I've recently stumbled across a whole treasure trove of media(interviews, panel discussions, etc...) involving these guys and others. There's a lot, I haven't made my way through even a small part of all this. But I figured I'd pass along the links. If you're into these guys, or science, or evolution, or learning, you'll probably enjoy some if not all of these links.
Panel discussion with Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan, and Victor Stenger. They discuss science and science education, and roadblocks and solutions to bringing science to the public...religious beliefs and religion is brought into the conversation as something that is an impediment to science education, but isn't the focus of the discussion, and atheism is only mentioned in passing(the youtube description is misleading). Dawkins is relatively tame(he is surrounded mostly by like minded colleagues), Tyson is always engaging and is who I wish Dawkins would be more like, and Ann Druyan is Carl Sagan's ex spouse and who I've heard speak before and who is awesome.
Ramachandran on consciousness. This is a 9 minute segment of a 2 hour interview(conversation) done by The Science Network, the full conversation is located here. It's a really engaging conversation that spans consciousness, phantom limb, empathy, mirron neurons, science, his research and his life and more.
If you look below that video, there are also tons of other conversations with some really interesting and brilliant people about all sorts of fun science stuff.
This is a link to a panel discussion moderated by Douglas Adams(yes) between Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker, and Jared Diamond, dealing with evolution(or darwinian principles) in all sorts of areas besides, and including, biology, towards the end it turns into a discussion about religion. It's actually amazing to hear Dawkins and Dennett briefly talking about religion at the beginning. What a 180 that occurred since that time. It runs roughly 40 minutes. This is a really old video, and the discussion that is taking place actually follows a series of lectures by the 4 panel members, including a talk by Douglas Adams proceeding the whole event and introducing the speakers. It's also really engaging. I think I linked to the original lecture a while back...sadly it doesn't exist anymore in it's full original form.
I found youtube playlists containing the talks, in sections, and they're pretty bad quality. But totally worth it. I think all the talks combined run roughly two hours.
Douglas Adams part 1 Adams speaks about the ages of sand(telescopes, microscopes, silicon) and about the human tendency to see intentionality in the world around us. Those who have read Salmon of Doubt have read the text of his speech already.
Dawkins part 1 Dawkins speaks about science and scientific knowledge in general, about the last century in relation to science and about the "digital" age.
Dennett part 1 Dennett talks about evolution more specifically, and about evolutionary history. And uses this to segway into a conversation about memetics and cultural evolution.
Diamond part 1 Diamond talks mostly about the content that's contained within Guns, Germs & Steel.
Pinker part 1 Pinker's is imo the most interesting talk. He speaks about the computational theory of mind, vision/perception, and gives a theory of romantic love from an evolutionary perspective.
you can find the other parts of their talks easily from there.
I found audio files of the lectures available here and the panel discussion located here. The quality of the audio files is better than the videos.
This is a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker, a few minutes of which was used in Dawkins' documentary, The Genius of Charles Darwin. I linked to that documentary a bit back as well, where I criticized it for being less about how cool evolution is and more about how people should be atheists. But this conversation is mostly just a really interesting conversation about human psychology and language from an evolutionary perspective.
Also from The Genius of Charles Darwin, a conversation between Dawkins and Dennett. I haven't watched this one yet, and I can't remember what they talked about in the short clip from the movie, but again, you can know what to expect from Dawkins and Dennett usually, and if you like them, this is a 50 minute conversation between them!
I can't remember if I found these on my own or was linked to them by someone here a while back, but this is a series of 5 lectures by Ramachandran called The Emerging Mind when he was the guest lecturer at the 2003 Reith Lectures, where he talks about all sorts of things neuroscience. You can read the text, or listen to audio files. I prefer listening to them since I love the way Ramachandran speaks, but to each their own. If someone figures out a way that I can download them, let me know.
That's all. It's a ton of stuff, and I won't be working my way through them for a bit. I'm thinking of converting some to audio files and sticking them on my mp3 player. I figured it was worth sharing them, I'm really excited about listening to some of these discussions and lectures.
[ August 05, 2009, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thanks for the bookmarks, I'll be sure to check them out.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don;t understand why people think science and religion are mutually exclusive. I haven't found them to be at all, in fact they work well together for me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I don;t understand why people think science and religion are mutually exclusive. I haven't found them to be at all, in fact they work well together for me.
Then to those guys, you're not doing one of those two things right.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Are you referring to a particular talk Kwea? most of them have nothing to do with religion.
As to your actual comment. Many aspects of religious dogma are necessarily mutually exclusive with scientific knowledge. And the processes by which people come to acquire knowledge within the discipline of science and religion are also at times mutually exclusive. There is also an important distinction to be made in a conversation about science and religion and one about science and god.
[ July 28, 2009, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote: Thanks for the bookmarks, I'll be sure to check them out.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I edited a few of the descriptions above. As I watch or listen to these I'm going to update the descriptions of the discussions. The first panel discussion in particular was badly described on youtube.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I don;t understand why people think science and religion are mutually exclusive. I haven't found them to be at all, in fact they work well together for me.
Have you heard about the Creation Museum? If you're happy to let science be, you're not part of the problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There's such a thing as an enabler. "No enemies to the faithwards".
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don;t understand why people think science and religion are mutually exclusive. I haven't found them to be at all, in fact they work well together for me.
The problem comes from assuming that any one tool can explain everything significant in the world, or assuming that any one tool is the only correct way to learn things. If person A believes everything that exists can be understood best using one's ears, and if person B believes everything that exists can be understood best using one's eyes, person A and person B are inevitably going to come into conflict over things like whether colors exist or what music sounds like.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Tres-
Your analogy might work better if person A prefers their ears and person B prefers their sixth sense.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
<deleting post. No wish to fight with Javert over the existence of spiritual stimuli>
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <deleting post. No wish to fight with Javert over the existence of spiritual stimuli>
I hope my comment didn't come off wrong. I in no way was implying the existence or non-existence of a sixth sense. Just that the analogy might work better if it was used.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <deleting post. No wish to fight with Javert over the existence of spiritual stimuli>
I hope my comment didn't come off wrong. I in no way was implying the existence or non-existence of a sixth sense. Just that the analogy might work better if it was used.
What are you some sort of analogical engineer now?! Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres-
Your analogy might work better if person A prefers their ears and person B prefers their sixth sense.
I'd think that'd just obscure my point.
Sight and hearing are senses that almost everyone understands and I think it is clear to most people that there are certain things that each one of those senses can percieve or study which the other cannot. If people started trying to build belief systems exclusively from one of those senses or the other, I think one can see why they'd end up in conflict over things like the existence of color or the qualities of music.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Tres, let me expand upon Javert's response to you, and explain why I also think your analogy doesn't hold.
Sight and hearing are both different ways of experiencing the world, yes. But they only seem so different to us because we have both, and they each pass different information along. And so someone lacking one or the other will have a different experience of the world around them. Evolution focused more attention on the development of the visual system in humans, making it the primary sense with which we experience the world. But bats on the other hand navigate the world using their auditory system. And while the specific type of stimulus reaching the brain of a bat is different from humans, the internal representation of the outside world is probably relatively the same. It is a deficit in these sensory systems, their inherent imperfections, that account for many of the differences in subjective experience by the perceiver.
Science isn't about using a specific tool to understand the world around us, it's about a method for understanding the world around us. And so if humans had never developed an auditory system, and we encountered an alien race that had no eyes, but had these other weird organs that analyzed sound waves that they used to perceive the world around them. We wouldn't "inevitably" come into conflict about the truth of what exists and what doesn't. We have methods that we could use to study that system and how it interacts with the outside world. And realize that sound waves exist and carry certain information about the world when analyzed in the right way.
Our senses don't pick up the electromagnetic spectrum outside of visible light, but using the scientific method we can create tools that CAN measure those attributes of the universe, and use them to acquire truths about the world.
The conflict isn't about tools, it's about methods(is it repeatable? falsifiable? etc...). Which is fine, I'm not here to tell someone to stop believing what they believe. But to say that science and religion can coexist without any conflict ignores many of the realities of both science and religion, because religions say many things that cross into the realm of both science and history. The New Testament says some very specific things about virgin birth, and resurrection. The Old Testament says many things about god's interaction and interference with our world. About particular events that happened. History is riddled with scientists being persecuted for claiming truths about the universe that disagreed with religious doctrine. And today there are large conflicts that stem from a conflict between religious beliefs and science(stem cell research to name one). If your religious beliefs tell you that evolution is not real, then religion is causing a conflict with science.
Even the concept of a creator, separate from specific religions is something that can be talked about scientifically. Whether it's questions about the inefficiency of the human body from a biological standpoint, or the sloppy way we have made it to this point through evolution.
Anyway, I went off track a bit. My main point was that the analogy doesn't hold because it's about methods rather than tools. And, to relate back to Kwea's point, the conflict exists because religions make certain claims regarding facts of the universe that are direct opposition to our scientific knowledge of the world. On it's own, this wouldn't cause a problem, except that these ideas are creeping their way into our political discourse, our education system, etc...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
My sense of sight tells me I can throw a paperclip out my window and hit a car with it. My sense of touch tells me glass is actually there, so I can't. These two methods of gaining knowledge about the world around me, when taken by themselves, generate sets of facts about the universe that are in direct opposition to one another. Yet this is not a problem because we treat each method as a tool with limitations, and combine their use accordingly to come up with a more complete picture than any single method of sensing could give us alone.
Obviously, on any given question, one method or the other must be wrong if they conflict directly in what they tell us. (In the above example, the sense of sight is wrong.) But that doesn't mean one sense is always right while the others are flawed whenever they disagree with the dominant method of sensing the world. Rather, each method is flawed in its own ways, and only works best when other methods are used to make up for those flaws.
----
Science is as blind to many nonscientific concepts as the eye is to clear glass. It can't accurately observe anything that is totally subjective, for instance. If it started doing so, it would cease to be science. As a result, a science-only worldview is not going to include anything subjective, except insofar as it can turn the subjective into something objective which can be studied and measured. For example, when it tries to measure happiness, it often measures "reported happiness" instead which is a behavior rather than actual happiness. Or perhaps it measures brain functions or chemical responses that are supposed to correlate to happiness. Regardless, it can't really see happiness without turning happiness into something it is not.
Thus, a science-only approach to viewing the world will inevitably conflict with those methods that truly factor in things like subjective concepts (or untestable concepts, or other things that are by definition beyond the bounds of science.) That's not something that came about accidently because of how the world happens to be. It's a conflict that must happen based on definitions alone. If God exists, science-only and religion-only belief systems would conflict. If God didn't exist, science-only and religion-only belief systems would conflict. Even if we started a new religion today that followed the current models of science exactly and included no concepts currently not accepted by science, it would still immediately begin to conflict with science because religious methodology would lead followers to start asking questions about meaning which science could not handle, while scientific methodology would require science to start changing theories that the newly formed religion would cling to. The resolution to that inevitable conflict is simply to treat each method of gaining knowledge as limited in what it can do. They each advise us, but none are perfect.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I do think there are areas of life that science is not the best method to explore (love for example). And if your religion only deals with those types of things, then no, there doesn't need to be conflict. However, most religious deal at least somewhat with areas where science is perfectly suited for addressing, and most people who claim that their religion is not opposed to science are simply ignoring those cases. I have no idea what Kwea and Tresopax's beliefs are so I can't judge whether their beliefs are contradictory or not, but saying there doesn't need to be any conflict is ignoring numerous areas in the vast majority of religious systems.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I do think there are areas of life that science is not the best method to explore (love for example).
In the first place, science does in fact tell us quite a few things about love. In the second place, even if that were untrue, this would imply nothing about what religion could tell us. And since religion has no procedure for checking that whatever answer it gives is correct, it is not actually telling us anything more than the opinion of some bearded theologian, with an additional dose of argument from authority and a soupcon of wishful thinking.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <deleting post. No wish to fight with Javert over the existence of spiritual stimuli>
I hope my comment didn't come off wrong. I in no way was implying the existence or non-existence of a sixth sense. Just that the analogy might work better if it was used.
I thought ESP was considered an 8th sense now. Aren't balance and whatever the sense that perceives pheremones the 6th and 7th senses?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I do think there are areas of life that science is not the best method to explore (love for example).
In the first place, science does in fact tell us quite a few things about love. In the second place, even if that were untrue, this would imply nothing about what religion could tell us. And since religion has no procedure for checking that whatever answer it gives is correct, it is not actually telling us anything more than the opinion of some bearded theologian, with an additional dose of argument from authority and a soupcon of wishful thinking.
Which is irrelevant to the current discussion, which is not whether or not religion is useful, but whether it is contradictory with science.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Yet this is not a problem because we treat each method as a tool with limitations, and combine their use accordingly to come up with a more complete picture than any single method of sensing could give us alone.
Obviously, on any given question, one method or the other must be wrong if they conflict directly in what they tell us. (In the above example, the sense of sight is wrong.) But that doesn't mean one sense is always right while the others are flawed whenever they disagree with the dominant method of sensing the world. Rather, each method is flawed in its own ways, and only works best when other methods are used to make up for those flaws.
No, each "tool" is flawed in it's own way. The scientific method, takes the data from each tool to come up with a more accurate picture of reality. If someone doesn't use the scientific method in the correct way, and only uses data from one tool, the problem is not in the scientific method, but the misuse of it.
quote:For example, when it tries to measure happiness, it often measures "reported happiness" instead which is a behavior rather than actual happiness. Or perhaps it measures brain functions or chemical responses that are supposed to correlate to happiness. Regardless, it can't really see happiness without turning happiness into something it is not.
Maybe, but happiness is a word. It is a symbol that stands for a concept, or a set of concepts that as you say, is subjective and will differ for each individual person. That is felt as a mixture of emotions relating to different patterns of neural firing tied to certain mental representations acquired throughout life. By defining happiness as ANYTHING you have already turned it into something it's not, whether through science or religion. But as you say, science can study personal reports, behavior, brain maps, chemical levels, etc...and tell us something important about happiness.
But I think we've moved away from the crux of this conversation. I certainly believe that there is much that science currently can't answer, which isn't to say that science will NEVER be able to answer these questions, just that the tools and/or knowledge don't exist to be able to answer them. I also think there is much validity and worthwhile knowledge to be gained from experience or non quantifiable empirical means. Given all that, there are still many times where religion makes claims not about happiness, but about facts of the universe, that are in direct opposition to a scientific understanding of the universe. Thus...there is a conflict between science and religion. You dont' seem to be denying that, but seem to be denying that one can be said to be objectively correct. I disagree. Otherwise anyone can make up anything they want and there would never be a way to determine who is right and who is wrong. You can't say that Willie Nelson is actually the president of the united states. That you know this through different means which are unverifiable to anyone else, but are completely legitimate and just a "different way of understanding the world". There has to be a point where we can come to agreements about certain objective truths.
Now, I do think a moral/ethical system should be based on scientific knowledge of the world and of a human beings place in it, and thus one based on incorrect facts will inevitability come in conflict with those facts. But I'll cede that a moral system itself is hard to quantify scientifically. I understand that, but that's only a small part of what religion is about. If a religion was started whose tenants embraced scientific knowledge and the scientific method, there would be no conflict. As scientific understanding changed, the religion would change. There might be a conflict between members as to how to interpret things for which there is not method to interpret, sure, but you talk about "religious methodology" leading to questions science can't answer, and i guess it'd help if you explained what you mean there.
[ July 29, 2009, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I thought ESP was considered an 8th sense now. Aren't balance and whatever the sense that perceives pheremones the 6th and 7th senses?
Say what now? Wouldn't those just be part of touch and smell?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
pheromones would indeed be part of the olfactory system. but is there any data that the pheromone system is actually working in humans?
our sense of balance is a tricky one. It's handled within the balance of fluids in the vestibular system, which is located in the inner ear. I've never heard it referred to as it's own sensory system, but it's an interesting point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I do think there are areas of life that science is not the best method to explore (love for example).
In the first place, science does in fact tell us quite a few things about love. In the second place, even if that were untrue, this would imply nothing about what religion could tell us. And since religion has no procedure for checking that whatever answer it gives is correct, it is not actually telling us anything more than the opinion of some bearded theologian, with an additional dose of argument from authority and a soupcon of wishful thinking.
Which is irrelevant to the current discussion, which is not whether or not religion is useful, but whether it is contradictory with science.
It is, however, relevant to your assertion that science is not the best tool for some fields. If there's a derail here, I think it's yours.
Humans have a vestigial vomero-nasal organ; it's much more distinct in (eg) rats, and definitely separate from the parts of the brain which deal with other smells. From Wiki:
quote:Unlike the main olfactory bulb that sends neuronal signals to the olfactory cortex, the VNO sends neuronal signals to the accessory olfactory bulb and then to the amygdala and hypothalamus, which may explain how scents influence aggressive and mating behavior.
So if you look at the organisation of the brain, pheromones could reasonably be considered a separate sense. But whether this is the right way to divide up the senses is almost a matter of taste.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Um, what? My "assertion" that science is not the best tool for some fields was more or less agreeing with Tres's original post with a caveat, whereas it's unclear what point your responding to at all.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Then to those guys, you're not doing one of those two things right.
Apparently "those guys" believe that all religion is a specific dogmatic conviction. My wife has no problem at all reconciling science and religion. She does not, however, believe in an inerrant bible, a 7-day creation, or even creationism. She believes in evolution but sees no reason why God couldn't be using that method to forward his plan.
Basically she believes that science tells us how things happen, and religion explains why it happened.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Um, what? My "assertion" that science is not the best tool for some fields was more or less agreeing with Tres's original post with a caveat, whereas it's unclear what point your responding to at all.
Ok, clearly at least one of us is misunderstanding the other. I suggest we stop arguing about who derailed the thread. Would you like to respond to what I said about science telling us about love, or religion being uncheckable? If not, that's cool; I just don't want to spend a lot of time on a side issue.
quote:Basically she believes that science tells us how things happen, and religion explains why it happened.
That would be a lot more interesting if there were a good way to verify that the answer you give to 'why' had anything to do with reality. Like a lot of religious pseudo-philosophising, this one sounds good until you think about it for a minute.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: She believes in evolution but sees no reason why God couldn't be using that method to forward his plan.
World domination??? Devious! I'm starting to like this God person- he's my kind of dude.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Then to those guys, you're not doing one of those two things right.
Apparently "those guys" believe that all religion is a specific dogmatic conviction. My wife has no problem at all reconciling science and religion. She does not, however, believe in an inerrant bible, a 7-day creation, or even creationism. She believes in evolution but sees no reason why God couldn't be using that method to forward his plan.
Basically she believes that science tells us how things happen, and religion explains why it happened.
And I imagine Dawkins would tell your wife that religion is simply making ascertains that are not testable or provable and that she is assuming there needs to be a "why" when in fact there may not be one, she opens herself up to being fooled at best, and becoming potentially dangerous at worst.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He probably would, but I doubt she'd care. She has accommodated science and religion quite nicely for herself without inner conflict. There are a whole range of questions with answers that are not easily testable or provable, and this provides her a framework of answers for them, or at least suggestions where to look for them.
quote:...she opens herself up to being fooled at best, and becoming potentially dangerous at worst.
