QED.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
On the subject of Planned Parenthood - I think what OSC was getting at was that the American Birth Control League was founded by one Margaret Sanger who was very much in favour of eugenics. She was also the daughter of a mother who was reportedly pregnant 18 times in her life - presumably not by choice. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's beliefs and yet still laud some of the outcomes of their actions.
As for OSC's essay - after reading it I wrote a very angry four page essay which I then deleted. Let's just say I disagree.
[ May 18, 2008, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
Wow, yes Planned Parenthood's early history was aimed at the protection of women and children from laws and practices that were directly harmful to them at the time. Read more about it at the PP website, or in any social history or sociology textbook.
I am astounded at some of the logic leaps made in the arena of science. It appears that if you discover a previously unknown bacteria, you will henceforth be called the father of any crazy movement that uses it in a terrorist attack or as a vector in orc-breeding genetic projects.
Additionally, birth control as discussed today baffles me. I am a Christian and also a very strong advocate of birth control and sex education. IMO unrestrained reproduction too often leads to abuse of children where parents cannot reasonably care for them, and is inconsistent with Christian responsibility.
(If you choose not to use birth control and want and can afford multiple children, knock yourself out. That is a part of birth control. It's not about preventing children, it's about responsible parenting.)
Although I do not see abortion as birth control, I even more strongly do not see ignorance as a cure to anything.
Perhaps someone could find a way to splice rationality rather than rationalism into faith so we could spend more time helping problems than defining and creating them.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is almost exactly the same as blaming Einstein for nuking Japan (which, actually, many have tried to do, and it's equally ridiculous). After all, eugenics was a concept reached logically by the ideas behind Evolution the same exact way that a nuclear chain reaction was derived from E=mc^2. Explaining how something works != being accountable for how people misuse it. What frustrates me so much is that most people already UNDERSTAND this concept. Its the reason people don't like explaining sex to their kids at a young age. They're worried that if they tell them how it works, then they might go do it and have to suffer the consequences that they don't yet fully understand. But if they do, does that make it the parent's fault? Hell no!
The biggest problem I see with Stein's movie (and, subsequently, OSC's article) is the term Darwinism. It takes a 10 second wiki search to learn that the term itself has many different definitions and contexts. The first definition was simply someone that believes in Evolution. This is what it still means to ME today. As such, throwing around such a loosely defined term while harboring an agenda is BEGGING for trouble. I hear "Hitler was a Darwinist" and I think so what? He was also white. He was also a male. He had brown hair and brown eyes.
As was stated above, pointing out some trivial similarity that someone has with Hitler does NOT liken that person to Hitler. This is the POINT behind Godwin's Law. Once you start trying to demonize your opponent, it is obvious that you have nothing further of value to add to a debate, hence, you are finished presenting your argument. In my view, Godwin's Law isn't limited to comparing someone to Hitler. It can work with ANY heavily taboo icon in society, such as calling someone a pedophile.
That being said, I feel that the context of OSC's article is also being missed. I can't say I blame someone for that, as the point is so deeply buried under a pile of volatile statements that I'm surprised even I was able to refrain from attacking it on sight and not looking back.
What OSC was TRYING to say is that many scientists today are being very unscientific. In short, they attack the PROPONENT of any idea that falls outside of the mainstream rather than attacking the idea itself (hey, Godwin's Law again!). In fact, it's so ironic that I can't help but wonder if mention of Stein's movie (and, as such, the whole Hitler/Darwin fiasco) was added to the article specifically to accent this point. Then again, I could be over-analyzing it and assigning it credit that it isn't due...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I thought Hitler had blue eyes.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
As sylvrdragon said, it's unimportant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: What OSC was TRYING to say is that many scientists today are being very unscientific. In short, they attack the PROPONENT of any idea that falls outside of the mainstream rather than attacking the idea itself (hey, Godwin's Law again!). In fact, it's so ironic that I can't help but wonder if mention of Stein's movie (and, as such, the whole Hitler/Darwin fiasco) was added to the article specifically to accent this point. Then again, I could be over-analyzing it and assigning it credit that it isn't due...
If he was trying to say this, which I don't actually believe he was, then why spew a mountain of garbage upon readers in order to "accent" a point that is wrong anyway? His article just reveals his basic ignorance of the facts involved, and it quite clearly shows that OSC has no intention, ever, of appreciating the contributions of athiests to our understanding of the world.