Fooled by what? A con artist? A tempting dogma? Won't happen. The major objection I have to how Dawkins' argument is being described above is as presented it goes "Science cannot be reconciled with religion because religious people believe in strict interpretations of scripture and it's bunk." That's a major strawman argument. An awful lot of religious people do not believe in strict interpretations (although all the ones that make it to television seem to).
Dawkins used to at least tolerate that level of belief as relatively harmless, but after 9/11 he seems to have declared war on all religious belief, great and small, and I think that's needlessly overreaching.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: this provides her a framework of answers for them, or at least suggestions where to look for them.
No, it doesn't, actually. It provides an illusion of such answers. You can't ssay "I've got an answer" when you've got no idea whether you're right or not! That's not an answer, that's an excuse.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How far into Dawkins' memetics and DNA theories do you have to go to determine if it's "right" to help someone in need? Do you need to work out the person's consanguinity to you, determine that person's position in your group, and run down the list of personal benefits and detriments before you can decide if you should?
Teresa's framework already has an answer, which is that it is good to help others whenever you can. Doesn't matter whether she was taught that lesson by her father or her Father, it's one you learn when you're learning how to be a person.
She's not looking for answers to the meaning of life or what happens after she dies, she wants to know how to live and raise children and be a good person. Her religion provides that framework.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Should also add that it provides answers to her sufficient to her needs. She believes she is (hopefully) going to heaven when she dies. As far as I know she has no particular belief in what heaven might be like, or if it's a place at all. She also doesn't live her life as if all her rewards will come later; she just maintains a quiet belief in that afterlife.
Why, exactly, is a belief that has no real effect on her life beyond providing some comfort at the moment of her death, even if it's unfounded, so threatening?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Chris:
quote:Dawkins used to at least tolerate that level of belief as relatively harmless, but after 9/11 he seems to have declared war on all religious belief, great and small, and I think that's needlessly overreaching.
Dawkins has said exactly this, because he is convinced that the same false idea that persuades people to do good also persuades them to do evil. By removing all belief in God, people are liberated because they do good for reasons that are true (to Dawkins) and they no longer can be bamboozled into doing evil.
I think your wife sounds like a wonderful individual. Perhaps no harm will come from Teresa's belief in the next life, but perhaps later as the date of her death closes in that belief will become stronger as it becomes more relevant to her condition. Perhaps when it comes down to it, she will make very drastic decisions as she is worried about her station in the next life. She might give away all her money and resources to a church whose minister just happens to speak to her in the hospital while she feels vulnerable, she might become distraught with how she performed as a mother, as a wife, she might despair that while she did believe in being a good person or even in God, she did not spend enough time really making sure he existed. She might encounter calamities and decide that all her time being invested in religion was a waste, and that time can never be reclaimed. All those things supposedly can be avoided by simply expunging any belief in God from an early age.
Religion is a risky investment, but I believe anything worth believing in always carries a risk. There's no such thing as a belief that can only benefit you.
But then again, maybe I haven't thought hard enough about that idea.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How far into Dawkins' memetics and DNA theories do you have to go to determine if it's "right" to help someone in need? Do you need to work out the person's consanguinity to you, determine that person's position in your group, and run down the list of personal benefits and detriments before you can decide if you should?
You need to dig down to the bit where human and straw DNA coincide. Then you begin posting on the basis of that.
quote:Teresa's framework already has an answer, which is that it is good to help others whenever you can.
Ah so, "whenever you can". That's interesting. I dare say that there's a couple of dollars in your household budget for Interweb access. Say $300 a year. How many African children do you think could be fed on that? Are you sure that "whenever I can" is the real framework that actually informs your decisions? Maybe it's rather "whenever it would give me warm fuzzles and not be too inconvenient". But this "whenever I can" certainly does make for some nice claims on the forums, doesn't it. A useful trait in a moral theory!
quote:She's not looking for answers to the meaning of life or what happens after she dies, she wants to know how to live and raise children and be a good person. Her religion provides that framework.
Does it really? She's certainly not getting parenting advice from the Bible, at least I hope not. Does she take the little dilemmas of everyday life to her priest, and ask him kindly for his advice? Not necessarily a bad idea, but I don't see what distinguishes it from asking advice of a randomly picked neighbour. Does she "pray for guidance"? If so, what would you say is the difference between that and just thinking about things, as any atheist might do? Which part of the religion, exactly, is providing this parenting framework?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Religion is a risky investment, but I believe anything worth believing in always carries a risk. There's no such thing as a belief that can only benefit you.
"I should not jump off cliffs". "I should not stab myself with knives". "I should not drink and drive". "I should not lie down in front of approaching trains".
Oddly enough, all of these are beliefs about measureable real-world things.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
"I should not jump off cliffs" Some people rather enjoy base jumping, and cliff diving. You could be missing out.
"I should not stab myself with knives" Tell that to the mountain climber who had to cut his own arm off to survive when pinned by a boulder.
"I should not drink and drive" If you're drunk, do not have a phone, and are the only one around able to drive somebody to the hospital, you might want to consider driving anyway.
"I should not lie down in front of approaching trains." You've got me here, I can't come up with anything. But I did concede that it was an idea I had perhaps not thought long enough about. But then again, you can almost always come up with a crazy scenario where any action is moral.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"I should not jump off cliffs" Some people rather enjoy base jumping, and cliff diving. You could be missing out.
I did actually think of that before posting, yes. I stand by what I said. If you like, you can explicitly add "unless I've got special equipment so that it's not actually jumping off a cliff, in the sense that this term is usually meant in the ordinary course of speaking the English language when listeners can be expected to make a good-faith effort to understand what situations are being referred to", but it seems like a lot of effort. Can we please assume that special cases are covered? A base-jumper does not expect to go splat when he hits the bottom; if he did, he would not jump. This is the scenario that "jumping off a cliff" generally refers to. If you were not making a special effort to twist words, you would recognise that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I sometimes wonder if you read the entirety of my posts every time. I believe you are right that there are beliefs that cost nothing and typically only benefit you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How far into Dawkins' memetics and DNA theories do you have to go to determine if it's "right" to help someone in need? Do you need to work out the person's consanguinity to you, determine that person's position in your group, and run down the list of personal benefits and detriments before you can decide if you should?
No. Have you read Dawkins, Chris? The obvious answer here is the same as the religious one: in general, it is good to help people in need, not least because the accounting necessary to decide whether someone really needs help and/or you benefit from helping them is -- in most cases, anyway -- more complex and of higher cost than the assistance itself.
quote:The major objection I have to how Dawkins' argument is being described above is as presented it goes "Science cannot be reconciled with religion because religious people believe in strict interpretations of scripture and it's bunk."
More accurately, the argument is this: A religious epistemology -- a process by which someone can claim to "know" or "discover" something without any observable evidence or demonstrable logical procedure -- is one that produces beliefs whose accuracy cannot be evaluated. Coupled with a common religious tendency to appeal to a higher, non-negotiable, and silent authority for major moral decisions, this produces a dangerous environment; it can become a echo chamber, or in a worst-case scenario be hijacked by charismatic individuals whose pronouncements cannot be checked using the internal logic of the belief system.
The degree to which someone's religious belief is potentially harmful is directly related to how often they rely on religious epistemology.
[ July 29, 2009, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I haven't, no, but I was arguing against KoM's attitude more than I was Dawkins' theories.
I keep imagining KoM screaming at a child, "Why are you reading those picture books? Rabbits can't talk! You're going to be ruined for life!"
quote:The degree to which someone's religious belief is potentially harmful is directly related to how often they rely on religious epistemology.
I agree with this. I strongly disagree - and will continue to disagree - with those who draw no distinctions between people with vague religious beliefs and those who suicide bomb restaurants.
I would like to go back and read Dawkins' earlier works before he went militant, though.
quote:Ah so, "whenever you can". That's interesting. [...] Are you sure that "whenever I can" is the real framework that actually informs your decisions? Maybe it's rather "whenever it would give me warm fuzzles and not be too inconvenient". But this "whenever I can" certainly does make for some nice claims on the forums, doesn't it.
There really are no gray areas in your philosophy at all, are there? Apparently she can either not help at all or give everything she has to help others, otherwise her moral code is utterly useless. Also note that you do not know what she has or hasn't done, so mocking it is rather unscientific, I would think.
quote:A useful trait in a moral theory!
So is scorn, apparently.
quote:Does it really? She's certainly not getting parenting advice from the Bible, at least I hope not. Does she take the little dilemmas of everyday life to her priest, and ask him kindly for his advice? Not necessarily a bad idea, but I don't see what distinguishes it from asking advice of a randomly picked neighbour. Does she "pray for guidance"? If so, what would you say is the difference between that and just thinking about things, as any atheist might do? Which part of the religion, exactly, is providing this parenting framework?
Judging from what I've seen, the parts about loving one another, respecting one another, treating others as you would wish to be treated, etc. And yes, I know those aren't specifically religious teachings, and I know the bible is chock full of horrible examples, but that's where she learned what she learned and so that's the framework she thinks in.
Which is one big problem with the anti-religious argument: there is no compelling framework to impart ethical codes. One thing religions have done - with varying degrees of success, obviously - is to provide a rich mythology that serves as a teaching tool to imprint believers with correct ways to act in society. Not every human can look around and reason out ethical codes without help. Some people need rote lessons until ethical codes are internalized, with regular social reinforcement. Has anyone done any work on something like this?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You dont' seem to be denying that, but seem to be denying that one can be said to be objectively correct. I disagree. Otherwise anyone can make up anything they want and there would never be a way to determine who is right and who is wrong. You can't say that Willie Nelson is actually the president of the united states. That you know this through different means which are unverifiable to anyone else, but are completely legitimate and just a "different way of understanding the world". There has to be a point where we can come to agreements about certain objective truths.
No, I'm not denying that there is an objective truth. I'm just saying that it is a misuse of science or religion to view either as something that can explain ALL objective truth by itself.
If you view science and religion as things attempting to give a complete explanation of all questions of the universe, then the fact that they give conflicting answers is a problem. If you view science and religion as limited tools we can use together to gather information about the universe, then the fact that they sometimes give conflicting answers is not a problem.
quote:And since religion has no procedure for checking that whatever answer it gives is correct, it is not actually telling us anything more than the opinion of some bearded theologian, with an additional dose of argument from authority and a soupcon of wishful thinking.
It does not logically follow that in order for X to tell you something true, X must be checked.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: She believes in evolution but sees no reason why God couldn't be using that method to forward his plan.
World domination??? Devious! I'm starting to like this God person- he's my kind of dude.
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed the thread has gone off in this direction, though I guess it was somewhat inevitable. I want to stress again, that most of the talks linked to above have nothing to do with religion. In fact, someone like Ramachandran almost never mentions anything about religion in anything I've ever seen him do. He talks about neuroscience, and the brain, and maybe sometimes delves into consciousness and free will, but completely sidesteps any religious issues. Pinker, while I've heard him state he is an atheist, almost never talks about atheism or religion either, and sticks to evolution, psychology, language, etc...Dennett and Dawkins, yes, have much to say on the subject. But if I recall correctly, their talks in the lectures above with Douglas Adams have little to do with religion, though I'll update with more specifics after I rewatch them.
Chris, you're absolutely right that it's worth making a distinction between religious people of different inclinations. Obviously the level of someone's acceptance or belief of the words in their holy book is important. I'm glad the majority of religious people are not strict creationists, and yet at the same time, it makes it almost impossible to have a general discussion since there is no clear way to discuss these issues. I do think the conflict isn't so much religion vs. science as rationality vs. irrationality. It just happens that many irrational beliefs stem from religious teachings.
The argument that Dawkins and people like Sam Harris make is that religious tolerance of moderates lead directly to the tolerance of extremists. When a moderate christian, who only believes the good things and ignores the bad is able to do so because "it's fatih, it shouldn't be questioned or expected to hold up to the same level of scrutiny as other ideas" how then do we have recourse to argue with the extremists. When they can point to their holy books and say, "look, it's in my book. god said this. it's faith and I won't argue it". In fact, those extremists are just being true to their holy books. So they would say that it's not your wife's specific beliefs that are harmful, as much as the general mindset that there are areas in life that don't deserve rational scrutiny, and the danger that that can lead to. While I'm not militant about it, I do think it's a valid argument. How do create a society where gays have equal rights when folks can point to their bibles and say, "it's wrong"? Your wife has reconciled science and religion, but to do so she has to ignore the aspects of the bible that contradict science. So what exactly is the best way to phrase this argument or discussion in light of that, and in light of people like your wife? A conflict exists. So how do we define it? "There is a conflict between our scientific understanding of the world and certain parts of many religious texts and so thus a conflict exits between those who embrace the scientific method and those who embrace those parts of their religious texts that are in conflict with it" That's sort of unwieldy. And doesn't address the problem of scientific illiteracy and religious based objections to science or political/social issues.
In my non Hatrack interactions I tend to try to focus on battling irrationality. Sam Harris had a great talk where he spoke about how atheists do themselves a disservice to lump all religious people into one group because there are many times we're all working at common purposes. Even Dawkins in the panel discussion above makes a point that he goes back and forth on how best to treat this issue. That the real fundamental problem is a mindset that says certain beliefs can go unquestioned. That we don't need to use rationality or logic in areas of our lives that we don't want to.
Tom is right that I don't think Dawkins' moral system is as convoluted as you think. And I know that my moral framework is grounded in as much fact about the universe as I can manage. I don't want to get into this conversation at the moment, but I think it's possible to have a very rational conversation about the merits of religion in giving people a good moral background. About whether religion really is good at telling people "why". The fact that your wife has ditched the things that she deems immoral out the bible goes to show that religion does NOT tell her why, some select parts of her religious texts tell her why, but it's her own moral sense that has guided her to embrace certain things and leave behind others. it's not unreasonable to assume we can create an ethical moral system based on science fact, built around empathy and compassion. Dawkins again and again stresses that biology tells us how things came to be, or how they are, but not how they ought to be. That we have brains that battle against our genetic predispositions all that time, and that we can use these brains to make moral/rational decisions. I do recommend his earlier writings. While religion is discussed at times(in his non-biology books), it's nothing like the Dawkins you see today.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It does not logically follow that in order for X to tell you something true, X must be checked.
An unchecked true X is indistinguishable from a lie, so yeah, I think it does follow pretty logically if you're going to apply X in any meaningful way.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:It does not logically follow that in order for X to tell you something true, X must be checked.
An unchecked true X is indistinguishable from a lie, so yeah, I think it does follow pretty logically if you're going to apply X in any meaningful way.
*My neighbor tells me its going to rain today. I don't check to see if he's got any reason for that, but I assume he's right and carry an umbrella. It rains. Therefore he was correct and was not lying even though I didn't check it. *My calculator tells me 168 divided by 42 is 4. I don't do any long division or math to check. 168 divided by 42 is in fact 4. Therefore the calculator was correct, and not lying even though I didn't check it. *The newspaper says Obama is having a beer today at the White House. I don't check to see if that is true. Obama does have a beer. Thus the newspaper was correct and not lying, even though I didn't check it.
If it logically followed that X must checked in order for X to tell you something true, then there'd be zero possible counterexamples. Instead, there's an infinite number of counterexamples. Thus X definitely does not have to be checked in order to tell you something true.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If it logically followed that X must checked in order for X to tell you something true, then there'd be zero possible counterexamples. Instead, there's an infinite number of counterexamples. Thus X definitely does not have to be checked in order to tell you something true.
Except none of your examples are unchecked. Unless this is the first time you've ever met or spoken to your neighbor, it's the untested prototype of the first calculator, and it's the first issue of the newspaper ever published.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Tom is right that I don't think Dawkins' moral system is as convoluted as you think.
Again, I wasn't responding so much to Dawkins' works as I was to KoM's attitude. I generally agree with just about everything you just posted. Except here:
quote:When a moderate christian, who only believes the good things and ignores the bad is able to do so because "it's fatih, it shouldn't be questioned or expected to hold up to the same level of scrutiny as other ideas" how then do we have recourse to argue with the extremists.
In neither case, moderate or extremist, is it required that we believe what they believe or accept it as unscrutinized fact. But for most moderate Christians, their belief is a private thing that generally only manifests among like believers or publicly in good works. One of the defining characteristics of a religious extremist, in fact, would be the need to impose his or her religious beliefs on others.
Where we draw the line is that point where religious belief impacts others outside the religion.
I really don't care if someone's religion bids them to tithe regularly, pray a certain way or avoid a specific food. If someone is a positive member of society, I don't care if they developed their ethical code from the Holy Bible, the Koran, an etiquette book, Dr. Seuss, the Boy Scout handbook, or by watching Captain Planet videos. Useful lessons can be gleaned out of any of that material.
But that doesn't mean that trying to pass legislation against the Grinch shouldn't go unchallenged, and extremists who decide to bomb anyone without a blue star on their stomachs should be treated like any other criminal, religious beliefs or no religious beliefs.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I agree with almost the entirety of your post Chris, and this line is what's important for me too:
quote:Where we draw the line is that point where religious belief impacts others outside the religion.
In general I let people be and feel no need to impose my views on them, or correct them of views that I believe to be untrue. If they're a good, happy person, that's great, whatever the details are that led to that state. Where we might differ, or maybe not since you didn't specifically address this is in your last line:
quote:But that doesn't mean that trying to pass legislation against the Grinch shouldn't go unchallenged, and extremists who decide to bomb anyone without a blue star on their stomachs should be treated like any other criminal, religious beliefs or no religious beliefs.
I agree that we should treat these people like criminals, regardless of what led to their actions. But I also think if the goal to prevent those types of acts in the first place, we need to address the root of the problem, the belief system, the mindset that leads to those actions. I'm not advocating that we should abolish religion, and I don't have any easy answers either, but I do think we'll always have these problems unless we think of better ways to address the causes of these problems. And like I said before, it doesn't have to be so life threatening as terrorist activity, the influence on science education is just as important.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Humans seek connections, we're programmed to do so, and if we can't find any our natural inclination is to manufacture some. Religion provides that, beginning from a very young age, and it continues to offer comfort and purpose through the believer's life. Simply stating that religion is foolish and trying to stamp it out wherever you see it, without offering something that replaces every aspect of religion for people's lives, is doomed to failure.
I'd like to see a secular method of raising children that includes the same sort of shared symbolism/mythology and community that religion offers.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'd like to see a secular method of raising children that includes the same sort of shared symbolism/mythology and community that religion offers.
Community is getting easier as different secular groups are forming. Hopefully it gets easier and easier in the future.
As for symbolism and mythology, our national history, I think, has more than enough of that. And if not, there's world history to dip in to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:As for symbolism and mythology, our national history, I think, has more than enough of that.
No way, besides infallibility I don't think we've given the founding fathers any super powers yet.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Founding Fathers no, although Obama is giving them a run for their money.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except none of your examples are unchecked. Unless this is the first time you've ever met or spoken to your neighbor, it's the untested prototype of the first calculator, and it's the first issue of the newspaper ever published.