I really think that ultimately it's that simple, he can't stand to see non-believers with the temerity to approach the debate, even if he pays lip service to the fact that they're right.
Else why would he go off on an unrelated tangent about Atheists having no more to say than believers about morality? I think you're being far too fair, I think he believes deeply that non-believers are evil and immoral, and that the viewpoint with which he lives is the only acceptable and right way to live. That's also, incidentally, fanatical.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is almost exactly the same as blaming Einstein for nuking Japan (which, actually, many have tried to do, and it's equally ridiculous). After all, eugenics was a concept reached logically by the ideas behind Evolution the same exact way that a nuclear chain reaction was derived from E=mc^2. Explaining how something works != being accountable for how people misuse it.
Sort of, except that nuclear chain reactions have actually been verified and are widely used today. Eugenics, on the other hand, is pretty widely discredited and was in many ways more about using science to rationalize existing prejudices than actually performing valid science. I see where you were going with this, but I don't think that a flawed analogy is going to help anything out much.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
This conversation reminds me vaguely of a line from a Tori Amos song- I don't believe you're breaking up with me because me and Charles Manson have the same favorite ice cream. No, I think it's that other girl.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
When in doubt about any argument that cites Hitler as an example, I always remember this:
At the risk of repeating what others have already said, calling Hitler a Darwinist doesn't change the basic concepts of evolutionary theory, nor does it make those who believe in this theory evil. Hitler ascribed to a scientific racism that used Darwin and Nietzsche among others to justify his beliefs and through him, the Nazi Party. Many of these justifications were gross misinterpretations of the philosophies and scientific theories at hand.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
isn't ethics a scientific way of handling morality?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Hitler ascribed to a scientific racism that used Darwin and Nietzsche among others to justify his beliefs and through him, the Nazi Party. Many of these justifications were gross misinterpretations of the philosophies and scientific theories at hand.
Not even that, there is not real evidence that Hitler was even familiar with Darwin. As Dawkins states, Darwin's name and ideas about natural selection do not appear in Mein Kampf.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Pah. That's a weak argument (even though my position is definitely closer to the "Hitler was probably not a Darwinist" than "Darwinism caused the holocaust"). I never mentioned evolution in my C-3PO the Dragon Slayer parody fanfiction, but that doesn't mean I never heard of Darwin.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Pah. That's a weak argument (even though my position is definitely closer to the "Hitler was probably not a Darwinist" than "Darwinism caused the holocaust"). I never mentioned evolution in my C-3PO the Dragon Slayer parody fanfiction, but that doesn't mean I never heard of Darwin.
But Mein Kampf is hardly the same as parody fanfiction. Also, standard education Germany early 1900s and modern day is different.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In fact, it's so ironic that I can't help but wonder if mention of Stein's movie (and, as such, the whole Hitler/Darwin fiasco) was added to the article specifically to accent this point. Then again, I could be over-analyzing it and assigning it credit that it isn't due...
Well, the most important analysis is that OSC is standing up for a movie which deals in profoundly, demonstrably bad science just to try to prop up anti-evolutionary nonscientific 'theories' as being the more sensible understanding, when it is really not. Part of this is a reliance on pejorative associations.
This is a tired routine as old as the internet. On the whole you could describe it as "I don't like evolutionary theory. ergo, Hitler"
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
The sad thing is that OSC will NEVER look fondly or even well upon atheists, for the simple reason he is well into his adult life - past the stage where you start thinking for yourself instead of just believing the fairytales your parents taught you as absolute truth - and he is still religious. And not only religious, but Mormon; To quote Sam Harris: "Mormonism is even more unlikely than Christianity, because it basically IS Christianity plus some very stupid beliefs." *Sigh*, it's funny that a writer of such genius refuses to utilize that genius to look at the world around him with a rational, logical mind.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Do you have some basis for deciding that Card cannot think for himself, and thinks poorly of atheists in general (as opposed to atheists who ridicule people with sincere religious beliefs), and furthermore will never change this supposed stance toward atheists? Or is this just a generic attack on religious people that you've sort of mail-merged just for OSC?
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
Definitely the latter. I am an atheist who ridicules people for sincere religious beliefs. Mormonism is about a step away from Scientology, of which I'm sure everyone on this board will agree is very worthy of contempt and ridicule.
To quote Christopher Hitchens: "Our pre-frontal lobes are to small, our adrenaline glands are too large, we're afraid of the dark, we're afraid to die, and we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid and so fabricated, that even children - which you can tell by their questions - see through them. Religion should be treated with ridicule and contempt."
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I'm glad you said that, so Card, if he ever reads this, won't take you seriously.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Definitely the latter. I am an atheist who ridicules people for sincere religious beliefs. Mormonism is about a step away from Scientology, of which I'm sure everyone on this board will agree is very worthy of contempt and ridicule.
To quote Christopher Hitchens: "Our pre-frontal lobes are to small, our adrenaline glands are too large, we're afraid of the dark, we're afraid to die, and we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid and so fabricated, that even children - which you can tell by their questions - see through them. Religion should be treated with ridicule and contempt."
Good luck with that, then. (I'm not seeing much hope that you'll win over any religious folk with that attitude.)
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Definitely the latter. I am an atheist who ridicules people for sincere religious beliefs. Mormonism is about a step away from Scientology, of which I'm sure everyone on this board will agree is very worthy of contempt and ridicule.
To quote Christopher Hitchens: "Our pre-frontal lobes are to small, our adrenaline glands are too large, we're afraid of the dark, we're afraid to die, and we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid and so fabricated, that even children - which you can tell by their questions - see through them. Religion should be treated with ridicule and contempt."
Hitchens, while admittedly intellectually brilliant and quite amusing to listen to (perhaps even charismatic in his own way), has a very biased perception of religion and its influences on people and the world as a whole. He could stand to tone down the holier-than-thou douchebaggery just a bit. And so could you.
Slight digression: I still find Hitchens' treatment of religion to be, at the very least, completely devoid of tact, but his claims are almost always rooted in legitimate criticisms. You might do well to read and understand the particular comment you quoted in context. There is some underlying sarcasm, exaggeration, and self-deprecating humor in there that I think you're completely overlooking.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Definitely the latter. I am an atheist who ridicules people for sincere religious beliefs.
You are in violation of the Terms of Service [edit: User Agreement] you agreed to when you signed up. Not to mention common courtesy, especially considering who hosts this board.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I'm glad you said that, so Card, if he ever reads this, won't take you seriously.
I think it's interesting that he's using primarily quotations to express his beliefs about other people's abilities to think for themselves and construct their own world views.
That said, my views on religion are not so different, but I am aware that spewing absolute contempt, though tempting, isn't productive.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Pygmalion, it's been a while since you registered, so perhaps you've forgotten the terms of the user agreement. Please review it and endeavor to remain within its bounds when you post here. If you're unable to do so, there are plenty of other places you can go where your approach is acceptable.
--PJ
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Definitely the latter. I am an atheist who ridicules people for sincere religious beliefs.
You are in violation of the Terms of Service [edit: User Agreement] you agreed to when you signed up. Not to mention common courtesy, especially considering who hosts this board.
Religion has received undo respect for too long as it is, it's not my fault Card subscribes to one of the most far-fetched ones there is. If I stated I believed in Santa Claus I wouldn't expect to get respect because of it, especially not on the internet.
But heck, I don't read his books because of his religion, I read his books because they're brilliant.
Although Ender would be pretty cool as an atheist. . .
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect:
Religion has received undo respect for too long as it is, it's not my fault Card subscribes to one of the most far-fetched ones there is. If I stated I believed in Santa Claus I wouldn't expect to get respect because of it, especially not on the internet. [/QB][/QUOTE]
That is really beside the point. You made an agreement to be respectful and now you have the choice- do YOU follow through with your agreements or not?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Mormonism is about a step away from Scientology
Yeah, right. The LDS isn't even 'about a step away' from the FLDS.
Posted by John A. (Member # 11669) on :
quote:How dare you sir?
That a person has divorced himself from the theological concepts that are shared by religious people does not divorce him from the ability to recognize his innate morality. Who is a zealot? Because here, you deny Dawkins and anyone like him the ability to express the concepts of morality, or the responsibility that humans have for each other. Rather than try to understand, rather than invest any faith in the idea that people may redeem themselves to the world through honesty and hard work, you excoriate these men alone on the basis that they do not believe in your God.
OSC did'nt say that Dawkins does not have any morals, he said that Dawkins cannot explain scientifically why something is right or wrong. I don't think that would be offensive. he even said: "I'm sure that [Dawkins] would condemn [Hitler]."
quote:Mormonism is about a step away from Scientology
Oh, like, in the same way Judaism is about a step away from Hinduism?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think that would be offensive. he even said: "I'm sure that [Dawkins] would condemn [Hitler]."