If that's what you mean by checked then religious beliefs are definitely checked.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If that's what you mean by checked then religious beliefs are definitely checked.
Checked as to their truth, or their usefulness? One does not necessarily need the other.
quote:No way, besides infallibility I don't think we've given the founding fathers any super powers yet.
He said symbolism and mythology. That doesn't mean we have to make the legends of our culture into gods.
There's already the story that George Washington cut down the cherry tree. And Ben Franklin showed that lightning was electricity.
How long until our legends say that Ben Franklin had electrical powers and George Washington was born from a tree? (His wooden teeth prove it!)
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I'd like to see a secular method of raising children that includes the same sort of shared symbolism/mythology and community that religion offers.
Javert commented on this. But there are indeed communities, groups, and individuals working towards this goal. Humanism is one method. Here is the Humanist Manifesto. They do a good job of building communities and even hold larger events, some symbolic, as ways of bringing the community together.
In general though, I think we create our own communities and I don't think it's much of a stretch to raise children in a secular environment while providing some of those things religion provides. It's not simple, and I've definitely thought about this very thing before, but I don't have children though so anything I say will be speculation. I know that most of my friends are either atheists or agnostics or have serious problems with religion, and all the babies are just starting to come, so I'll let you know in a few years how it all goes. Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Thanks for the links, Strider; fascinating stuff!
One thing: am I Doing It Wrong, or does the link to the panel discussion with Adams/Dawkins/Pinker/Diamond etc accidentally lead to one of the talks by Ramachandran?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I noticed that too.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
that was just a test to see if people were clicking on the links.
I went to fix it, but the link was to a page on Richard Dawkins' webpage that had all 4 segments embedded. richarddawkins.net happens to be down right now, so I changed the link to the first of the 4 parts on youtube. the links to the rest will be easy to find from there. When RD's site is back up i'll change the link back to that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: [QB]
quote:Ah so, "whenever you can". That's interesting. [...] Are you sure that "whenever I can" is the real framework that actually informs your decisions? Maybe it's rather "whenever it would give me warm fuzzles and not be too inconvenient". But this "whenever I can" certainly does make for some nice claims on the forums, doesn't it.
There really are no gray areas in your philosophy at all, are there? Apparently she can either not help at all or give everything she has to help others, otherwise her moral code is utterly useless. Also note that you do not know what she has or hasn't done, so mocking it is rather unscientific, I would think.
I suggest you take another look at my post. I do not claim that there is no middle ground between "Let them eat cake" and "Your wish is my command, O lord and master". But I do claim that if you are going to assert that your moral code actually is "help whenever you can", then you cannot afford to be very far in the direction of telling people to eat cake. Since your wife clearly has not given up her interweb access to feed the African orphans, her actual moral code cannot be "help whenever I can", whatever she (or you) may say about it. Please note the distinction: I don't claim that this ought to be her moral code. I merely claim that in fact, as measured by actions and not words, it isn't. And it follows that what you said about the moral code derived from her religion was inaccurate; as a matter of measureable fact, she follows the general human code of "help whenever it's not too terribly inconvenient, especially if I can signal my caring to other people of my own class and thereby raise my status." We have a name for people who do any more than this: We call them saints.
quote:Judging from what I've seen, the parts about loving one another, respecting one another, treating others as you would wish to be treated, etc. And yes, I know those aren't specifically religious teachings, and I know the bible is chock full of horrible examples, but that's where she learned what she learned and so that's the framework she thinks in.
The difference between this, and learning morals by nontheistic socialisation, escapes me. Which part of this requires a belief in the supernatural? The two are, as you describe it, completely orthogonal. What would be the harm, then, in discarding that part of the belief which has no evidence, and keeping the ethics and whatnot? And before anyone starts in on ethics having no evidence either, you're wrong: Primate brains are hard-wired to treat the behaviour of their peers as evidence for the right way to act. When you are told "stealing is wrong", that is quite powerful evidence that stealing actually is wrong; when you see someone punished for stealing, even more so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I don't claim that this ought to be her moral code. I merely claim that in fact, as measured by actions and not words, it isn't." But you don't know her actions, so how can you judge that? You are claiming there is no middle ground, if by your definitions failure to achieve the totality of a religious moral code means you're not following that code at all. According to you simply having the Internet immediately invalidates her moral code and reduces her to making casual contributions she can brag about. Dude, seriously?
A) I pay for our Internet access, and I have not commented on what my moral codes are. B) The Internet can be used to disseminate information and increase donations to charities, and you have no idea if she uses it for that purpose (she does not, I don't think, but the point is you never asked). C) For that matter, as far as you know she's living in a shack in Cambodia, devoting all her time to building villages and getting on the Red Cross' computer every now and then to cruise websites. Would she then be failing her moral code? C) Yes, her code was derived from her religion. The fact that it can be learned as easily from other sources doesn't change that. D) She does not make her actions public, never has. I referred to them, in a very vague way, when talking about deriving moral codes from religious instruction. I could just as easily have said she tries not to bear false witness. But you seem to be accusing her of doing good to impress others and you have absolutely no basis for that. You are judging her motives without knowing them, and I find that highly unscientific and needlessly inflammatory.
And damaging to your argument. By making unfounded distinctions and setting her up as a strawman (strawwoman?) you're not going to convince me or anyone reading this of anything, other than that you're not the person to talk to when this topic comes up. I urge you to read Strider's posts in this thread, and note that we actually seem to be talking.
quote:What would be the harm, then, in discarding that part of the belief which has no evidence, and keeping the ethics and whatnot?
What I'm asking is what's the harm in keeping the part of the belief that comforts her if it harms no one? She is not a suicide bomber, she does not vote for ideologues, she is not bending research to fit a sermon, she doesn't even attend church, and I doubt many of her friends could even tell you what denomination she is. Why stomp on her belief? Besides, hey, she might be right...
Zero tolerance rarely helps win an argument. Mostly it just pisses people off and makes them more defensive and less open to convincing.
[ July 31, 2009, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The difference between this, and learning morals by nontheistic socialisation, escapes me. Which part of this requires a belief in the supernatural? The two are, as you describe it, completely orthogonal. What would be the harm, then, in discarding that part of the belief which has no evidence, and keeping the ethics and whatnot?
Some people want to know "why" a given act is right or wrong, and won't accepted "because that's how you were socialized to act" as an answer.
quote:Primate brains are hard-wired to treat the behaviour of their peers as evidence for the right way to act. When you are told "stealing is wrong", that is quite powerful evidence that stealing actually is wrong; when you see someone punished for stealing, even more so.
Then would you agree that when you see someone worshipping God, that is powerful evidence that worshipping God is the right thing to do?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Some people want to know "why" a given act is right or wrong, and won't accepted "because that's how you were socialized to act" as an answer.
The thing is, historically, people rarely actually turn to religion for moral truth. Instead, religion is used to justify the morals of the time. Two hundred years ago people were using the Bible as evidence that slavery was natural. Now they're using it to say the opposite. If people actually advocated following Biblical law they'd be stoning children to death for disrespecting their parents. If you're only using part of your religion, then "because I was socialized that way" is a major part of why you do what you do.
That said, in the past few hundred years, we've been moving towards ethical systems that ARE based on evidence and logic. And while they still hinge on a few axioms, those axioms are more universally accepted than "my God told me to do this."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What universally accepted axioms?
Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:What I'm asking is what's the harm in keeping the part of the belief that comforts her if it harms no one?
My take on this Chris, is that there is none. At least not a specific one. I'm saddened when people are misinformed or have false beliefs, but it's their right to do so. The harm is a theoretical one in that the person isn't as knowledgeable about the world as they could be. That's not the choice I would make for myself, but again, I personally have no problem with that and would never attack a person for those beliefs.
quote:That said, in the past few hundred years, we've been moving towards ethical systems that ARE based on evidence and logic. And while they still hinge on a few axioms, those axioms are more universally accepted than "my God told me to do this."
I mostly agree with this idea. I personally would never use the idea that "we're socialized to act a certain way" in defense of any moral code as Tres implies. I DO think that it's important to learn about our biology and neurology and our evolutionary history to understand how we're wired up, what our predispositions and tendencies are, how those tendencies developed, how they helped us in the past. What makes us feel good and why. what makes us feel bad and why. Why do we have certain senses of what is right and what is wrong and where did they came from? To look at the facts of our ancestry and our current society and the nature of it's communities. Not to say that we thus need to act on all those things, but to have a larger base of understanding of how we got here and why we are the way we are. Building off of that we can use rationality to the best of our abilities to come up with an ethical system. We take all those things about ourselves and realize that we need to live and co-exist with other people. What are the effects of our actions beyond ourselves. Much of my moral system is based off what i know of the sciences, built up on a base of empathy. Of understanding that what makes me, me, and what makes someone else someone else, is mostly happenstance, a trick of consciousness that ties me to this particular body. And so I try to minimize harm and maximize happiness or well being, not just for me, but as far as my influence can reach.
I do agree that there comes a point where assumptions need to be made at the root of all this, like Raymond says. I think what it comes down to is we have to accept certain facts about our biology that are inescapable. Those are the base axioms that I think I can't get rid of. But built upon that, we choose where to go from there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
Stuff along the lines of "pain is generally bad, happiness is generally good." People may disagree about the implications of that but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the statement itself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But you don't know her actions, so how can you judge that? You are claiming there is no middle ground, if by your definitions failure to achieve the totality of a religious moral code means you're not following that code at all.
If the one says "help whenever I can", and the other says "help whenever it is convenient", and their actual actions are the same, then I say that there is no information to be had from their assertions. What does the aspiration matter to the child who starves because it was too inconvenient to write a check? But boy, you can certainly look good by claiming to help "whenever you can". That is why I dislike this assertion: It smells very strongly of signalling, with only the faintest little whiff of actual altruism.
quote:For that matter, as far as you know she's living in a shack in Cambodia, devoting all her time to building villages and getting on the Red Cross' computer every now and then to cruise websites. Would she then be failing her moral code?
Yes, if it is as you stated. Time spent browsing is clearly time that can be used to help someone else.
I think you are misreading me; I am not criticising your wife's ethics, but your statement of what they are. "Whenever I can" is an extremely strong claim. It needs to be backed by correspondingly strong evidence. I am not making an attack on your wife's morals, but on your rhetoric.
quote:What I'm asking is what's the harm in keeping the part of the belief that comforts her if it harms no one?
What's the harm in discarding it, since it helps no one?
quote:Besides, hey, she might be right...
The suicide bombers might be right too. Unless you consider this to be a reason not to argue with them, please stop making this argument.
quote:Zero tolerance rarely helps win an argument. Mostly it just pisses people off and makes them more defensive and less open to convincing.
Fortunately, it's not necessary to win arguments with theists; I just have to wait for them to die out. But that aside, how much tolerance would you show for the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old? When discussing matters of fact, tolerance is not a virtue.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So it should be "whenever I can, when convenient." Frankly I thought that was understood; at no point was I claiming she was devoting every waking second to helping others. If that's what my statement suggested to you -- although I'd wager no one else on this forum would derive the same interpretation of it that you have -- than I retract and amend it. I'm still annoyed at the repeated implication of "you can certainly look good...". Is it impossible to help others at any level less than of Mother Teresa and not have social climbing as one of your motivations? (Then again, Mother Teresa wasted time keeping a diary. Clearly she was just doing her schtick to impress people.)
quote:What's the harm in discarding it, since it helps no one?
It does. It helps her.
quote:The suicide bombers might be right too. Unless you consider this to be a reason not to argue with them, please stop making this argument.
No.
Until you can deliver scientific evidence that there is no and never has been a god, I shall remain agnostic and leave the matter open. "She might be right" stays on the table unless you can prove conclusively that she is not.
Of course I can still argue with suicide bombers. They are criminals. See above posts. I don't care what anyone believes inside his or her head, but I have strong opinions about public actions whether they are guided by religious belief or not. For all I know Allah does smile upon their actions, but I don't care.
quote:But that aside, how much tolerance would you show for the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old?
Depends. Is it what someone believes? No problem, don't care. Are they trying to add that to a public school curriculum? Then I will argue against it. See the difference? Personal belief doesn't affect me, public actions do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So it should be "whenever I can, when convenient." Frankly I thought that was understood; at no point was I claiming she was devoting every waking second to helping others.
Right. Since we are now agreed on this point, would you like to explain how this moral code differs from that of atheists? Because if it doesn't, I don't see how you can claim that it derives from religion; if it appears equally in theist and atheist, it cannot be related to theism.
quote:It does. It helps her.
If you asked her, "would you like to believe a hurtful truth, or a soothing lie?", I suspect she would go for the truth. Ought you not to act in accordance with her stated wishes? If she does say she'd prefer the lie, fine; I then wash my hands of her.
quote:Until you can deliver scientific evidence that there is no and never has been a god, I shall remain agnostic and leave the matter open. "She might be right" stays on the table unless you can prove conclusively that she is not.
Yet somehow, the particular case of gods is the only one in which you apply this remarkably low standard. Are you also agnostic about leprechauns, unicorns, and the little tweety birds that chirp around the heads of people who have taken a hard head-knock, but can only be recorded on cartoons? What's so special about gods?
Please notice: You may, perhaps, claim to be agnostic about these things; but if you met someone who actually believed in them, you would not consider them fully sane. You might or might not call for the psychiatrist, but I believe you would excuse yourself from the conversation and not call them back for a second date.
Let me also ask this question: What does it mean to believe? I believe that, were I to fall out a fourth-story window, I would be killed or injured. Consequently I try to avoid this scenario. What actions does your wife take, or not take, as a consequence of her beliefs? We've agreed it's not going to Cambodia and living in a shack; in fact it's apparently nothing to do with charity, since that's shared between theist and atheist alike. She doesn't go to church; she doesn't bend any research; she doesn't do suicide bombings. Just which part of her actions would change, if she changed her mind? Only the part, perhaps, where she professes out loud "I believe in something... maybe not a God, as such... I don't know, but like, something, you know? Something bigger than all of us..."? If so, I don't call that belief, I call it posturing. Real belief expects consequences and acts accordingly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Since we are now agreed on this point, would you like to explain how this moral code differs from that of atheists?
I have not, at any point, suggested that it did. The concept itself did not derive from religious belief; that aspect of her personal moral code was derived from her religious upbringing. I'm arguing a single case, not defending all opf religionism.
If I asked that vaguely, probably the hurtful truth. But if the subject was whether she would have a consciousness after death, or whether Someone had a plan in mind for everything, I think she'd go for the lie.
quote:Yet somehow, the particular case of gods is the only one in which you apply this remarkably low standard. Are you also agnostic about leprechauns, unicorns, and the little tweety birds that chirp around the heads of people who have taken a hard head-knock, but can only be recorded on cartoons?
Yes, I am. Granted, I'm heavily weighted towards their nonexistence, I live my life as if they do not exist, I'm nearly certain they do not exist, but I do not assume for a fact they do not exist because I have no conclusive proof of that nonexistence. Consider me an agnostic (or practical atheist, or whatever the preferred term is these days) towards just about anything. I think any scientist should be.
The last question requires a more thoughtful response and I'll come back to it this evening when I get home.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Yes, I am. Granted, I'm heavily weighted towards their nonexistence, I live my life as if they do not exist, I'm nearly certain they do not exist, but I do not assume for a fact they do not exist because I have no conclusive proof of that nonexistence. Consider me an agnostic (or practical atheist, or whatever the preferred term is these days) towards just about anything. I think any scientist should be.
Nowhere have I said that any probability should be set to zero. But there's such a thing as "negligibly small". Would you like to assign a numerical probability to the chance that these things exist? Say, one in a million? (Notice that this is rather higher than your chances of winning the lottery.) When done with that, is this chance larger or smaller than your probability estimate for your wife's religion being correct? If it's neither larger nor smaller, why do you treat the two beliefs differently? (Noticing again that if you met someone who genuinely believed in leprechauns, you would not go for the second date, on the very sensible grounds that this person is clearly not firing on all cylinders.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
For the record, I'd consider going out with a girl who believed in leprechauns assuming she was an otherwise attractive, funny, kind and/or smart. It'd be a mark against her, but everyone has things about them bug me a little bit, and a belief in leprechauns that, as you've noted is more 'posturing' than actual belief is far less annoying than other traits she might have.
My mindset for dating religious people in general largely boils down to "is the religion something that gives them comfort or something that they actually base decisions off of?"
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Also for the record, Chris, I thought along the same lines as KoM with regards to the whole "helping others" moral code thing. The points he brought up are actually very common lines of argument regarding moral responsibility in modern ethics - see, for example, some of Peter Singer's more famous arguments regarding our duty to help others. ---- I've pretty much agreed with everything KoM has written on this page.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, splendid, I finally got the tuning on my mind-control ray right.
Jhai, you didn't see this post. *Makes hypnotic gesture* Carry on as usual.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Just which part of her actions would change, if she changed her mind?
Probably very little. Her peace of mind would, I think, be altered, but her actions would likely remain the same. But of what use to her is doing so? You're trying to get me to prove why she shouldn't change her mind, but as she already believes what she believes and has no particular need to defend it, I would think the onus of proof would be on the person trying to effect the change. You're not trying to convince someone who's choosing between two options, you're trying to convince someone who chose one option a long time ago and has been happy with it. You're offering her uncertainty, a loss of contentment and a fear of death as a final end, why would it be worthwhile to her to suddenly agree with you after a lifetime of habit?
quote:Only the part, perhaps, where she professes out loud "I believe in something... maybe not a God, as such... I don't know, but like, something, you know? Something bigger than all of us..."?
Remember I mentioned the straw man thing? This would be an excellent, nicely condescending example. I have not listed her specific beliefs, other than mentioning a few beliefs she does not hold. That does not mean her own beliefs are not firm and defined, and private.
quote:When done with that, is this chance larger or smaller than your probability estimate for your wife's religion being correct?
Pretty much the same. And irrelevant to me.
quote:If it's neither larger nor smaller, why do you treat the two beliefs differently?
I don't, and I don't think I've suggested anywhere that I do. So?
quote:(Noticing again that if you met someone who genuinely believed in leprechauns, you would not go for the second date, on the very sensible grounds that this person is clearly not firing on all cylinders.)
Please stop declaring what I would and would not do, especially when you're consistently wrong. I get along fine with people who believe different things than I do. Fairies, tarot cards, angels, Objectivism, unicorns, ghosts, vampires, the innate superiority of any given political party or sports team, and, yes, leprechauns.
Does she simply believe they exist? Do they tell her to set fires, or harm people? Does she follow guidelines set down in a book written by leprechauns? Are those guidelines good ones? I might have to date her just to find out. If you only date scrupulously sane people, you have boring parties.
quote:Also for the record, Chris, I thought along the same lines as KoM with regards to the whole "helping others" moral code thing. The points he brought up are actually very common lines of argument regarding moral responsibility in modern ethics - see, for example, some of Peter Singer's more famous arguments regarding our duty to help others.