I don't even need to read that article again to tell you that the next word has to be "But."
I'm sure that dawkins would condemn hitler, says Card, but. Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
A) Dawkins has explained the possible evolution of morality many, many, MANY times in multiple lectures; obviously Card hasn't done his homework. Just youtube Richard Dawkins Lecture and watch some of them, especially the one in my hometown of Lynchburg, VA. He tears the heck out of a bunch of Falwellian Liberty students.
B) Not a step away from Scientology? A man who had been jailed for being a con artist is told to find gold plates that no one else saw and translates them into English that hadn't been spoken in hundreds of years. Native Americans are cursed Middle Easterners, cities that were never there according to Archeology, Jesus actually came to America, Jesus is coming back to Missouri in the second coming because the Garden of Eden was there. I could keep going for quite a while.
I'll take my chances with Xenu. At least Hubbard actually admitted he was doing it for money, which makes him more honest than Joseph Smith.
PS. I say this with the utmost respect.
[ June 26, 2008, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: ThePygmalionEffect ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You have a strange definition of "respect".
I never understand the posters who seek out the site just to abuse OSC. I understand even less someone coming out of lurkerdom to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dawkins has explained the possible evolution of morality many, many, MANY times in multiple lectures
Which is not at all the same thing as scientifically explaining why a particular act is moral or immoral.
Regardless of you view on this matter, you are now breaking the word you gave when you signed up on this site.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Dawkins has explained the possible evolution of morality many, many, MANY times in multiple lectures
Which is not at all the same thing as scientifically explaining why a particular act is moral or immoral.
But if we're talking about explaining why a particular act is moral or immoral, theists can't either. They can only say that it's because god said so. Which is not an explanation. It's just deferring to the opinion of another subjective being.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But if we're talking about explaining why a particular act is moral or immoral, theists can't either.
Why are you making a distinction between theism and atheism in response to my post? When anyone makes a pronouncement about a moral question, there is some non-scientific premise, implicit or explicit, in the logical argument that supports his conclusion.
This is true for theists and atheists.
quote:They can only say that it's because god said so.
This is quite simply not true. It doesn't make your first sentence incorrect, but it's an inaccurate description of theistic moral reasoning. That's not to say that some theists don't use that reasoning, only that the use of the word "only" is way, way too broad a statement about theists in general.
quote:Which is not an explanation. It's just deferring to the opinion of another subjective being.
That's only true if God's knowledge of morality is subjective.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: They can only say that it's because god said so.
I was taught many more reasons for the commandments besides "God said so,", I was also taught to decide or find out for myself whether the commandments came from God.
That said, thinking religious people are automatically and innately stupid for being religious does not excuse him from following the site guidelines he agreed to follow. Following them is -not- the same thing as saying he believes in God/thinks religious people are in the right, no matter how he tries to twist it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Which is not an explanation. It's just deferring to the opinion of another subjective being.
That's only true if God's knowledge of morality is subjective.
It comes down to the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something moral because god wills it, or does god will it because it is moral?
The majority of theists I come across seem to go with the former. Which is not to say that is the majority of theists, only the majority that I have met and spoken to. According to their beliefs, god ends up being just as subjective as anyone.
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You have a strange definition of "respect".
I never understand the posters who seek out the site just to abuse OSC. I understand even less someone coming out of lurkerdom to do so.
What is this abusing OSC crap? I have nothing but the highest praise for his writing and books, of which most I've read.
I'm talking about his religion, which doesn't deserve any form of respect, but instead ridicule and contempt.
If you want to equate me "abusing" Card with me speaking frankly about Mormonism then go right ahead.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm talking about his religion, which doesn't deserve any form of respect, but instead ridicule and contempt.
And yet you made a specific promise not to ridicule and express contempt here for his (or any) religion when you signed up on this board.
I bet Dawkins has addressed the evolutionary advantages of a tendency to keep one's promises. Perhaps a little review is in order.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A man who had been jailed for being a con artist
Are you talking about Joseph's time in Liberty Jail?
quote: is told to find gold plates that no one else saw
Up to fifteen other people claimed to have seen and handled the plates.
quote: and translates them into English that hadn't been spoken in hundreds of years.
I'm pretty sure that the English Joseph translated the plates into was being spoken at the time.
quote: Native Americans are cursed Middle Easterners
That's not nearly outrageous enough. Mormons believe Native Americans are descended from the tribe of Mannasseh.
quote: cities that were never there according to Archeology
This one's still up in the air. There are lots of archealogical evidences against what is claimed in the Book of Mormon-- true.
quote: Jesus actually came to America, Jesus is coming back to Missouri in the second coming because the Garden of Eden was there.
You point out these, but not the idea that Jesus is coming back PERIOD? I mean, of all these things, the idea that someone who was tortured then hung on a cross, then was confirmed dead by someone sticking a spear in his side, then spending three days buried in a tomb, and coming back in a body that can't die-- that doesn't stick out as even more implausible?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You point out these, but not the idea that Jesus is coming back PERIOD? I mean, of all these things, the idea that someone who was tortured then hung on a cross, then was confirmed dead by someone sticking a spear in his side, then spending three days buried in a tomb, and coming back in a body that can't die-- that doesn't stick out as even more implausible?
I want it to be clear I don't support how Pygmalian has been presenting himself.
That said, I have to say, while coming back to life is incredibly implausible, coming back to life and then traveling thousands of miles is even more implausible. Just because it adds to the implausibleness. (Is that a word?)
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Pygmalion, perhaps I was unclear. Stop it. Your posts are violating the rules of this forum. You are welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, but you are not welcome to express all of them here.
--PJ
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
Scott R, see Sam Harris quote above, Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist. I only come here to get updates on the Ender's Game movie anyway; but the misrepresentation about Dawkins and atheists in general pissed me off.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott R, see Sam Harris quote above
I'm not sure why I should trust this Sam Harris person more than my own logic and learning. I don't find the teachings of Mormonism to be any more ridiculous than normal Christianity's ridiculousness.
I mean, Javert's opinion notwithstanding-- once you've got a confirmed dead guy walking around, appearing in rooms out of nowhere, flying up into Heaven-- everything starts to become a lot more plausible.
From the normal Christian standpoint, the ideas you've highlighted aren't any (qualitatively) weirder than anything related in the Bible-- they're just more recent.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I mean, Javert's opinion notwithstanding-- once you've got a confirmed dead guy walking around, appearing in rooms out of nowhere, flying up into Heaven-- everything starts to become a lot more plausible.
Dead guy: Fine. Dead guy rising from the dead: Okay. Dead guy flying into heaven: Still with you. Dead guy traveling to pre-Columbian America: Come on! Now you're just pulling my leg!
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
lol Javert.
Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Also, I highly recommend reading his two books, The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation. Wonderful books
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
True
Posted by John A. (Member # 11669) on :
quote:B) Not a step away from Scientology? A man who had been jailed for being a con artist is told to find gold plates that no one else saw and translates them into English that hadn't been spoken in hundreds of years. Native Americans are cursed Middle Easterners, cities that were never there according to Archeology, Jesus actually came to America, Jesus is coming back to Missouri in the second coming because the Garden of Eden was there. I could keep going for quite a while.
...two dissimilar religions having what you consider as ridiculous beliefs does not make them "a step away" from eachother.
quote:I'll take my chances with Xenu.
Because the man who you say was proven to be lying is much more likely to be telling the truth than the man who died for his religion. That seems pretty logical.
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
Umm, yea, sure he did. He died trying to protect his political power and shut down antagonist claims about him, so don't try to make him sound like a martyr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Death Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No- he was in jail at the time of his death, in a county that was known for its antagonism toward Mormons. Read the article you linked to, Pygmalion-- does it sound like Smith was all that politically powerful?
He surrendered himself.
He kept only three other people in the jail with him, none of whom had been charged with wrong-doing. One of them was killed; one was wounded; one was unhurt.
There were no Mormons around the jail to protect him when the mob of 200 anti-Mormons stormed the jail.
In fact, he returned to Nauvoo when he had every chance (and had already started to do so) to walk away from the situation.
The situation was not exactly as you've colored it.
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
I stand corrected.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
No it doesn't. The limitless being still has to choose one particular course of action, no? Coming back in Missouri is clearly a very tiny subset of the actions available to such a limitless being, and is therefore quite improbable. Whatever the probability that such a being exists, it is even smaller when multiplied by the Missouri thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
KoM, in my experience, religious people have a way of believing that neither includes nor excludes probability. Just think about Catholics, and the idea of transubstantiation. There is a simultaneous understanding that one tastes flour and alcohol, and that this *really* is flesh and blood. Of course, this is why during my Catholic high school years, I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions. It would just be too much to ask of someone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The limitless being still has to choose one particular course of action, no?