I'll have to go read Singer then, because I still don't get the point he was trying to make. As far as as can tell, he seems to be trying to strip away the need for religion in her actions. And to that extent he's right; every ethical code can be defined without religious involvement. But that wasn't where I started; I was talking about how she has no problem reconciling science and religion, and was explaining the usefulness of religion to her. I said:
quote:Teresa's framework already has an answer, which is that it is good to help others whenever you can. Doesn't matter whether she was taught that lesson by her father or her Father, it's one you learn when you're learning how to be a person.
She's not looking for answers to the meaning of life or what happens after she dies, she wants to know how to live and raise children and be a good person. Her religion provides that framework.
Could she have received the same teaching in a secular manner? Of course. But the fact remains that she did receive it that way, she does hold those beliefs, and picking apart my words to somehow prove that she doesn't meet her own religious strictures doesn't change that fact or lessen her belief.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I'll have to go read Singer then, because I still don't get the point he was trying to make.
Adding: Mostly I got sidetracked by the amazing suggestion that because someone who professes a moral code to help others does not spend every waking moment and every ounce of personal resources helping others, in a way that few people have ever done, than that someone has utterly failed that religious code and is therefore really only following normal human ethics of doing good when it's really easy and someone will notice. I'm still confused by this.
The concept that it only counts as a religious code if you completely succeed at it right away is new to me. I kinda thought it was an ideal that followers were supposed to try to get closer to.
[ July 31, 2009, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:If you only date scrupulously sane people, you have boring parties.
<3 Chris -- but only in a purely platonic way.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:I'll have to go read Singer then, because I still don't get the point he was trying to make.
Adding: Mostly I got sidetracked by the amazing suggestion that because someone who professes a moral code to help others does not spend every waking moment and every ounce of personal resources helping others, in a way that few people have ever done, than that someone has utterly failed that religious code and is therefore really only following normal human ethics of doing good when it's really easy and someone will notice. I'm still confused by this.
The concept that it only counts as a religious code if you completely succeed at it right away is new to me. I kinda thought it was an ideal that followers were supposed to try to get closer to.
I wasn't really coming at it from a religious angle, just the basic philosophical argument. It's late, so I'll do this quick and dirty, and then point you towards Singer's most famous article (not that I agree entirely with it, but it's very good food for thought).
Suppose you're walking by a pond, on your way to a job interview in your new $500 suit, and you see a toddler fall into the water. It's very clear from his thrashing that he can't swim and will soon drown. Most people would say that you have a duty to jump into the pond and save the small child, even if it means you'll miss your interview and completely ruin your $500 suit.
But back-up a moment - you purchased that suit just last night for this interview. That's $500 you spent on a suit that you could have donated to charity - specifically, to a charity that, with that $500, could certainly save a life of some child in a distant land that would die otherwise (via 100 mosquito nets in Africa, for example). You may not be able to point out the specific child that your $500 would save - but there's virtually no doubt that the $500 is the difference between life and death for at least one child - and possibly quite a few more than that.
Why is it okay to *not* save that unknown - but certainly real - kid in Africa, when you wouldn't say it's okay to not save the toddler in the pond?
This is basically the argument that Singer puts forth, although his has a fair bit more detail in it, of course. You can find his original essay on the topic here Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Thanks for the link Jhai. Minor nitpick: Singer doesn't actually include the jacket in his drowning child scenario*. However, I do remember a similar situation being discussed in the book Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Appiah. Appiah may have been paraphrasing someone else though. Regardless, I think the addition of the jacket (I think it was $5000) makes the scenario more interesting and more difficult than Singer's scenario because it adds the option of letting the child drown and selling the non-ruined jacket to save more children elsewhere. Of course, it would be better to not buy such an expensive jacket in the first place.
* Forgive me if it actually is there but I read the whole essay once and reread the child scenario part and didn't see it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's quite possible that you're right, Threads. There's a lot of variations of this basic argument in the literature (I wrote my senior philosophy thesis on this topic), and I haven't gone back to read Singer's original essay in quite awhile.
Anyways, my point was that the sort of argumentation presented by KoM upthread is very similar to this strand of ethics. And, while I don't ultimately agree with Singer, I think this sort of pushing based on axiomatic principles is a very good reality check on our moral beliefs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
I know you won't agree, but I think most of the axioms which are truly universal are biologically advantageous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Probably very little. Her peace of mind would, I think, be altered, but her actions would likely remain the same. But of what use to her is doing so? You're trying to get me to prove why she shouldn't change her mind, but as she already believes what she believes and has no particular need to defend it, I would think the onus of proof would be on the person trying to effect the change. You're not trying to convince someone who's choosing between two options, you're trying to convince someone who chose one option a long time ago and has been happy with it. You're offering her uncertainty, a loss of contentment and a fear of death as a final end, why would it be worthwhile to her to suddenly agree with you after a lifetime of habit?
Wow, talk about status quo bias. Well, if she genuinely does not care about truth, then fine; there is no common ground for discussion. Should the disagreement ever become sufficiently important, it will have to be settled by machine guns and death camps. I neither jest nor threaten - I think it quite likely that the side of truth and reason would lose such a conflict; rather I make predictions based on what has happened in the past when differences could not be settled by discussion because one side did not care about truth.
quote:Does she simply believe they exist? Do they tell her to set fires, or harm people? Does she follow guidelines set down in a book written by leprechauns? Are those guidelines good ones? I might have to date her just to find out. If you only date scrupulously sane people, you have boring parties.
Bluntly, I don't believe you. Sorry to end the conversation, as presumably it will, but I don't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you asked her, "would you like to believe a hurtful truth, or a soothing lie?", I suspect she would go for the truth. Ought you not to act in accordance with her stated wishes? If she does say she'd prefer the lie, fine; I then wash my hands of her.
You know, I think actually asking someone the question, "Would you rather know a hurtful truth or believe in a soothing lie about that truth?" is a trick question, not least because its answer is going to be a pretty poor response in terms of accuracy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Suppose I rephrase like so: "If your religion were false, would you like to know that, or would you prefer to go on believing a falsehood?" Is it still a trick question?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Wow, talk about status quo bias.
More like simple physics. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. You still have not demonstrated a compelling need for her to change. So why should she, other than to make you happy?
quote:Well, if she genuinely does not care about truth, then fine; there is no common ground for discussion.
She genuinely does not care about what you profess to be the truth. There's a difference. She does not believe that you get to decide what truth is for her.
quote:Should the disagreement ever become sufficiently important, it will have to be settled by machine guns and death camps. I neither jest nor threaten - I think it quite likely that the side of truth and reason would lose such a conflict; rather I make predictions based on what has happened in the past when differences could not be settled by discussion because one side did not care about truth.
I've written several hundred words in response to this, a couple of times now, and I've deleted it each time because I seriously have no idea how to respond to it. How did we get from my wife's beliefs to death camps?
quote:Bluntly, I don't believe you.
Interesting that you would be so unscientific, King of Men.
You could search for my posts on Hatrack to see if I'm generally tolerant of other people, or what I've previously written about religion. Members of this forum have met me in person, talked to me, spent time with me: TomD, Bob Scopatz, Icarus, Kwea. You could easily ask any of them if I'm the sort of person who would date a leprechaun-believer. Or you could ask me more about it to try to come to some sort of understanding as to why.
Instead, you have chosen your own unfounded belief of the truth of my statement, solely based on your own assumptions, without testing or examining that belief.
King of Men, how remarkably religious of you.
Tell me, if my tolerance of leprechaun-believers was true, would you like to know it, or would you prefer to go on believing a falsehood?
[ August 02, 2009, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Bluntly, I don't believe you. Sorry to end the conversation, as presumably it will, but I don't.
...huh? What is it you don't believe? That scrupulously sane people make for uniformly boring people? Or that you have to date someone to figure out whether their religion impacts their lives in any meaningful way? One of those is hyperbole and the other seems pretty true to me. Neither makes much sense as a statement to flat out reject.
[ August 02, 2009, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think realistically there's more of a range, then a defined set of beliefs, that a prospective dating partner would have to have. At least for me that is. And it's not so much about whether the person is an atheist or not, but more generally that someone for whom religion was an important part of their life would necessarily have such a different world view from me, which would probably permeate so much more than their specific religious beliefs that I doubt we'd be a good match. And so realistically I don't think I'd work out with someone unless they were an atheist, agnostic, or possibly non-religious but spiritually inclined. And even that last one is iffy, depending on the nature of their beliefs. Last year I dated a really great woman but who was really into Astrology, much more so than your normal every day astrology. And it was a huge turn off for me that she not only believed all that stuff, but brought it up in conversation regularly to explain all sorts of various aspects of life(how I was turning 29 and that was the year of Saturn, because it has a 29 year orbit and so that meant this coming year would be such and such kind of year, etc...), but I've dated other women whose spirituality didn't conflict with our ability to get along at all.
Again, it's not so much my atheism, but all the things about me, my life, my interests, etc...of which having an atheistic world view is one result. And this has mostly proven itself to be correct in that without specifically seeking out atheists, all of the women I've dated over the last few years have been non-religious. Granted, I come across so few women that ARE religious in general, and there are probably so many other variables involved(types of looks I might be attracted to, whatever conversation(s) sparked my interest, where I'm meeting people, etc...causation and correlation and all that) that it may not be completely fair for me to extrapolate any Strider universal dating truths from all this. And I also fully admit that it's possible I might be blind sided by someone with religious leanings and all my rules and predictions will fly out the window, love is funny like that. But I do think the prospects of this happening are slim. There's a difference between being friendly with and tolerant of people with opposing points of view and world views, and building a life with that person. I have plenty of friends who I disagree with vehemently about many issues...but I don't have sex with them.
It's worth mentioning though, that this will be something that's different for each person based on what they are looking for in a relationship. For me it's important because one of the things I want out of a relationship is to be able to converse with my significant other about science, and evolution and biology and the mind and the brain and religion(from an objective standpoint), about morality and ethics, and the fact is not only will I coexist better with a person who shares my general world view, but that's the kind of person I see myself falling for. I know many guys who when I talk about what I look for in a woman say things along the lines of "that's what guy friends are for, why would I want that in my girlfriend?"...to each their own.
All that being said, I'd totally give the Leprechaun believer a shot. If nothing else I'm sure the conversation would be interesting! And on a more serious note, if I was already interested in someone for whatever reasons, and they happened to be religious, I'd probably at least give a date or two a shot(assuming they were interested back) to further explore my feelings. I assume that someone for whom religion was an important part of their lives would have similar hesitations and weariness surrounding dating an atheist.
Also, Chris, I'm sorry that this has turned into a thread of you defending your wife's beliefs.
[ August 02, 2009, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Also, Chris, I'm sorry that this has turned into a thread of you defending your wife's beliefs.
No worries. I don't think I'm defending her beliefs -- which do not require my defense -- as much as I am defending the concept that not all religious belief needs to be vigorously stomped out.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
Stuff along the lines of "pain is generally bad, happiness is generally good." People may disagree about the implications of that but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the statement itself.
Firstly - you didn't really answer the question. Where did that axiom come from and why is it accepted?
Secondly - I don't think that axiom is neccesarily correct; at a minimum it is incomplete. For one thing, it is extremely common, across many cultures, for people to believe it is moral to take on great personal pain for some abstract greater good.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I almost broke up with my husband when, after a discussion, I thought he was a moral relativist. Turns out, though, that he's just a moral non-congnivist. I think he's wrong, but at least it's a defensible position.
Religion-wise, we have no problems. He's an atheistic Hindu, as am I (after marrying him).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Jhai, that's hysterical. Would you really have left him over the distinction? Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
That was when we had been dating for less than a year, but yes, actually, I would have. More for what it would have implied about his mental ability & attention than for the actual actions resulting from such a belief - it would mean either he couldn't think through the implications of his stance on the subject or didn't consider ethics important enough to think through at all. Or was just dumb.
But I recognize that I was and am a bit of a fanatic about this subject. I mean, I was the captain of my university's Ethics Bowl debate team, and took the team to nationals every year. When I turned 21 I went out drinking with philosophy professors and apparently entertained everyone in the bar on the subject of moral epistemology while completely snockered.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:...huh? What is it you don't believe? That scrupulously sane people make for uniformly boring people? Or that you have to date someone to figure out whether their religion impacts their lives in any meaningful way?
I do not believe that Chris, on meeting a genuine, non-hypothetical leprechaun believer, would actually treat her the same way he treats someone with a socially acceptable wacky belief like weaksauce theism.
quote:She genuinely does not care about what you profess to be the truth. There's a difference. She does not believe that you get to decide what truth is for her.
But that is not what you have been arguing. You've been arguing that there's no reason to change these beliefs, period, because they give her comfort; you made no reference to truth. Now, if we're going to argue over actual evidence, then sure, my mere assertion is not enough; but that's not what we have been discussing. If I understand correctly, you do not yourself share your wife's beliefs. It presumably follows that you think her evidence, whatever it is, is not compelling. Do you disagree that beliefs should only be held on the grounds of evidence?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
KoM, do you read what you've written? The line of mine you just quoted was a direct response to your previous post:
quote:You: Wow, talk about status quo bias. Well, if she genuinely does not care about truth, then fine; there is no common ground for discussion. Should the disagreement ever become sufficiently important, it will have to be settled by machine guns and death camps. I neither jest nor threaten - I think it quite likely that the side of truth and reason would lose such a conflict; rather I make predictions based on what has happened in the past when differences could not be settled by discussion because one side did not care about truth.
Me: She genuinely does not care about what you profess to be the truth. There's a difference. She does not believe that you get to decide what truth is for her.
Italics mine. I made no reference to truth until you did.
I have been arguing that there is not reason sufficient to her to change her beliefs. There are plenty of reasons to change, but none you've presented yet would make such an adjustment to her life worthwhile or even necessary, to her. I have not suggested that there are no reasons, period, and I have used the word "compelling" several times. You kept asking about hurtful truths and comforting lies, but have not presented any reason sufficient for her to set aside what to her is a comforting truth.
Previously I was arguing that her beliefs do not conflict with science (for her) and later that her beliefs are harmless and even beneficial (to her) but the argument keeps jumping around.
quote:If I understand correctly, you do not yourself share your wife's beliefs. It presumably follows that you think her evidence, whatever it is, is not compelling.
True.
quote: Do you disagree that beliefs should only be held on the grounds of evidence?
I think that beliefs should be based on evidence, but I accept that not all of them are. And as long as those beliefs do not affect legislation, cause wars, or persecute nonbelievers, I am not at all concerned with what people around me might personally believe.
quote:I do not believe that Chris, on meeting a genuine, non-hypothetical leprechaun believer, would actually treat her the same way he treats someone with a socially acceptable wacky belief like weaksauce theism.
Again you've established a belief in something you have not tested or examined despite having avenues to do so, a practice you've been consistently arguing against with more than a little scorn. Pot, this is Mr. Kettle...
The only thing I can imagine is that you have a set notion of how an intelligent person would act, and my refusal to conform to that notion must mean that I am, for whatever bizarre reason, lying to you.
Maybe we may need more definition here. How, precisely, would your genuine, non-hypothetical leprechaun believer act? Am I at dinner with a pleasant companion who, when asked, would admit to a belief that leprechauns may have existed in some form before launching into a conversation about Irish mythology? Does she assure me that they do exist, and then leaves it at that? Does she tell me about how she tries to live her life by the code of the leprechauns, which teaches us to love one another and be good? Or is she darting this way and that, drooling and trying to catch one of the little buggers in the corner of her eye so she can nab him with the bread basket?
I suspect that to you, anyone holding a "wacky" belief is potentially a wild-eyed fanatic and that could be the source of our problem here. I would indeed have problems dating a fanatic, whatever their beliefs, even if I shared them. But it would be the fanaticism that would turn me off, not necessarily the belief itself.
To the best of my knowledge, I do not know any people who sincerely believe in the existence of leprechauns. I do know people who believe in ghosts, a fixed future that can be foretold, telekinesis, the healing power of crystals, and more than a few friends of mine may say they don't really believe in fairies or angels but I think they're kidding themselves. I also know people in just about every religious faith and denomination. I tend to react to all of them in response to how much of their faith they choose to foist on me.
Near as I can tell, you're trying to get me to admit that someone with religious beliefs is on a par with an insane person. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that I don't care, and the nature of their belief does not dictate my reaction as much as the outward manifestation of that belief. Everyone is a little crazy, in one direction or another.
[ August 04, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I have been arguing that there is not reason sufficient to her to change her beliefs. There are plenty of reasons to change, but none you've presented yet would make such an adjustment to her life worthwhile or even necessary, to her. I have not suggested that there are no reasons, period, and I have used the word "compelling" several times.
Ok, we appear to have a bit of a disconnect, here. It looks to me as though we agree that beliefs should be based on evidence, and also that your wife's beliefs are not based on evidence. To me, this is a compelling reason to drop them, right there; these beliefs are plain untrue, and should not be held by anyone.
"Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is sabotage; do not do it to anyone unless you would also slash their tires." If I found my wife believing something I thought factually mistaken, I would not consider it loving to just let it pass. Perhaps, after discussing the evidence, I might find that it was I who had been mistaken; but rational agents should not disagree on factual questions.
About leprechauns, the hypothetical believer puts out milk for them every evening, and attributes any lucky event to their influence. I note in passing that this is actually a bit more of a belief, in the strong sense that means something more than just saying "I believe X", than your wife apparently has, since you're not able to identify any particular behaviour that would change if your wife deconverted.
quote:what to her is a comforting truth.
Previously I was arguing that her beliefs do not conflict with science (for her)
There is no "truth for her" or "conflict for her". Either a thing is true or it is not true. When someone has their own truth, we refer to them as 'insane' and put them in asylums, unless of course their "personal truth" happens to be socially acceptable.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
updated the OP with some better descriptions of the videos I've watched so far.
Also, KoM, I think you're a digital guy living in an analog world.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I have to ask, Jhai, why a belief moral relativism would denote a flaw in one's mental ability. I've thought it through at length and I thought it made the most sense. (not being snarky--genuinely curious).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Ok, we appear to have a bit of a disconnect, here. It looks to me as though we agree that beliefs should be based on evidence, and also that your wife's beliefs are not based on evidence. To me, this is a compelling reason to drop them, right there; these beliefs are plain untrue, and should not be held by anyone.
My wife would disagree on whether her beliefs are based on evidence. I would disagree that such beliefs are inherently harmful in all cases, in all degrees.
Plus (and you'll hate this) we don't know her beliefs are "plainly untrue," we only know that we cannot prove or disprove them and that, based on the evidence we have seen, they are highly unlikely. As we cannot prove it true my position is that we cannot base scientific theories, social mores or legislation on any one religious faith. But as we cannot conclusively prove them untrue, it doesn't bother me if people choose to believe in them.
quote:About leprechauns, the hypothetical believer puts out milk for them every evening, and attributes any lucky event to their influence.
Wouldn't bother me until she began insisting that I also believe in them, or started going door to door to spread her belief, or if she started attributing lucky events to the sacrifices she was making to them of local schoolchildren.
quote:[...]if your wife deconverted.