No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
(That is, if you believe that God/Christ are omnipotent in the classical sense of the word-- which most Christians do. And Mormons do not. So...)
quote:I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions.
How different is this than the statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire? I'm confused about the connection between these two things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire?
Um....No. Do you know what "there are no atheists in foxholes" means? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist.
While I am glad that you have the good sense to listen to Pop, it's a shame that he had to step in. Twice. What, Dagonee and I pointing out the issue isn't sufficient?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions.
How different is this than the statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Well, I don't try and prove a negative for one. I just find it unlikely that there are many people who really believe in transubstantiation. I base that conclusion not entirely on my personal beliefs about God, but on my actuall experiences with church, so I'd say it's fairly different.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If we're going to anecdote each other, I do know many people who really believe in transubstantiation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
Yes. That is one course of action. Choosing to appear only in Missouri is a different course of action. But even an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously appear only in Missouri, and in Missouri and Jerusalem; logical contradictions are not generally included in the definition of omnipotence, as far as I know.
So, when assigning a probability, you have to say "Given an omnipotent being (probability X), he can do Missouri, he can do New York, he can do Missouri and New York at the same time (...) there are N courses of action available, so the probability of Missouri is 1/N absent other information. Multiply by X for the total probability, to get something smaller than X."
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire?
Um....No. Do you know what "there are no atheists in foxholes" means?
Apparently you don't.
Atheists in foxholes is a very unfounded saying meaning that even an atheist will cry out for a god or start believing in a god when under extreme stress such as warfare.
So how does this compare to transubstantiation?
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist.
While I am glad that you have the good sense to listen to Pop, it's a shame that he had to step in. Twice. What, Dagonee and I pointing out the issue isn't sufficient?
What can I say, I'm a stubborn ass
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect:
Atheists in foxholes is a very unfounded saying meaning that even an atheist will cry out for a god or start believing in a god when under extreme stress such as warfare.
Um, I think that was the point Scott was making:
What Orincoro said: "there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions."
My (I figure) reasonable extrapolation of the foxes quote (especially since I didn't know what it meant either): "there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the atheist traditions."
Scott's point was that they're *both* bogus.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Orincoro made the statement that he didn't really believe that other people believed in things their church (in this case the Catholic church) taught.
The "foxhole" statement assumes that atheistic beliefs do not hold up under duress.
Both statements seem to me to make a judgment about others' beliefs that cannot be reasonably made-- "You don't really believe that, despite you saying you do..."
quote:But even an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously appear only in Missouri, and in Missouri and Jerusalem; logical contradictions are not generally included in the definition of omnipotence, as far as I know.
Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But Scott, I said I don't think they believe in the church's traditions. That's not the same thing as belief in God, which I can't attest to. I have found that the Catholic church's mystic traditions, such as transubstantiation or ascension, or immaculate conception, don't seem to appeal much to Catholics I have known. Particularly, the religion teachers I had in high school put very little stock in them, and took every opportunity to downplay their importance.
I think that the weight of the traditions and teachings of the church is so great, that no person could be expected to know about, understand, and much less believe in them all, or even many of them. In my experience, again only anecdotal, I have not known any who attested a firm belief in any of them. That is quite apart from belief in God, as I have known many who really seemed to have that belief. It seems to me that the traditions of the church are a function of its age and political complexity, and I have always been amazed that they aren't more openly rejected. Following Vatican II though, the emphasis on many of the traditions that don't closely apply to belief, as opposed to history, has been lifted.
As for atheists in foxholes, that applies to belief in God only, not to any particular set of traditions or teachings apart from that. Having never been in a foxhole, I can't tell you what my reaction would be. I have been close to death before, and I have never believed in God, even in a stressful moment. What I can say is that I think the saying "there are no Atheists in foxholes" is a rather good demonstration of my position on the belief in God.
My view is that the mind is capable of manufacturing a state of belief that defies fundamental reasoning in times of extreme stress, if the foundation for that belief, such as an image of a "God," already exists and is attached to a person's world view in a more general way. As I've said before, I think the hieroglyphic image of "God" as a part of culture is entirely responsible for the shaping of that kind of belief. If a person were not raised with the more well-defined image as a part of culture, the reaction to stress, and the transcendent state of the mind that people associate with faith would take a different shape.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I said I don't think they believe in the church's traditions.
I know. I object to the idea that you can determine this without evidence provided by the individual in question.
For example:
I believe that no one really believes that electronic music is worthwhile.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Fair enough. Although, you know that I think it is, or that I say it is, so the individual in question would be me.
I suppose too that the definition of "belief" is murky. If we're talking about music, I am ambivalent about electronic music in its entirety because not all of it is in fact worthwhile.
Also, music writing is based on the shared understanding of glyphic symbols that are manipulated and presented artistically for any number of reasons. You might as well say that you don't think anyone believes that writing or reading is worthwhile. For many people, and many written works, it isn't, but the word itself is above reproach. Since we're talking about a body of traditions that are much less plastic than the act of music making, which encompasses many traditions, I don't think the statements in question are analogous.
I see your point though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Right. But being very powerful, he could appear in both places at the same time if he chose. What he could not do, though, is
a) Appear only in Missouri and b) Appear both in Missouri and Jerusalem.
To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Posted by John A. (Member # 11669) on :
Do most atheists here believe in a universe that renews itself every so many eons?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Don't know about most atheists here, but as for me I'm agnostic on the subject; cosmology is not yet a sufficiently precise science to answer such questions.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Right. But being very powerful, he could appear in both places at the same time if he chose. What he could not do, though, is
a) Appear only in Missouri and b) Appear both in Missouri and Jerusalem.
To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Except to an all powerful god, he could do a, then create another universe and do c, and that way not be contradictory.
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
Yes, and then he would have times to make chocolate chip cookies and read us all a bedtime story as well. Sheesh
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he would have times to make chocolate chip cookies and read us all a bedtime story as well.
That's what parents are for. Why would God need to do this?
Posted by ThePygmalionEffect (Member # 8649) on :
Because that's what god is to many people: a parent. Going through hard times? Well god is there! Need something really badly, like a new kidney? Ask god! He'll give it to you if you pray hard enough and have faith. Did a loved one die? Go to god for comfort. Etc, etc.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Except to an all powerful god, he could do a, then create another universe and do c, and that way not be contradictory.
Yes, yes, but the individuals observing him in each universe would still see him appearing in either New York, or New York+Missouri. The probability analysis still applies.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Even if you rule out an infinite number of impossibilities, an infinite number of possibilities still exist.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Galileo's paradox Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Because that's what god is to many people: a parent. Going through hard times? Well god is there! Need something really badly, like a new kidney? Ask god! He'll give it to you if you pray hard enough and have faith. Did a loved one die? Go to god for comfort. Etc, etc.
Why are these things a problem?
Some people feel that God actually comforts them in their time of need; some people feel that he really does work miracles of healing.
And some people lean on close friends or parents in difficult times; some people trust completely in medical science for their miracles.
Belief in the one doesn't eliminate the benefits of the other.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The probability analysis still applies.
...but is essentially useless in terms of the conversation we were having.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Because that's what god is to many people: a parent.
You should have seen the fireworks at my house when I told god that I had been skipping my math class. What does God care? I want to be an artist, I don't need math. But no, God has to be so unreasonable. God grounded me for a month. The worst part was not being able to go to ruby's with my friends. All I had to eat was God's disgusting casserole.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The probability analysis still applies.
...but is essentially useless in terms of the conversation we were having.
Wrong. The statement was, "Whatever the probability of a god existing, the probability of it both existing and choosing to appear in Missouri is smaller."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Where?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Pygmalion posted this:
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
and you responded
quote:Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
I admit to paraphrasing Pygmalion a bit.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Your recent arguments--
quote:Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
...while technically true don't really add to the conversation much.
The beginning discussion was about whether believing that Christ would come to Missouri was more outrageous than believing he'd come back ANYWHERE AT ALL.
No one claimed that he'd be seen in both places at once; no one claimed anything more than that Mormons believe Christ will come to Missouri.
So how is your point useful to this conversation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No one claimed that he'd be seen in both places at once; no one claimed anything more than that Mormons believe Christ will come to Missouri.