Deconverted? As she was raised with this religious belief I don't think she was ever converted. Indoctrinated, perhaps.
quote:There is no "truth for her" or "conflict for her". Either a thing is true or it is not true. When someone has their own truth, we refer to them as 'insane' and put them in asylums, unless of course their "personal truth" happens to be socially acceptable.
We don't assign anyone to asylums for their beliefs, not until they act on those beliefs in a way that negatively impacts others.
The fundamental difference here, which I keep returning to, is that as long as someone's actions are harmless or beneficial I do not care in the slightest what their beliefs are. Clearly you do not agree, and I don't see the two of us changing our stances any time soon. Or dating the same people.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I think Questionable Content (written by an atheist, as it happens) covered this nicely.
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I have to ask, Jhai, why a belief moral relativism would denote a flaw in one's mental ability. I've thought it through at length and I thought it made the most sense. (not being snarky--genuinely curious).
My most charitable response to you is that you probably think of the term differently than I do (not being snarky here either).
Moral relativism in the strict philosophical sense means that you deny that there are any objective moral truths, but believe that there are moral truths for particular individuals or cultures. This leads to all sorts of lovely end results, such as the fact that baby-torture just for fun could be perfectly morally right and correct for some people or some cultures, even if it's not okay for you. And that's leaving aside entirely the rather squishy borders of what constitutes a culture, and how something can be true for one culture and false for another (and what if you belong to multiple cultures).
I don't want to argue much about this subject here on Hatrack - any more than I feel the need to debate with the non-atheists among us -, but, in case you haven't run across it, here's a good article presenting the various arguments regarding moral relativism.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Also, KoM, I think you're a digital guy living in an analog world.
Heh. I like that.
KoM, expanding a bit on that, though, perhaps it would help to consider that most people are not so analytical as you (and me and probably many others on this forum) and instead run on a more purpose-driven interpretation of the world they live in. The goal here is "the good life" or something similar, and acquiring truth is only one method used in achieving that goal. From this perspective, concepts like "true for me" make perfect sense, and really, there is no logical - and more importantly practical - reason to change beliefs that are working out just fine for them, no matter how wrong they may be objectively.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Now we're back to the question of whether truth matters. Most people, I think, would at least profess that they would rather know truth than believe a lie. I'm inclined to take them at their word; if the one says, "I wish to be a better person", who am I to contradict them? Now, if someone is willing to stand up in public and say "I would rather believe a comfortable lie", then fine, we have no common ground and will eventually have to settle our differences by violence. But I don't think there can be many such confessions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But as you cannot disprove their belief, you cannot have said to have proven them believing in a lie.
quote:...and will eventually have to settle our differences by violence.
Why? Why, why, why? Why is that the only option?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If the one disagrees with the other, and further says "I do not care about your evidence, I will believe this no matter what"; and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other; what method do you suggest other than violence?
quote:But as you cannot disprove their belief, you cannot have said to have proven them believing in a lie.
What is with theists and 'proof'? If there is no good evidence for something, that's a sufficient condition to consider it false, right there. The probability that (some complicated X) is true, and (there is no evidence for X), is on the same order as scrambled eggs spontaneously reconstituting themselves and hatching into a chicken. This is the standard of 'proof' that is applied anywhere except religion, and it's a damn good one. "You have no evidence" is proof that the belief is false, as the word is usually used in English; the only reason to demand proof in the sense used in logic and mathematics is emotional attachment to the belief.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other
Why must it be settled one way or another? Even if you insist on a fairly stringent interpretation of "must", plenty of theists are okay with entirely the same public agenda as atheists. What about the disagreement between the groups "must" be settled, and why? What bad thing will happen if it is not settled?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'll pout. You don't want to see me pout, do you?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If I have no good evidence for something, and I have no clear evidence against it, I consider it unknown, not false.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So... it's unknown whether there's a teapot in orbit around Mars.
It's unknown whether there's a civilisation under the surface of the Sun.
It's unknown whether leprechauns exist.
That is silly; and what's more, there is clear evidence against all revealed religions, in the shape of all the other dang revelations that contradict them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yes, all of those are completely accurate.
Granted, I don't base any hypotheses on such speculations, and I admit the odds of any of them being true is likely vanishingly small. For all intents and purposes, I would live my life as if they were untrue. (Actually I wouldn't spend much time thinking about them one way or another until a Sun-Man tried to steal my car or something)
But I fail to see the use in leaping to declare their absolute falsehood. And I can see harm in deciding to declare something false when that assumption may blind you to contrary evidence if does show up (note the length of time it took for bullheaded scientists to accept the notion of meteorites, for example).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What Chris is saying, KoM, is that he does not see the harm in his wife's belief that there is a teapot in orbit around one of the outer planets. It doesn't actually affect her behavior in any way that he can perceive.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Now we're back to the question of whether truth matters.
No, of course it matters. The distinguishing question isn't if but why and to what extent. Generally speaking, yes, I think most people would rather know (believe?) a truth than a lie, but that only becomes an issue pragmatically worth acting on when a false belief significantly contradicts their worldview. A simple belief in a higher power, on its own and especially if internally justified, will never have that problem. Dogmatic beliefs most certainly have that potential, but this is not an issue with Chris' wife as he has described her.
edit: or what Tom said.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If the one disagrees with the other, and further says "I do not care about your evidence, I will believe this no matter what"; and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other; what method do you suggest other than violence?
Democracy. Compromise. Respecfulness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But I fail to see the use in leaping to declare their absolute falsehood.
There is a difference between "This statement is absolutely false, now and forever, amen" and "This statement is, to the best of our knowledge, not true". (Speaking of digital people and analog worlds...) I nonetheless think that people should not believe in statements of the second kind, and I think most people who want to believe in true things would agree. If one is 99.9% certain that X is not true, then one ought to take the consequence of that and treat it as false, which includes trying to convince others of its falsehood.
Another point which I brought up before: What does it mean "to believe"? You are apparently unable to identify any overt action of your wife's that depends on her faith. Presumably words are excepted from this; I assume she would not say "I believe in God" unless she did in fact do so. But words apart, just what does 'belief' mean in this case? And if it means nothing, ought you not to point this out to her? Probably she does not desire to have 'beliefs' which are only empty words; few people do.
And this brings me to another point: To believe without action or anticipation of experience is a manifestation of the Dark Side, and an excellent way to destroy one's mind. To believe that "believing in X is good for me" is to turn your mind into an Escher drawing; it is quite literal doublethink. There is no belief in X there, only a belief about beliefs, and how can you have any conviction on such grounds? Suppose I did a study and found that theists are happier than atheists; ought I on these grounds to convert? And how could I do so? I would have to ignore the actual reason for my wanting to convert, forget about it, and then look for reasons to convert - make up the evidence, essentially - all the while studiously not thinking about why I was trying to find evidence! No doubt this is possible, people are capable of some amazing gymnastics, but you cannot tell me that this would be good for my brain.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If the one disagrees with the other, and further says "I do not care about your evidence, I will believe this no matter what"; and if the disagreement is of sufficient importance that it must be settled one way or the other; what method do you suggest other than violence?
Democracy. Compromise. Respectfulness.
Democracy is violence by proxy, in which the armies agree that the superior numbers will be treated as the victor, within certain limits on what terms can be extracted. How would you like to compromise between the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"? Perhaps we can agree that it exists only on alternate days? We could bring democracy into it too, by voting on the proposed solution! As for respect, I have none for those who won't settle disagreements by appeal to evidence, nor will I pretend to any.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Democracy. Compromise. Respecfulness.
Make sure you let us know when Israel and Palestine have gotten done with their respectful compromise about which people's God has right to the land.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
do really think that if it were proven to the all the Isreali and Palestinian people that god did not exist that the suddenly the middle east conflict would end?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, the assertion is not that people with differing beliefs about religion can always come to a compromise existence, but that in many cases they can. For instance, the huge numbers of religious people who have gotten along quite well without violence in large numbers of societies for quite some time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That does not appear to have anything to do with the possibility of compromise. Nonetheless, consider that Lisa, who has called for literal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, has indeed indicated that she would give up the struggle if she were convinced that her god did not exist.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
(Edited because me daughter hit the post button before I was done. Maybe I'll should do this after she goes to bed.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... For instance, the huge numbers of religious people who have gotten along quite well without violence in large numbers of societies for quite some time.
Seems like a short time to me. I'm thinking "too soon to tell"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I nonetheless think that people should not believe in statements of the second kind, and I think most people who want to believe in true things would agree.
And yet so many of the people in the world defy this.
quote:But words apart, just what does 'belief' mean in this case? And if it means nothing, ought you not to point this out to her?
Belief in this case means she has accepted a course of action, a guideline for living, and a hope for the future. We have indeed discussed religion, she is aware that I do not believe in it, and there we stay. I flatly refuse to harangue her about it, especially since I don't care.
quote:How would you like to compromise between the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"?
Why do we have to? Instead we compromise on how much influence such beliefs have on people who do not share them. It does not affront me that people believe irrational things.
quote:As for respect, I have none for those who won't settle disagreements by appeal to evidence, nor will I pretend to any.
Fair enough. I have no respect for those who assume that violence is the only way to settle a disagreement.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There have been peaceful multireligious societies for well over two thousand years. What would be a long time for you?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ummm, no there haven't. I can't think of one that I would classify as peaceful beyond two hundred years or so (maybe three hundred at a stretch).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It appears that you are all ignoring the second clause of my if statement: Violence occurs when the parties are unwilling to compromise. To then say "But we can find a compromise!" is a bit orthogonal. In addition to this, note that nowhere have I stated that I am willing to compromise on this subject. Truth is truth; you either believe it or not; had I the power, I would compel belief. On this point I'm as inflexible as Lisa, although the specific statements we consider true are obviously very different.
quote:And yet so many of the people in the world defy this.
Many people also believe that theft is wrong, and nonetheless steal. Shall we take them at their words, or at their actions?
quote:Belief in this case means she has accepted a course of action, a guideline for living, and a hope for the future.
Words, just words, signifying nothing. What specifically does she do, or not do, in consequence of her belief?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM; Compromising on getting along is not the same as compromising on truth. Clearly you are willing to compromise on getting along, as you aren't killing theists.
Mucus: to take the odd example, many people in Republican and Imperial Rome (and later Byzantium) had conflicting religious beliefs, yet engaged in hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence (of course, not everyone there did, but again, this is not saying everyone will, just that many will. Certainly many (multireligious) parts of the empire were as peaceful as most of the world is today.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ummm, no there haven't. I can't think of one that I would classify as peaceful beyond two hundred years or so (maybe three hundred at a stretch).
Can you come up with a secular society that has been peaceful for a comparable period of time? Atheistic societies don't have a track record for peace either.
If you think a eventual expulsion of religion will also excise violent behavior in human beings, I think you will be disappointed. If you think religion has got to go in order to eventually extinguish violence again I think you will be disappointed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Clearly you are willing to compromise on getting along, as you aren't killing theists.
Purely tactical considerations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Clearly you are willing to compromise on getting along, as you aren't killing theists.
Purely tactical considerations.
I hope you are being sarcastic, or at the very least sardonic. I don't think that point of view can approach even the flimsiest of moral defense.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Since your moral reasoning proceeds from false axioms, I'm happy to ignore it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So, if we thread together all your replies, we find that you would like to kill religious people, apparently because them being alive makes you pout (since you gave no other reason to support the premises of your argument as to why violence was a necessary consequence), but are refraining not because it might be immoral to do so or anything of the sort, but purely because of tactical reasons?
Oh, and I forgot that your pouting is also the reason you feel everyone else should kill theists, too, apparently.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I may be guilty of a slight overstatement there. It's not theists, as such, I would be sending to the biodiesel vats, but the ones who do not consider evidence paramount in forming beliefs. Lisa and BlackBlade would survive my purges; Chris and kmb would not. The former two are only guilty of evaluating evidence wrongly; a mistake, but not a killing matter. The latter have turned to the Dark Side. It seems possible that you will consider this outcome ironic; please feel free.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Since your moral reasoning proceeds from false axioms, I'm happy to ignore it.
Whereas you're still struggling to demonstrate why (being generous to your way of seeing things) believing in teapots around Saturn requires a violent response.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
KoM, you don't do yourself any favors by acting like a twelve-year-old.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
KoM define evidence for me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Since your moral reasoning proceeds from false axioms, I'm happy to ignore it.
Whereas you're still struggling to demonstrate why (being generous to your way of seeing things) believing in teapots around Saturn requires a violent response.
Probably our posts crossed, but I'll reiterate: Believing in teapots on Mars is one thing. I'm prepared to put up with that, although my ideal society would perhaps not have laws against signs proclaiming "No dogs or theists allowed". But believing that the teapot on Mars can be proclaimed without reference to evidence for or against, on the grounds perhaps that such beliefs make you feel better - that is the Dark Side, and I won't have it. That is a statement that one's mind is so open the brain has fallen out, and brainless people are very dangerous. (Just watch Night of the Living Dead if you don't believe this.) You might as well keep a chimpanzee in your living room, as trust a non-evidentialist with modern machinery.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: OK I somewhat see where you are coming from, but sometimes there are considerations for not knowing the truth. My best friend's father died just a few years ago, and he was extremely close to him. A few weeks later I inadvertently found out some less than positive but reliable information from a source about his father that I did not think he knew. It was not anything of direct import, like say my friend had a half brother somewhere or that his father was a baby eater, but it was definitely something I thought he might want to know. I hated the idea of knowing what I did while he continued in ignorance.
Finally one day I asked him, "In regards to your father, if I knew something that might alter the way you remember him in a negative way, would you want to know it, or would you rather just remember him the way you do as he is dead and gone now. He told me he'd rather not know, I know many people who feel that way.
I am hard pressed to think that he was an idiot for feeling that way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So not only did you tell him that his father had done something bad, you did so in such a way that he can't even get any closure on the point? (I remind you that "the most important part of a secret, is that the secret exists". He must certainly realise that you would not have asked him such a question unless you knew something unpleasant.) But that aside, I do think he was wrong to speak as he did. 'Idiot' is not the right word, this being a moral question rather than one of intelligence; rather I would say he was weak. He did not live up to the correct moral code. Perhaps a theist would say that he sinned.
Edit to add: And even then he did not fall completely into the Dark Side. He failed on this single test, and sinned; but he did not assert that his sin was virtue; he did not claim that to ignore evidence is acceptable in certain areas. If I can borrow Mormon theology for a moment, it is the difference between a single act of homosexual intercourse, and asserting that such intercourse is not sinful.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I was going to respond to a post above, but by this point I don't see much point, especially since I'll no doubt be purged soon.
I've expressed already in this thread, several times, that one's belief bothers me far less than one's fanaticism about that belief, and King of Men has demonstrated an interest in becoming far more of a dangerous fanatic than any hypothetical leprechaun believer. So I'm not really sure where to go from this point, other than to edge away warily.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Can you come up with a secular society that has been peaceful for a comparable period of time? Atheistic societies don't have a track record for peace either.
Too soon to tell
You do remember where thats from right?
But seriously, I don't think we've even had "secular societies" by my definition for more than a hundred years tops and no real atheistic ones either. However, I do *suspect* that secular societies have been a good force for reducing violence. But I don't really *know* if this is really the case or if we're just holding our breath and helping prepare for the next big real blood-letting when Bush III is elected and nukes Iran or some damn thing.
Maybe history will record this as just the time when Muslims and Christians were just taking advantage of a brief respite to jocky for position when the real war starts, who knows?
And hence, its too soon to tell.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:Too soon to tell
You do remember where that's from right?
That was a pretty good place to channel Premiere Zhou 周恩來.
To you, what would a secular society look like at a basic level? Are 1950's China and Post-revolution France poor examples of atheistic societies? Or were they merely potentially good, but hastily executed?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
They are both good examples of secular governments, but as societies I don't think you could call them secular.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... Mucus: to take the odd example, many people in Republican and Imperial Rome (and later Byzantium) had conflicting religious beliefs, yet engaged in hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence (of course, not everyone there did, but again, this is not saying everyone will, just that many will. Certainly many (multireligious) parts of the empire were as peaceful as most of the world is today.
Its a valid point.
The polytheistic, pagan, and Imperial cult bits do remind me of dynastic China (which also had long spells of peace), so it may be an interesting point. Perhaps paganism and polytheism are a step above the certainty of monotheism. *shrug*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Are 1950's China and Post-revolution France poor examples of atheistic societies? Or were they merely potentially good, but hastily executed?
I'm less familiar with post-revolution France. But at least on 1950's China we may have differing definitions of atheist. For me, an atheist society doesn't simply mean that you remove the Christian god. It means you remove all gods.
In a very real way, Mao simply wanted to update the imperial cult and put himself up as a god, so thats a no go.
Here's an example of a very basic test to see whether you're in an atheistic society. You should be able to "desecrate" a cracker, a Koran, and Bible, or even the God Delusion without danger. link
In Mao's China, you could get killed for innocently using newspapers with Mao's image to cover your walls the wrong way. Instead, you had to ask for forgiveness in front of pictures of the guy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Are 1950's China and Post-revolution France poor examples of atheistic societies? Or were they merely potentially good, but hastily executed?
I'm less familiar with post-revolution France. But at least on 1950's China we may have differing definitions of atheist. For me, an atheist society doesn't simply mean that you remove the Christian god. It means you remove all gods.
In a very real way, Mao simply wanted to update the imperial cult and put himself up as a god, so thats a no go.
Here's an example of a very basic test to see whether you're in an atheistic society. You should be able to "desecrate" a cracker, a Koran, and Bible, or even the God Delusion without danger. link
In Mao's China, you could get killed for innocently using newspapers with Mao's image to cover your walls the wrong way. Instead, you had to ask for forgiveness in front of pictures of the guy.
I think that's a good reason for writing off China, your example of Mao in the newspapers is known to me, I just didn't think about it.
I'm not terribly knowledgeable of the subject but post-revolution France was not quite the same thing as China in that I don't believe there was a Mao figure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In the sense of a revolutionary charismatic leader, no. Nonetheless, I do not believe you would have been well advised to, let us say, burn the restored Bourbon king in effigy. I also do not think - laite or none - that a clever person would burn a Bible and then brag about it in public, or throw a consecrated wafer in his privy.
Edit: And in any case, France from 1815 was hardly very aggressive, as Great Power aggression goes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How would you like to compromise between the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"?
Freedom of religion. That one's actually pretty easy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But I have already specified that I am not willing to accept that compromise; you are solving a quite different problem, which I did not ask about. I demand freedom from religion, and I'm willing to kill to get it.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
King of Men, you are one scary dude.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: King of Men, you are one scary dude.
QFT
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I see I'm contradicting myself slightly here; let me clarify. What I outlined to BlackBlade is my actual position. What I said to Tres is a hypothetical, intended to demonstrate the circumstances in which his compromise will not work. I don't in fact demand freedom from religion, although that would certainly be very nice; but I do demand freedom from non-evidentialism.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To be perfectly frank, by this point I don't care at all what you demand. I'm more concerned with the "willing to kill to get it" part.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I see I'm contradicting myself slightly here; let me clarify. What I outlined to BlackBlade is my actual position. What I said to Tres is a hypothetical, intended to demonstrate the circumstances in which his compromise will not work. I don't in fact demand freedom from religion, although that would certainly be very nice; but I do demand freedom from non-evidentialism.