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
We were discussing probabilities, and whether they apply to limitless beings. You asserted that they do not. I showed why they do. Whatever the probability of X, the probability of (X and Y) is smaller, for any value of Y. Limitless or not.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
That would make a believer out of me. That's about the ONLY thing that would though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Scott, why ignore KoM's analysis, or worse, simply insist that it has no validity in this discussion. It does to KoM, and it does to me. It represents the way that an Athiest, in this case KoM or myself, might consider the question at hand. The fact that you insist that the point is useless or meaningless says something about how you approach your faith. I don't know exactly what it says, but something.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:why ignore KoM's analysis, or worse, simply insist that it has no validity in this discussion.
I didn't ignore it. I'm waiting for it to matter to the conversation.
KoM showed that it's not logical for God to appear in two places at once AND only in one of those places. I agree with this assessment, but disagree with its application in the conversation. No one suggested that Christ was going to appear in Missouri and Jerusalem, but only in Missouri, really.
He did not demonstrate that given a being that COULD appear anywhere at all-- post death, even-- it would be more ridiculous for him to appear in Missouri than at Jerusalem.
:shrug:
I'm not sure why you're speculating about my approach to faith-- it really doesn't matter to the conversation at hand, does it?
Believe me, I know a lot more about it than you do. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:KoM showed that it's not logical for God to appear in two places at once AND only in one of those places.
No. KoM showed, rather, that it is more unlikely that God would appear in Specific Spot X and also appear, at any time thereafter, in Specific Spot Y than it is that He would just appear in Specific Spot X, all else being held equal.
This is just a basic fact of probability.
Of course, this is not particularly relevant to any conversation anyone else is having; he was just being a bit pedantic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:KoM showed, rather, that it is more unlikely that God would appear in Specific Spot X and also appear, at any time thereafter, in Specific Spot Y than it is that He would just appear in Specific Spot X, all else being held equal.
This is just a basic fact of probability.
Okay.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:He did not demonstrate that given a being that COULD appear anywhere at all-- post death, even-- it would be more ridiculous for him to appear in Missouri than at Jerusalem.
An appearance at Missouri is not ridiculous at all. Nor is an appearance at Jerusalem. Your belief in an appearance at both Jerusalem and Missouri, however, is more ridiculous - in the sense that you are believing in something less probable - than other people's belief in an appearance only at Jerusalem. Which is what was originally asserted,a nd with which you disagreed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that the terms "less probable" and "more ridiculous" are synonymous.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
...and given the statistical improbability of the first act-- rising from the dead; and the second-- appearing out of nowhere in Jerusalem, 2000 years after rising from the dead; criticizing the third (appearing in Missouri) seems a little...unbalanced.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Well put, Scott.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:He did not demonstrate that given a being that COULD appear anywhere at all-- post death, even-- it would be more ridiculous for him to appear in Missouri than at Jerusalem.
An appearance at Missouri is not ridiculous at all. Nor is an appearance at Jerusalem. Your belief in an appearance at both Jerusalem and Missouri, however, is more ridiculous - in the sense that you are believing in something less probable - than other people's belief in an appearance only at Jerusalem. Which is what was originally asserted,a nd with which you disagreed.
Playing Devil's advocate here.
The statement "X + Y is less probable than X" is based upon an assumption. We assume that X + Y is more complex than X. What if this isn't the case? To give an example, what if omnipresence is the natural state of things and we, by not being omnipresent, are actually MORE complex because of it? If that were the case, then X > X + Y, and the whole probability argument goes out the window.
The way I see it, it is quite literally impossible to be right on this subject. In order to claim victory, you would have to have a 100% objective base from which to make your claims. As was discussed in that thread about Objectivity not too long ago, this is impossible for humanity at this juncture.
Even if one were to prepare an absolutely flawless stance in the context of the conversation as it stands, the other could simple regress to a still broader scale and show how the stance isn't valid after all. Eventually, the argument would be pure math, and then the other side would say "Well, how do you know these numbers represent reality? How do you know that in the grand scale of things, 2 + 2 doesn't equal 3?"
The broadest perception of reality from 2 perspectives must coincide else all subsequent perceptions will be unfalsifiable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ...and given the statistical improbability of the first act-- rising from the dead; and the second-- appearing out of nowhere in Jerusalem, 2000 years after rising from the dead; criticizing the third (appearing in Missouri) seems a little...unbalanced.
Ok, fair enough. You've got me there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I could have sworn that there was a ZZ Top song that was specifically very descriptive and telling of Jesus' logistical situation.
Perhaps this can be extrapolated also to the rest of the holy trinity or what have you.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It'd be just like that HBO film about the final solution. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)