Obviously compromise will not work if one side is unwilling to compromise. But there is nothing unique abour religion in that regard; that's true for any possible dispute. If you want chocolate ice cream and I don't want you to have it, and you are so unwilling to compromise that you're willing to kill, then compromise on the ice cream issue will probably not happen.
Fortunately, most people are willing to compromise on most issues - even on religious issues. Historically, peace by compromise has been far more common than peace created by one side presenting evidence to the other side and the other side saying "Oh, now that we see your evidence we drop our dispute."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Fortunately, most people are willing to compromise on most issues - even on religious issues. Historically, peace by compromise has been far more common than peace created by one side presenting evidence to the other side and the other side saying "Oh, now that we see your evidence we drop our dispute."
I do not think that is true, actually. There are three kinds of peace: Compromises, eg freedom of religion; conquests, eg the creation of Israel - although this is not yet complete, obviously; and evidence, which occurs mainly in science. There have been a really large number of issues in science settled by evidence, from the existence of meteorites to continental drift. For every agreed fact now taught in our schools, there was once a contrary opinion - or five - which their holders eventually gave up in the face of the evidence. I think you'll find that, counting science, this is much the most common way of settling disputes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Counting individual human disputes, compromise wins out easily. In the majority of day-to-day disputes between people - family members, friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc - I submit it is more common for the parties involved to compromise on a livable solution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, the number of scientists, and the number of things settled by facts (which is rather smaller than most of the things scientists study, which are usually just "likely true"), is tiny in comparison to the number of times people have compromised about things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, that's a reasonable point; but if someone is willing to kill over which side of the toilet paper the end shall hang on, then even I am not going to call that "courage of his convictions". That's plain crazy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's something very amusing about that sentiment coming from you.
And anyways, it is easy to come up with a huge list of things arguably far more serious that people compromise on routinely. For instance, which parent gets custody of children in a divorce.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ok, that's a reasonable point; but if someone is willing to kill over which side of the toilet paper the end shall hang on, then even I am not going to call that "courage of his convictions". That's plain crazy.
No more crazy than killing someone over which scientific theory is true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And anyways, it is easy to come up with a huge list of things arguably far more serious that people compromise on routinely. For instance, which parent gets custody of children in a divorce.
A conflict which is routinely resolved by court orders, backed ultimately by all the power of the state, seems to me rather a bad example of resolution by compromise.
However, I think this is a bit of a digression; presumably small conflicts are more common than large conflicts, and also more likely to be solved by compromise; this does not invalidate the existence of large conflicts. I suspect everyone here would be willing to kill for their freedom to criticise the government, for example. That you rarely get a chance to fight in such a conflict is good luck.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I suspect everyone here would be willing to kill for their freedom to criticise the government, for example.
Kill, no. Die, maybe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, it appears that you are very well suited to life - short but merry! - in a repressive dictatorship. What the government wants to do and what you are willing to do match up perfectly!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Could just leave.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
KoM, you are again falsely assuming we live in a black and white world. Where things either go the way they do in your mind, or not at all. Where killing is the only way to enact change and solve disputes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Some things genuinely are black and white.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Let's try this. I go and have a lovely dinner with a leprechaun-believer, and I enjoy it. Please explain to me, step by step, without offering more questions in return, how this inevitably leads to me being killed. Make me understand.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not think I have made that claim. Is this another one of those things that's ok to believe without evidence if it makes you happy?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Most people, I think, would at least profess that they would rather know truth than believe a lie. I'm inclined to take them at their word; if the one says, "I wish to be a better person", who am I to contradict them? Now, if someone is willing to stand up in public and say "I would rather believe a comfortable lie", then fine, we have no common ground and will eventually have to settle our differences by violence.
And, quoted in full:
quote:Actually, I may be guilty of a slight overstatement there. It's not theists, as such, I would be sending to the biodiesel vats, but the ones who do not consider evidence paramount in forming beliefs. Lisa and BlackBlade would survive my purges; Chris and kmb would not. The former two are only guilty of evaluating evidence wrongly; a mistake, but not a killing matter. The latter have turned to the Dark Side. It seems possible that you will consider this outcome ironic; please feel free.
Italics mine. My wife would, by your definitions, rather believe a comfortable lie, as you have exhaustively determined. I have no problem with her continuing to hold this belief. According to you, we therefore have no common ground with you. According to you, I have turned to the "Dark Side," which apparently is a killing matter. According to you, in your own words, sir, we will eventually have to settle our differences by violence. Not "we may have to" or "if you force such belief on me we will" or any other qualified statement, but "we will." According to you, in your own words, sir, I would not survive your purge.
Explain to me, step by step, how this inevitable progression goes. Explain to me why, even though I bear no threat to you, will likely never meet you in person or impact your life in any meaningful way, it will become necessary to confront me with violence.
[ August 06, 2009, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I see. Well, there isn't anything complicated about it: You have expressed opinions which I find intolerable, and which make you rather more dangerous than the average nuclear bomb. For my own safety, I feel obliged to get you first. No steps, as such; hence my confusion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Explain to me why, even though I bear no threat to you, will likely never meet you in person or impact your life in any meaningful way, it will become necessary to confront me with violence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And anyways, it is easy to come up with a huge list of things arguably far more serious that people compromise on routinely. For instance, which parent gets custody of children in a divorce.
A conflict which is routinely resolved by court orders, backed ultimately by all the power of the state, seems to me rather a bad example of resolution by compromise.
I think you've been watching too much Court TV. Statistically, in my state at least, something like 75% of all custody disagreements are completely resolved via (obligatory) mediation. That's right, compromise!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I disagree with this part of your statement:
quote:I bear no threat to you
Humans are dangerous to other animals out of all proportion to our size, because we are intelligent. But we are dangerous to each other mainly when we cripple our intelligence by tolerating muddy thinking. To state that beliefs of fact may be held without evidence, is to say that you deliberately turn off your mind on certain subjects; historically, those who do this are extremely dangerous to the ones who don't. What would you say of a man who had decided to believe in global warming regardless of the evidence? (Note that the question has nothing to do with the actual, real-world threat of global warming.) I do not think you would like him to vote on a carbon-tax scheme. And before you protest that it is the voting and not the non-evidentiary belief you object to, just how are you going to distinguish the two? On the other side of the political spectrum, what of a man who has decided that gay marriage is harmful, evidence be damned? How will you stop him from acting on his belief, short of violence? Here is real harm to real people, founded on nothing more than someone's ick-factor at thinking of teh buttsechs. That your wife's religion does not contain this particular belief is no excuse; can you claim that she does not act in accordance with its non-evidentiary claims of fact?
Will you promise me never to vote on any subject that can possibly be influenced by beliefs of fact? I don't think you can. We all affect each other, like it or not. To act on beliefs not as accurate as we can make them is the height of anti-socialness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And anyways, it is easy to come up with a huge list of things arguably far more serious that people compromise on routinely. For instance, which parent gets custody of children in a divorce.
A conflict which is routinely resolved by court orders, backed ultimately by all the power of the state, seems to me rather a bad example of resolution by compromise.
I think you've been watching too much Court TV. Statistically, in my state at least, something like 75% of all custody disagreements are completely resolved via (obligatory) mediation. That's right, compromise!
Right... compromise by obligatory mediation; in other words, enforced from outside. This does not look like voluntary agreement to me, it's more like negotiations between states ending in a treaty that reflects the real balance of military power, modulo the skill of the negotiators.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
First of all, that would still be a compromise. Second of all, as someone who has actually been through the process, I can conclusively state that you are completely wrong on how it works. I was actually pleasantly surprised and very impressed with how skilled they were at finding points of agreements and building on them.
Also, the mediation is obligatory. Progress is not. (Hence the 25%)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right, that's when the negotiations break down and the armies, or in this case the lawyers, have to find out what the real balance of power is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But in your model, that would happen 100% of the time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is a difference of degree, but not of kind, between actual fights and negotiations backed by threats; they both depend on the weapons available, and neither belongs to the same category as making small concessions out of actual goodwill, or because the issue is not important. Perhaps I should have added a fourth kind of peace: Negotiated truces reflecting an armed balance of power.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I still reject your description of custody mediation, regardless of how many times you restate it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely, numerous negotiations don't involve threats. Furthermore, you have specifically asserted people will be killed, which is not just a "difference of degree" even with negotiations backed by threats.
edit: actually, I should be more specific. You have asserted repeatedly that there will be violent warfare, not just the occasional killing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think this is true; can you give an example?
quote:Furthermore, you have specifically asserted people will be killed, which is not just a "difference of degree" even with negotiations backed by threats.
Ok, the threats do not have to be threats of violence, that's true. But this seems to stray rather far from the original issue, which is what happens when one side is unwilling to compromise at all. The number of conflicts resolved other than by violence is not terribly relevant to that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But this seems to stray rather far from the original issue, which is what happens when one side is unwilling to compromise at all.
Which side is unwilling to compromise, again?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But we are dangerous to each other mainly when we cripple our intelligence by tolerating muddy thinking.
King of Men, when your muddy thinking is pointed out to you, how do you react? Do you say "Thank you for pointing out how muddy my thinking was - now I am going to think differently"? No, that's not how you react. Instead, you normally try to defend your thinking, and convince yourself that there was nothing muddy about your thinking at all.
There lies the problems with "not tolerating" muddy thinking. Firstly, ALL of us (including you) commit muddy thinking on a frequent basis, and on any given topic there is no absolute way to determine which person is thinking wrongly. Secondly, the person committing muddy thinking rarely can recognize and rarely is willing to admit to thinking wrongly. And thirdly, even when they do recognize they are thinking wrongly, it is often difficult for them to alter the way they think. Thus, the problem is not that we "tolerate" muddy thinking. The real problem is that muddy thinking is in our nature, whether it is tolerated or not. Being intolerant of it will not make it go away.
There is no simple piece of evidence that Chris could show his wife that would suddenly change her thinking. Presumably, she has seen essentially all the evidence he has. She simply comes to a different conclusion, and thinks her conclusion is more accurate than his. He could become "intolerant" of her "muddy thinking", but she could just as easily become intolerant of HIS "muddy thinking".
On that note, the fact remains that people see all the same evidence regarding religion that you do, King of Men. Most look at it all and come to an opposite conclusion than you do. Most see the lines of thinking that you use as muddy thinking. They point out all of their religious texts, experiences, and other evidence of religion and expect you do see why their religion is true. Then, when you don't accept their evidence, they think you are just being stubborn - that you can't accept the truth. You seem to be arguing that they should consider you a threat and should not tolerate your atheism. I think it is clear that if all sides act in that manner, the most popular and most powerful would win out, not necessarily the most truthful. Your position on religion would not win out if everyone stopped tolerating the thinking of anyone they disagreed with.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But this seems to stray rather far from the original issue, which is what happens when one side is unwilling to compromise at all.
Which side is unwilling to compromise, again?
This one. (Points to self.) What of it?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:What of it
All of the problems you point to come specifically because of people who refuse to compromise, not people who think or believe certain things. People who are unwilling to compromise cause problems regardless of how well thought their position is.
I largely agree with Tres' last post. The way you approach people does more harm than good to atheism (and probably rationality) as a whole. Richard Dawkins (who I assume you're trying to emulate) can accomplish something with it because he's a famous ringleader who helps draw atheists out of the woodwork and make them feel part of a community, and even when he is being confrontational with theists he's more clever about it.
I think I saw a TED talk recently talking about how high school math is currently slated towards preparing people for calculus, which is something most people don't use, when it should be preparing them for statistics, which is something everyone can benefit from. I think most of the muddy thinking that results in people thinking their religious has logical/empirical support is because they don't understand probability and the human tendency to find patterns where there is none.
Requiring high school classes that encourage critical thinking and applying statistics would probably do a lot to improve the human race (and also happen to increase the ratio of atheists, but I'd consider that more of a side effect than an end goal). Yelling at people that their beliefs are wrong only makes them more stubborn no matter how wrong they might be.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:King of Men, when your muddy thinking is pointed out to you, how do you react? Do you say "Thank you for pointing out how muddy my thinking was - now I am going to think differently"? No, that's not how you react. Instead, you normally try to defend your thinking, and convince yourself that there was nothing muddy about your thinking at all.
That'll teach me to use pithy phrases. You appear to think that by "muddy thinking" I wanted to indicate "bad reasoning from the evidence, reaching a wrong conclusion". That's a bad thing, but not a mortal sin; we are all fallible (except me, obviously), and would have a small population indeed if we were shot for making mistakes. No, the muddy thinking I will not tolerate is the belief that evidence is not necessary. I trust I have never made any such assertion, nor do most theists. Only the ones who are clever enough to notice that hey, they don't actually have any evidence, but they still want to believe. This is a pretty small subset of theists "in the wild", as it were, but much larger among the educated and well-read, hence it looks rather bigger here on Hatrack - maybe ten or twenty percent of our theists are of this class. And one of our atheists, apparently, which I admit I find very disappointing, but does demonstrate that even muddy thinkers are capable of reaching the right conclusion - the two traits are, if not orthogonal, at least not perfectly parallel.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No, the muddy thinking I will not tolerate is the belief that evidence is not necessary.
Not necessary for what? If Chris' wife believed she were being told by God to jump off a bridge, she'd probably look for more evidence; I'm confident Chris would insist on it, too, if she shared her plans.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Requiring high school classes that encourage critical thinking and applying statistics would probably do a lot to improve the human race
agreed. I always thought high schools should have required courses in statistics, logic, finance, ethics, and comparative religion. Those few courses in my mind would have a more positive affect on people's lives than most things that are learned in all 4 years of high school. And better prepare them for life. While much of the specific knowledge we learn is important, of supreme importance is the ability to think critically and rationally that is severely lacking from our education system.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not necessary for belief. And in fact, I think you are mistaken about your hypothetical; it seems to me that people who believe their gods speak to them are rarely inclined to look for separate evidence. That's why we call them 'insane' and lock them up so they won't hurt themselves or others.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, in overwhelming numbers, we don't. We lock those up who have demonstrated danger to themselves or others.
Actions, not opinions, not methods of thought. Actions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I always thought high schools should have required courses in statistics, logic, finance, ethics, and comparative religion.
Very much agreed. Also first aid.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yes, with you on that one too.
I also think classes in general should focus on more project oriented work. I think it's a more efficient way of learning material than memorization. And helps teach kids about applying theory to practice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, the muddy thinking I will not tolerate is the belief that evidence is not necessary.
I can't speak for all religions, but I can tell you that the following is said every single service at my church following silent prayer:
"Hear the good news: Christ died for us while we were yet sinners; that proves God’s love toward us."
Evidence is important to Christianity - that is, in many respects, what Christ's story is. Your disagreement does not stem from any reality that evidence is unimportant in religion. Instead, the disagreement stems from the fact that you throw out most of the evidence in the world, and don't count it as evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Did you read the sentence just after the one you quoted?
quote:I trust I have never made any such assertion, nor do most theists.
The question of how reliable the Gospels are as evidence is entirely separate from whether evidence is needed in the first place.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Will you promise me never to vote on any subject that can possibly be influenced by beliefs of fact? I don't think you can. We all affect each other, like it or not. To act on beliefs not as accurate as we can make them is the height of anti-socialness.
But apparently it's not my belief that warrants my death. As you said,
quote:It's not theists, as such, I would be sending to the biodiesel vats, but the ones who do not consider evidence paramount in forming beliefs. Lisa and BlackBlade would survive my purges; Chris and kmb would not. The former two are only guilty of evaluating evidence wrongly; a mistake, but not a killing matter. The latter have turned to the Dark Side.
Since Lisa and Blackblade, and presumably other theists, would vote according to their beliefs they should be just as dangerous to you.
Instead you have singled me out for the unforgivable crime of not thinking the way you want me to think. Doesn't matter, apparently, what decisions I make because the way I arrive at them, which you are assuming to be evidence-free in all things, since obviously people think exactly the same way about every single aspect of everything they encounter. Doesn't matter how scientifically rigorous I would be in every other field as long as I refused to rule out an unprovable fact that I believe has no bearing on my day-to-day life. No, it is my open-mindedness on facts that cannot be proven or disproved that is so abhorrent to you that you would be pleased to see me gone.
So, basically, you're hoping for an incredibly repressive government with the habits of a spoiled child. You can't convince me to think as you do, so I can't be allowed to think at all. Much easier to force me to think correctly, send me to the death camps you've mentioned twice, wish me out of existence then learn to get along with me.
You mentioned earlier the fight for freedom of speech, but you would deny me and others the freedom of thought. If you really want to know the courage of my convictions, I assure you I will fight for that one.
[ August 07, 2009, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You mentioned earlier the fight for freedom of speech, but you would deny me and others the freedom of thought. If you really want to know the courage of my convictions, I assure you I will fight for that one.
That is, indeed, what I have been saying all along: This difference will eventually be settled by violence. All your outrage is wasted on me, because I already feel its exact mirror image: How dare you hold this disgusting, immoral, relativistic belief? There is no compromise between my position and yours that does not involve one of us giving up cherished moral positions. Perhaps you'd like to consider thinking my way instead? No? Well, no more does your 'freedom of thought' argument move me.
At the moment, your position is the socially tolerated one, and I am therefore the aggressor, the one who has to initiate violence to get his way, and consequently is restrained by tactical considerations. I acknowledge this asymmetry between our positions, but no other, unless of course you count my position being right and yours wrong. If society had instead been built to my specifications, you would be the one considering violence to overthrow the current order, although admittedly you would be unwise to do so out loud on an Internet forum that the Mental Hygiene Police might read.
It may occur to someone to ask me, in the spirit of my challenge "what does it mean to believe" above, what positive actions I have taken towards this goal I espouse. I admit I would find this rather an embarrassing question. Perhaps I'm only a loudmouthed - loud-keyboarded? - sub-pontifical lifeform after all, only attached to the evidential way of thinking because it allows me to make outrageous statements. Or perhaps that's what I want you to think? But then, if I were serious about armed insurrection, I would certainly be rather stupid to even mention it in passing in public; while the US doesn't have a Mental Hygiene Police, it does have a Homeland Security department which likely takes a dim view of such things. Alas, I shall perhaps have to acknowledge that I do not really have the courage of this conviction, even aside from the excuse of tactical considerations. Thus time and chance happen to us all.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:There is no compromise between my position and yours that does not involve one of us giving up cherished moral positions.
Emphasis mine. That's really the crux of it. Because there IS compromise between mine and Chris's positions, and Chris's and lots of other people, and mine and lots of other people. You're the odd man out here because you are UNWILLING to compromise. Only because YOU see no other possible course of action other than violence is violence the inevitable result.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That appears to be no more than a restatement of my "your position is the socially acceptable one". If the situations were reversed, and everyone thought like me or some variant thereof, then Chris (and you, presumably) would be the aggressor, the one whose position was an outlier; and I could reasonably say "it is only your unwillingness to compromise that makes violence inherent in this system." You would not find that convincing, nor should you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except the situations aren't parallel. He's not trying to force you to do anything other than not kill people. You'd be trying to force him not merely to avoid infringing on others' lives, but to give up his beliefs entirely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Since Lisa and Blackblade, and presumably other theists, would vote according to their beliefs they should be just as dangerous to you.
Well, yes; but they can at least be argued with, in that they admit the primacy of evidence. We always pose some threat to each other, by virtue of having fists and teeth if nothing else. You have to draw the line somewhere; I draw it between 'theist' and 'non-evidentiarist', while you draw it between "thinking about killing others" and "started in on the killing". Consider this question: If evidence is not important, what besides violence can move someone's position? (Discounting random, quantum fluctuations in their brain; such events are just as likely to make them rabid, unstoppable killers as to make them agree with reasonable people on facts.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: If evidence is not important, what besides violence can move someone's position?
Why is it a presumption that we must, except in certain very extreme cases where people are forcefully moving others' positions (such as by killing)?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:All your outrage is wasted on me, because I already feel its exact mirror image: How dare you hold this disgusting, immoral, relativistic belief?
Not quite. It would never occur to me to threaten violence at you to force you to think my way. And I have no problem with your existence or your evidentialism. I am alarmed at your constant reiteration of an inevitable violent future, but as long as it remains talk I have no problem with that.
quote:At the moment, your position is the socially tolerated one, and I am therefore the aggressor, the one who has to initiate violence to get his way, and consequently is restrained by tactical considerations
No, you don't. You really, really don't. You have the power of your words, you have time, you presumably have facts on your side, you presumably have others who think as you do. Keep working to convince people and maybe you'll end up with a place you can tolerate.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Except the situations aren't parallel. He's not trying to force you to do anything other than not kill people. You'd be trying to force him not merely to avoid infringing on others' lives, but to give up his beliefs entirely.
Right. I'm beginning to wonder if people are reading my posts? Am I really so unclear? Here's what I said about this:
quote:At the moment, your position is the socially tolerated one, and I am therefore the aggressor, the one who has to initiate violence to get his way,(...) I acknowledge this asymmetry between our positions, but no other (...) If society had instead been built to my specifications, you would be the one considering violence to overthrow the current order
Again, a contingent accident of history, that his and not my view is currently fashionable, does not a compelling moral argument make.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote: If evidence is not important, what besides violence can move someone's position?
Why is it a presumption that we must, except in certain very extreme cases where people are forcefully moving others' positions (such as by killing)?
Presumably you would like to move my position as expressed in this thread, or else why are you arguing? And if I had the power to reach out through my computer screen and turn your heart off, so that it was very important to un-convince me of my dangerous opinions before I did so, would you not consider using your own turn-the-heart-off button before I did?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:All your outrage is wasted on me, because I already feel its exact mirror image: How dare you hold this disgusting, immoral, relativistic belief?
Not quite. It would never occur to me to threaten violence at you to force you to think my way.
Well, no, but then again you don't need to: If I attempt to take overt action on this, why, the entire military force of the global hegemon will spring into action to stop me! (Admittedly Obama would probably not need to use nukes just for me, but still, they exist if he needs them.) I invite you once again to consider the opposite scenario where my position is the state-enforced one; you have already stated your willingness to fight to overthrow that regime.
quote:At the moment, your position is the socially tolerated one, and I am therefore the aggressor, the one who has to initiate violence to get his way, and consequently is restrained by tactical considerations
No, you don't. You really, really don't. You have the power of your words, you have time, you presumably have facts on your side, you presumably have others who think as you do. Keep working to convince people and maybe you'll end up with a place you can tolerate. [/QUOTE]
Well, you have your druthers then: Here I am talking to you. Again, I invite you to consider the contrast between someone opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that it is bad for straight marriages, and someone who just opposes it, evidence be damned. What are you going to do about the latter? Wait for him to die of old age? (A passive-aggressive use of violence if ever there was one.) What about his equally obnoxious kids? Perhaps you'll just accept the ongoing harm to gays, as the price of tolerance? Easy for you to say, happily married heterosexual that you are!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, I see. Well, there isn't anything complicated about it: You have expressed opinions which I find intolerable, and which make you rather more dangerous than the average nuclear bomb. For my own safety, I feel obliged to get you first. No steps, as such; hence my confusion.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: At the moment, your position is the socially tolerated one, and I am therefore the aggressor, the one who has to initiate violence to get his way, and consequently is restrained by tactical considerations.
You're that crazy rambling guy who gives ammunition to the theists who say stuff like "the atheists would send us all off to concentration camps if they ended up in charge"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well. Giving fair warning makes it more sporting. And anyway, you always have that good old fallback, "There's some crazy people in any movement."
Edit to add: Also, I object to 'rambling'. I feel I'm really rather concise.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Oh, I see. Well, there isn't anything complicated about it: You have expressed opinions which I find intolerable, and which make you rather more dangerous than the average nuclear bomb. For my own safety, I feel obliged to get you first. No steps, as such; hence my confusion.
KOM, I agree with you on the high importance of evidence. But I find your evidence for Chris being "more dangerous than the average nuclear bomb" far inferior to Chris' evidence that his wife feels enriched by her religion without becoming a threat to anybody. She can point to concrete things like a community, a sense of purpose, and comfort that she has received in the past and the lack of negative effects those have had on others. From my perspective, you can point to nothing about Chris that even remotely approaches the same standard of evidence. I think that your belief is based more on emotion than on evidence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh well. Giving fair warning makes it more sporting. And anyway, you always have that good old fallback, "There's some crazy people in any movement."
So you are pretty comfortable admitting that you pretty much want to do these things. That if you would have the power, you would essentially operate on and act on the principle that people who are as religious as chris should be systematically annihilated.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it is not the only asymmetry, and it is not the one I brought up. Try paying attention to what I posted (and what you posted). I said if you were in power, you would kill him, whereas you said that, if you were in power like him, he would be the one advocating violence.
Or are you now saying that if your aggressive atheist stances were dominant you would not kill off those holding theist stances (with whatever qualifications you desire), in opposition to your repeated statements that you believe they should all be killed? After all, those who are open to people believing things for no reason are currently in power, but they aren't about to kill off people who don't believe in God -- as you have repeatedly said you would if you had the power to. It is not merely an asymmetry of who is in power.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:If I attempt to take overt action on this, why, the entire military force of the global hegemon will spring into action to stop me!
I think it more likely you'd be arrested by local police or, worst case scenario, dropped by a SWAT team. And I'd be saddened to hear about it.
quote:Again, I invite you to consider the contrast between someone opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that it is bad for straight marriages, and someone who just opposes it, evidence be damned. What are you going to do about the latter? Wait for him to die of old age? (A passive-aggressive use of violence if ever there was one.) What about his equally obnoxious kids? Perhaps you'll just accept the ongoing harm to gays, as the price of tolerance? Easy for you to say, happily married heterosexual that you are!
Or work towards the acceptance - or at least tolerance - of gay marriage to speed along what is already happening. In the last ten, the last five years incredible strides have been taken toward gay marriage, and demographics suggest it's only a matter of time. I would argue that the legalization of gay marriage through attrition and cultural change would be more lasting than the forced legalization of gay marriage through overt violence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Out of curiosity, do you include people who believe in an absolute morality among those you would visit death upon?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:That if you would have the power, you would essentially operate on and act on the principle that people who are as religious as chris should be systematically annihilated.
A correction: he seems to be operating on the principle that people who are as tolerant of religious people as me should be systemically annihilated. My crime is not deciding conclusively.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, I have decided conclusively, and yet remain married to a woman who has not decided conclusively and finds comfort in squishy notions of God. As far as I can tell, despite the fact that I agree with KoM on the issue itself, he seems to think that my ability to accept a little bit of harmless squishiness makes me the enemy.
Fundamentalism is regrettable in any philosophy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think it more likely you'd be arrested by local police or, worst case scenario, dropped by a SWAT team. And I'd be saddened to hear about it.
Right, those are part of the military forces in question. Nobody says they have to use the entire Army all at once. The point is, unless I can scale up to supervillain status and actually be capable of taking on the entire army, up to and including the nukes, I'll get squashed.
quote:Out of curiosity, do you include people who believe in an absolute morality among those you would visit death upon?
Not for that belief, in itself; it depends on whether they think evidence is required for their belief.
quote:Or work towards the acceptance - or at least tolerance - of gay marriage to speed along what is already happening. In the last ten, the last five years incredible strides have been taken toward gay marriage, and demographics suggest it's only a matter of time. I would argue that the legalization of gay marriage through attrition and cultural change would be more lasting than the forced legalization of gay marriage through overt violence.
And if there were no such demographic trend, what would you do? And in particular, how will you "work towards acceptance" with someone who has said that the evidence isn't important? How can you convince such a person? Plain brainwashing?
quote:I said if you were in power, you would kill him, whereas you said that, if you were in power like him, he would be the one advocating violence.
Ok, that is an asymmetry. I'll bite that bullet; the correct moral position is not under any obligation to act the same way as incorrect ones do.
quote:But I find your evidence for Chris being "more dangerous than the average nuclear bomb" far inferior to Chris' evidence that his wife feels enriched by her religion without becoming a threat to anybody.
That's ok; we also disagree on whether or not there is evidence for the claims of Judaism. Your evaluation of evidence, honestly, carries very little weight with me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
???
Ah!
Amanecer =! Armoth
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, oops.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'll bite that bullet; the correct moral position is not under any obligation to act the same way as incorrect ones do.
I think you would be very hard-pressed to create a sound justification for claiming that the "correct" moral position requires killing people for their beliefs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why? Any number of moral codes have claimed this to be true. Just because you, personally, disagree does not mean you are right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why?
Try. He'll find all the holes in it, and there will be holes. Guaranteed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:And if there were no such demographic trend, what would you do? And in particular, how will you "work towards acceptance" with someone who has said that the evidence isn't important? How can you convince such a person? Plain brainwashing?
Again you ignore evidence to focus on what-ifs. A massive cultural change that exists in reality and is doing exactly what you claim cannot be done is too awkward to deal with, so instead let's play pretend and talk about what we would do if your position wasn't being weakened.
You can't cite anything I have done, based on my beliefs, that would prove your point other than merely existing. You can only weave tales of what might happen, so you decide -- in effect, you choose to believe without evidence of any kind -- that those what-ifs are enough to convict me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nonetheless, I am interested in knowing what you would do in my hypothetical scenario. There does not seem to be any obvious evidence that the number of non-evidentiarists is declining, so the method of waiting them out has little appeal to me.
quote:Try. He'll find all the holes in it, and there will be holes. Guaranteed.
Very well; I assert as an axiom that those who do not accept evidence as primary must be killed.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That's an assertion of your claim, not a sound justification for that claim.
I could be walking into this blind. Is King of Men trolling the forum, or is he actually this unglued?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, I don't particularly feel like playing your game where you continue to posit hypotheticals until I am forced into the answer you want to hear. A quick skim back through this thread reveals that to be your preference, and I don't feel like being sidetracked just now.
You have condemned me for a crime I might commit, without any evidence that I ever will. You chose an example which, in reality, is happening exactly the way you seem to believe it cannot. You apparently assume that every theist believes exactly the same thing in the same degree, and that by being a theist they therefore would not be swayed by evidence for any argument at all, when what's happening across the country proves that is plainly not the truth.
The only things you have proved to me is that you prejudge entire classes of people and that rather than accepting evidence as primary yourself and accepting that there are theists who do not act as you insist they must you'd rather believe in the straw men you create.
Edited to add: Oh, and that you have no problem killing anyone who doesn't think the way you do, even though that would marginalize you and weaken your arguments by associating them with a nutjob.
[ August 07, 2009, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, ok, you've convinced me. I won't have you shot for failing to live up to my standards of morality, even if I get the chance. Nonetheless, I continue to assert that you are sinning: To permit beliefs without evidence in any area, even one that rarely interacts with one's actual behaviour (perhaps especially such an area - it allows the habit to fester and grow, uncorrected by real data), is a moral failure; is in fact evil.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Fundamentalism is regrettable in any philosophy.
Words that you'd think we would have learned to live by, by now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Very well; I assert as an axiom that those who do not accept evidence as primary must be killed.
and the sound justification is where exactly?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:That's ok; we also disagree on whether or not there is evidence for the claims of Judaism.
Not that I think it will make any impact on you, but I'm an atheist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Very well; I assert as an axiom that those who do not accept evidence as primary must be killed.
and the sound justification is where exactly?
Tell you what, why don't you try the opposite trick without at some point resorting to axiom? Or alternatively, pick a hole, as you said you would.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:That's ok; we also disagree on whether or not there is evidence for the claims of Judaism.
Not that I think it will make any impact on you, but I'm an atheist.
Right, I had you confused with Armoth. That does give your assessment of the evidence greater weight, but as noted above, I've already given up on shooting people for being non-evidentiarists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Very well; I assert as an axiom that those who do not accept evidence as primary must be killed.
and the sound justification is where exactly?
Tell you what, why don't you try the opposite trick without at some point resorting to axiom? Or alternatively, pick a hole, as you said you would.
Thank you for making it evident that you can't take up the challenge.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The hole is that you said you believed things based on evidence. If it is an axiom, it is something you believe regardless of evidence. Thus making you, by your standards, evil.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The hole is that you said you believed things based on evidence. If it is an axiom, it is something you believe regardless of evidence. Thus making you, by your standards, evil.
I would venture to guess that the evidence is borne out by the application of the axiom.
Further, there's nothing inherently evil with believing in some starting premises, if the evidence of their use shows that they are indeed correct. "a+b=b+a" is both axiomatic, and can be easily shown to be true in all cases, thus providing its own evidence.
If evidence were to show an axiom is incorrect, it would cease to be an axiom.
[ August 09, 2009, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Very well; I assert as an axiom that those who do not accept evidence as primary must be killed.
and the sound justification is where exactly?
Tell you what, why don't you try the opposite trick without at some point resorting to axiom? Or alternatively, pick a hole, as you said you would.
Fail.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
MC: that's not the meaning of the word axiom. If it is an axiom, it is an assumption from which other things are derived, not a derived thing. By his own arguments, he is not allowed to make assumptions absent evidence. So he cannot fall back on an axiom when questioned about what the sound justification for his beliefs is without being hypocritical.
edit: and A+B=B+A isn't axiomatic at all under most any system of mathematics; indeed, it isn't true under many definitions of addition. It is a derived truth in certain systems where addition is defined. If you think it is an axiom, you should reassess your definition. Further, mathematical axioms are different from axioms about reality -- they are a set of conventions on which structures are built, but have no special priority over structures built on other conventions (indeed, there are many different, often mutually exclusive, sets of mathematical axioms).
[ August 09, 2009, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I *think* King of Men may have been attempting to showcase the ridiculousness of relying on a ludicrous axiom without evidence. However, the point is diluted a bit by the fact that an axiom such as "X people must be killed" and "I have a comforting belief in a God that's sufficiently vague as to be indisprovable" have wildly different effects on the world.
There are plenty of people who can rationalize their attempts at murder, and there are plenty of people with irrational beliefs that are harmless. I do think that rationality is better than irrationality, but the main thing with people who have the "vague comforting God" belief is that if you remove that from them, without replacing it with something else that is comforting in a similar way, you have deliberately weakened their quality of life. Part of the reason I gave up on arguing with a Christian friend of mine (we both liked arguing so obnoxiousness wasn't too big an issue) was that his whole life was wrapped up in his religion to the point where if I did successfully remove it he'd fall apart, and I while I take comfort in the fact that the universe does not have a purpose and we are free to find meaning however we want, that's not a philosophy that would be satisfying to him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have been quite careful to distinguish moral and factual beliefs. Moral beliefs at some point boil down to primate instinct, or axiom, or something else un-provable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I have been quite careful to distinguish moral and factual beliefs. Moral beliefs at some point boil down to primate instinct, or axiom, or something else un-provable.
"Factual" beliefs also at some point boil down to axioms or something else un-provable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I disagree, as you well know.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Okay, but what's your evidence for your disagreement? Can you prove that all "Factual" beliefs can be proven without relying on any axiom or un-provable thing?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Factual beliefs tend to rely on axioms such as "my senses are reasonably accurate," which, even if false, would make the navigating the world completely impossible if we didn't assume.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: edit: and A+B=B+A isn't axiomatic at all under most any system of mathematics; indeed, it isn't true under many definitions of addition. It is a derived truth in certain systems where addition is defined.
I stopped at college Calc, so I don't claim to be a math expert by any means. Now you have me curious though - what are some examples in which A+B=/=B+A, and from which axioms is it derived?
I couldn't remember the exact name (commutative law) so I checked around to make sure I wasn't completely full of hot air.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I can't offhand think of a case where addition, that is, "whatever operation the mathematicians decide to denote by +", does not commute. I think that as a rule of thumb, they only use the + symbol for operations which do commute; if they find themselves looking at something which doesn't, they're more inclined to use *, or perhaps the plus-in-a-circle that I can't easily get on this forum. This is only an impression from outside the field, though.
In matrix multiplication AB!=BA in general. And that comes right from the definition of matrix multiplication; you can see it yourself by populating two 2x2 matrices with some randomly picked integers (small ones!) and multiplying by hand.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
A more geometrical example of non-commutative addition:
In R^2 i.e. the Cartesian plane it's obvious that if you go up by 3 then across by 2 it is the same as going across by 2 and then up by 3 i.e. the operation of adding "paths" commutes. However, as you move from Euclidean space to a manifold and generalize the notion of paths appropriately this commutativity does not in general hold.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, commutativity of addition is the most common by far, just not the rule. However, it is most commonly not axiomatic, but derived.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
String concatenation is the first common example using '+' that comes to my mind that is non-commutative. I may have to ponder to think of a second common one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think it would be hard to make it axiomatic; once you've defined a particular operation, how does it make sense to say "Also, for all [A, B], A+B=B+A"? Either there's a counterexample or there isn't. Would you just throw out the counterexamples as not proper additions? That would likely lead to throwing out closure as well. ; at most, you might be unable to prove it either way, and say "Well, what happens if we assume commutation?" I can see where you might prove interesting things about the set for which a given operation does commute, although intuitively I would expect such sets to be small (possibly even measure zero) compared to the sets on which an operation is well defined.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you take a look at MC's link, that's one way to define addition via axioms that include a commutativity axiom. You'll see that derivation if you take a good real analysis class.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Right; once a concrete operation has been given its commutativity is derived. A lot of math has been done assuming that the law of composition of a group is commutative (therefore using '+' to represent said operation) without actually specifying said operation. This approach has great utility for generality of result.
To KoM's last point - the 'center' of a group is the set of elements which commute with all elements of a group; and it is an object of interest in group theory.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Factual beliefs tend to rely on axioms such as "my senses are reasonably accurate," which, even if false, would make the navigating the world completely impossible if we didn't assume.
That still means that factual beliefs are based on unprovable axioms.
It should also be noted that many factual beliefs are complicated enough that they require far more questionable axioms than "my senses are reasonably accurate". For instance, you can't simply observe with your senses that George Washington was our first president - that factual belief requires axioms that allow you trust things you have heard from other people and/or speculate based on historical artifacts. And then there's far more complicated factual beliefs like "Investing in stocks will bring me more money in the long run than investing in bonds", or "My friend is lying to me when he says he likes his mother-in-law", or "Health care is inefficient in America"...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If you take a look at MC's link, that's one way to define addition via axioms that include a commutativity axiom. You'll see that derivation if you take a good real analysis class.
If you aren't willing to agree that an axiom is actually an axiom, I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied in this discussion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It should also be noted that many factual beliefs are complicated enough that they require far more questionable axioms than "my senses are reasonably accurate". For instance, you can't simply observe with your senses that George Washington was our first president - that factual belief requires axioms that allow you trust things you have heard from other people and/or speculate based on historical artifacts. And then there's far more complicated factual beliefs like "Investing in stocks will bring me more money in the long run than investing in bonds", or "My friend is lying to me when he says he likes his mother-in-law", or "Health care is inefficient in America"...
None of those are axioms, they are all judgements based on experience, which rests on the axiom of "my senses are reasonably accurate." Which is far more agreed upon than "God exists."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't clear about something; A+B=B+A, in abstract, is no more an axiom than anything else. There are some systems where it is an axiom (especially as absolutely anything can be an axiom, so one could always create a system if one desired). However, it is a bad example of an axiom, especially without reference to which system we are talking about, since it is frequently not one. Furthermore, in cases where it is an axiom, it cannot "be shown to be true" without either assuming it, or without assuming another axiom which then makes the original A+B=B+A case true regardless of being an axiom, thus making it useless as an axiom.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In other words, we can't really ever know anything, because you can always argue that we don't really know one of the foundations upon which we are basing some other knowledge.
No point in discussing anything, since we can't even be sure what words mean. In English this sentence has meaning, but I can come up with examples where it's meaningless, so I've just proven myself wrong.
I think I just won the Internet!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's not what fugu said at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If you take a look at MC's link, that's one way to define addition via axioms that include a commutativity axiom. You'll see that derivation if you take a good real analysis class.
If you aren't willing to agree that an axiom is actually an axiom, I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied in this discussion.
A statement which is an axiom in one system is not necessarily an axiom of another system; it can be a theorem, it can be false, it can be unprovable, and its negation can be an axiom. You have apparently found a system in which 'addition commutes' is, indeed, an axiom; this says nothing about other systems. In Peano arithmetic, for example, I believe it's a theorem.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I wasn't clear about something; A+B=B+A, in abstract, is no more an axiom than anything else. There are some systems where it is an axiom (especially as absolutely anything can be an axiom, so one could always create a system if one desired). However, it is a bad example of an axiom, especially without reference to which system we are talking about, since it is frequently not one. Furthermore, in cases where it is an axiom, it cannot "be shown to be true" without either assuming it, or without assuming another axiom which then makes the original A+B=B+A case true regardless of being an axiom, thus making it useless as an axiom.
In the example given it is basically a convenient short cut. To actually do the work of extending the integers to rationals and rationals to reals and also extending the concretely defined notion of addition on the integers is a huge amount of work with little pay-off: everyone already basically knows how to add and (more or less) what real numbers are. If your first analysis course was anything like mine about 3 mins will be used mentioning Dedekind cuts and then you will be told to read the appendix to chapter one if interested. This axiomatization works because not only has someone proved that the familiar notion of addition is consistent with these properties, but that it is also uniquely defined by these properties. Notice that these properties don't provide a concrete way of actually adding two numbers.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm fairly certain that this is now arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'll bow out.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I, at least, was arguing to correct your understanding, apparently faulty, of what an axiom means in mathematics.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:None of those are axioms, they are all judgements based on experience, which rests on the axiom of "my senses are reasonably accurate." Which is far more agreed upon than "God exists."
That only works if you are being fuzzy with the reasoning. One can just as easily say that "God exists" is a judgment based on experience, and thus that it also is derived from the axiom that "my senses are reasonably accurate". Similarly, you can say that moral claims are also judgments based on experience. You could count anything as something you "sensed" to be true, and thus use that axiom to support it.
However, if by senses you really only mean what you see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, then I think you are going to be very very hard pressed to derive predictions of the stock market solely from the axiom that "your senses are reasonably accurate" without any additional axioms. You can't directly observe a stock after all - even in the present, much less the future. You have to rely on some authority to tell you current and past prices, etc. Then you'd have to assume the future is going to be similar to past trends. And so on.
Most "factual" beliefs are based on many different unprovable assumptions in a similar fashion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
When you read a newspaper or a website telling you current and past stock prices, you are basing that off of experience that such things are usually accurate. You know this because you may have seen them corroborated in the past, or because a large number of people have reported to you that they were accurate for them. You assume the future will be similar to the past because you've watched the future be similar to the past over and over again throughout your entire life.
And sometimes, this all still turns out to wrong. Sometimes it turns out you were reading the Weekly World News and the bat baby wasn't really born last week. Sometimes the website is out of date. And when that happens, people generally go "oh" and change their minds. The things I consider myself "certain of" to the degree that I can be certain about anything are things I have studied extensively and seen firsthand, or read about from a wide variety of sources that I have other reasons to believe are trustworthy.
And even then, I keep in the back of my mind that I could be wrong. I was careful to say "my senses are reasonably accurate," not that they are perfect. You have to constantly be on the lookout for competing evidence that shows you when your perceptions of the world are off. (And yes, I'm including things like the sensation of emotion.)
Religious beliefs often ARE based on experience, either through strong, sudden emotional changes or seeing lots of "meaningful patterns" in the world. The problem is that these things are only good evidence if you're ignoring vast other swaths of data, such as the fact that plenty of people go through the same powerful religious experiences for reasons completely unrelated to religion or related to religions that are diametrically opposed to your own. Or the fact that statistically, the "mysterious patterns" are almost guaranteed to appear to anyone who looks for them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The problem is that these things are only good evidence if you're ignoring vast other swaths of data
Nope.
But please continue to tell me what I'm doing. It's a large part of what has made Hatrack into the vibrant, happy, thriving community it is today!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But please continue to tell me what I'm doing. It's a large part of what has made Hatrack into the vibrant, happy, thriving community it is today!
mmm, throes
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
What's the point of responding like that?
edit: @rivka
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Factual beliefs tend to rely on axioms such as "my senses are reasonably accurate," which, even if false, would make the navigating the world completely impossible if we didn't assume.
That still means that factual beliefs are based on unprovable axioms.
It should also be noted that many factual beliefs are complicated enough that they require far more questionable axioms than "my senses are reasonably accurate". For instance, you can't simply observe with your senses that George Washington was our first president - that factual belief requires axioms that allow you trust things you have heard from other people and/or speculate based on historical artifacts. And then there's far more complicated factual beliefs like "Investing in stocks will bring me more money in the long run than investing in bonds", or "My friend is lying to me when he says he likes his mother-in-law", or "Health care is inefficient in America"...
What axioms are required to believe that George Washington is the first president? It seems to me that once you have enough axioms for logical reasoning then you're set.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:It should also be noted that many factual beliefs are complicated enough that they require far more questionable axioms than "my senses are reasonably accurate". For instance, you can't simply observe with your senses that George Washington was our first president - that factual belief requires axioms that allow you trust things you have heard from other people and/or speculate based on historical artifacts. And then there's far more complicated factual beliefs like "Investing in stocks will bring me more money in the long run than investing in bonds", or "My friend is lying to me when he says he likes his mother-in-law", or "Health care is inefficient in America"...
None of those are axioms, they are all judgements based on experience, which rests on the axiom of "my senses are reasonably accurate." Which is far more agreed upon than "God exists."
I don't think it is agreed upon at all. If you take it as an axiom that "[your] senses are reasonably accurate" then that means that there is no evidence that could convince you otherwise.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The problem is that these things are only good evidence if you're ignoring vast other swaths of data
Nope.
But please continue to tell me what I'm doing. It's a large part of what has made Hatrack into the vibrant, happy, thriving community it is today!
Are your experiences different than the two that I had just described? If they are, what are they? (Most of the religious experience I've had described to me fell into one of those two categories), and if they are, how exactly do you distinguish them from perfectly mundane human experiences.
I've had an experience that I'd describe as revelatory regarding Zoroastrianism. I've had moments when I suddenly found a part of my life to become very important, helping me through a difficult time, and soon afterwards I started finding patterns of messages everywhere I looked. (The part of my life in question? Gaming). I often talk to myself using imaginary versions of my friends as sounding boards, and eventually, as I got to know my friends better, I reached a point where I'd imagine them responding realistically. (Early on, if I was mentally going through an argument with a friend, I'd always pretend I won the argument, later on if I imagined saying one thing, I'd immediately think of the sort of logic my friend would respond with). If I had substituted God for real friends and had people telling me from birth that the person I was talking to was real, I have no doubt that I could have developed an imaginary relationship with him, regardless of whether or not he really existed.
Every piece of the "God experience" that's been described to me, I've experienced at some point in my life, just not necessarily related to God. If each of those experiences had been religious in nature and had happened in the right order, the evidence in favor of religion would have appeared very compelling, but in the end would be no more real than the mental simulacra of my friends that I talk to.
So unless you either have additional experiences that cannot possibly have been driven by anything other than supernatural forces, or can explain how to distinguishing between your experiences and what mine would have been if they were more religiously oriented (I grew up in a largely secular environment so I didn't have as much opportunity such spiritual ideas to sink into my subconcious), I don't see a reason to take your beliefs seriously. And while I don't see a reason you should change them if you're happy and not hurting anyone (I was on Chris' side in the King of Men/Chris' Wife debate) I do think you are choosing happiness over truth. Not inherently bad, but worth pondering.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Rather than attempt to reproduce the argument, I'll just link to this article. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you think I am going to discuss personal experiences -- particularly religious ones -- on the current incarnation of Hatrack, you are deluded.
quote:I've experienced at some point in my life, just not necessarily related to God.
And you know that how?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you think I am going to discuss personal experiences -- particularly religious ones -- on the current incarnation of Hatrack, you are deluded.
In all seriousness, why would you mind? It's not like you care what, say, KoM thinks of you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why would I spend the time or the energy?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If you think I am going to discuss personal experiences -- particularly religious ones -- on the current incarnation of Hatrack, you are deluded.
I definitely do not blame you there. I didn't really mean to get into an argument with you - everything I've seen you post has been well thought out and respectful. I assume that you've put enough thought into your religious beliefs that they are satisfying for you, but if you are going to be participating in a religious debate thread, well, obviously your beliefs are going to come under scrutiny. I don't think there was anything particularly unreasonable about my post that set off this particular sub-debate. I stated how most of human beliefs boil down to a particular axiom and why many of the religious mindsets that have been described to me do not follow well from that axiom. I have no idea what your mindset actually is and I apologize if you felt unfairly judged
quote:
quote:I've experienced at some point in my life, just not necessarily related to God.
And you know that how? [/qb]
I think I explained that pretty clearly in my previous post. Everything that I've heard other people describe about their religious experiences matched up perfectly with how I would have described experiences I myself have went through. I know that my experiences are heavily influenced by my own life, which revolves around storytelling and games, and I think it's fair to assume that if my life revolved heavily around religion, the experiences would have as well. And if they had been constantly reinforced by a community telling me they were real, I certainly would not have been able to tell the difference between a "false" religious experience and a true one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you think I am going to discuss personal experiences -- particularly religious ones -- on the current incarnation of Hatrack, you are deluded.
In all seriousness, why would you mind? It's not like you care what, say, KoM thinks of you.
Tom: I believe we had a pretty extensive discussion as to why deep meaningful religious experiences often cannot be discussed with people with whom the teller does not have a relationship of trust with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that rivka, as far as I know, does not share the Mormon belief that something spiritual can be cheapened by sharing it with mockers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I definitely do not blame you there. I didn't really mean to get into an argument with you - everything I've seen you post has been well thought out and respectful.
Thank you.
quote:I think I explained that pretty clearly in my previous post.
Perhaps I was unclear. You did not initially say religion; you said God. Leaving aside for the moment what the relationship between those two is or ought to be, what if those experiences were actually interactions with God that you have explained in other ways? How can you know? (This is a serious question. I realize it may seem like a leading one.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except that rivka, as far as I know, does not share the Mormon belief that something spiritual can be cheapened by sharing it with mockers.
In my case, it's more like: I have finite time and energy. I spend way too much of it online anyway. Why would I invest more when I know precisely how useless it would be?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except that rivka, as far as I know, does not share the Mormon belief that something spiritual can be cheapened by sharing it with mockers.
Oh I don't think that principle is germane to mormonism Tom. I'm fairly certain we both agreed that is was a possibility that when a person shares deeply personal convictions to an audience of uncharitable skeptics that the result can be to the hearers detriment.
Not attempting to be disparaging to skepticism per se.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To the extent that having your beliefs demolished is unpleasant, yes, that can be detrimental; but since they are not in fact true, you should welcome that unpleasantness. It's better to rip off the mistakes in one big OOPS than to hang on to them for years and only gradually lose faith. Beliefs which are actually true do not need to be shielded from either criticism or mockery; they can stand both the light of day and the laughter of the ignorant. When you hide the reasons for your inmost beliefs, that's a danger signal; if your brain were evolved to do actual rationality as opposed to running away from tigers, you would be doing the equivalent of moving your head back and forth, breathing deeply through your nose. "Hmm," you would say to yourself, "is there a whiff of tiger in the air? Perhaps I'd better get my spear." Unfortunately we are descended from the ones who could smell tigers, not from the ones who could spot a defensive reaction in themselves.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Perhaps I was unclear. You did not initially say religion; you said God. Leaving aside for the moment what the relationship between those two is or ought to be, what if those experiences were actually interactions with God that you have explained in other ways? How can you know? (This is a serious question. I realize it may seem like a leading one.)
It's possible that my Zoroastrian experience was a message from God. I did seriously consider the possibility at the time, since Zoroastrianism is a far more plausible religion to me than most other monotheistic variants. I gave Ormazed a few days to clarify anything. I got nothing. Given that even if I HAD gotten something, I still wouldn't be able to distinguish that from similar experiences people have had from mutually exclusive religions, I decided that was the last I was going to worry about it. If God had ever wanted to communicate with me, that was the last chance he was going to have to do so.
As for my other experiences, well, I doubt God is going to try and communicate with me via card games and imaginary friends. And if he is, it's not my fault that I have a hard time noticing his presence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What axioms are required to believe that George Washington is the first president? It seems to me that once you have enough axioms for logical reasoning then you're set.
The minimum would be an axiom stating that some source X is trustworthy, a second axiom stating that some sense Y is trustworthy, and a third observation that sense Y told you that source X says George Washington was the first President. Y might be something like "my eyes" and X might be something like "a history book". But if you wanted to actually do research to verify the things said in the history book, that would require further axioms allowing you to establish that historical pieces of evidence exist and imply the things we assume they imply. You could use the "trust your senses" axiom to establish the existence of such evidence, but that would not allow you to deduce what the evidence implies - for that you'd need more assumptions.
"Factual" beliefs rely on assumptions and axioms no less than moral beliefs. That's because moral beliefs are a type of factual belief, rather than a separate sort of thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Those aren't minimal axioms at all. Trustworthiness is almost always an earned condition, and in such cases by definition not axiomatic (being based on evidence).
edit: and the trustworthiness could be earned from consistency of experience. The entire construction can thus rest only on the reliability of the senses, which is a more minimal set.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Senses can't observe the past (or the future). You can't use senses to logically establish the trustworthiness of a source about events that took place well before you were born - not without other assumptions or axioms from which to draw that conclusion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If trustworthiness is enough as an axiom, then trustworthiness based on consistency of sensory experience is enough as well. You didn't have any axioms about the past in what you incorrectly described as your minimal set.
If you like, we can add an axiom about reality being generally consistent. Since one's senses can certainly tell one what one currently perceives as having happened in one's own past, that's definitely enough to build trustworthiness on.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I didn't have any axioms about the past in the minimal set because I skipped over proving the trustworthiness of source X. I simply made the trustworthiness of source X an unproven axiom. I had to do that to cut it to so few axioms.
I suppose if we wanted to be really absurd, we could prove it with one axiom, if that axiom was "George Washington was the first president". P therefore P. That would be one assumption only. Simply asserting the conclusion as an axiom is always a quick way to "prove" the conclusion.
As for the axiom "reality is generally consistent"... If our premises are: 1) Senses are generally trustworthy 2) Reality is generally consistent I think it would be many many steps before we could go from there to "George Washington was the first President" and would require other axioms along the way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: To the extent that having your beliefs demolished is unpleasant, yes, that can be detrimental; but since they are not in fact true, you should welcome that unpleasantness. It's better to rip off the mistakes in one big OOPS than to hang on to them for years and only gradually lose faith. Beliefs which are actually true do not need to be shielded from either criticism or mockery; they can stand both the light of day and the laughter of the ignorant. When you hide the reasons for your inmost beliefs, that's a danger signal; if your brain were evolved to do actual rationality as opposed to running away from tigers, you would be doing the equivalent of moving your head back and forth, breathing deeply through your nose. "Hmm," you would say to yourself, "is there a whiff of tiger in the air? Perhaps I'd better get my spear." Unfortunately we are descended from the ones who could smell tigers, not from the ones who could spot a defensive reaction in themselves.
You'll note in my previous post I said "to the hearers" detriment not to the tellers.
Here's a link to the discussion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I sit corrected.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think it would be many many steps before we could go from there to "George Washington was the first President" and would require other axioms along the way.
It's certainly a huge number of steps (trusting teachers based on past experience, trusting newspapers and books based on cross referencing and the fact that having a bunch of books conspiratorily leading you to believing some random guy was president when he really wasn't would be kinda silly). But no, it doesn't require any more axioms. Bearing in mind that when people say "George Washington was the first president" what they're generally really saying is "as far as I know, based on the evidence available, George Washington was most likely the first president." In the case of George Washington the evidence is fairly overwhelming and even if it turned out to somehow be a lie, it would a kinda weird one to be propagating, so it would take an awful lot of counter-evidence to assume otherwise.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's certainly a huge number of steps (trusting teachers based on past experience, trusting newspapers and books based on cross referencing and the fact that having a bunch of books conspiratorily leading you to believing some random guy was president when he really wasn't would be kinda silly). But no, it doesn't require any more axioms. Bearing in mind that when people say "George Washington was the first president" what they're generally really saying is "as far as I know, based on the evidence available, George Washington was most likely the first president."
So how is this fundamentally different from how it is for moral beliefs? When I say killing is wrong, what I'm really saying "As far as I know, based on the evidence available, killing is most likely wrong." It might take many steps, including trusting teachers based on past experience, trusting books based on cross referencing, etc., but you could end up justifying that moral claim through the same process.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The difference is in the quality of the axiom. Have you really never had a discussion of first principles before?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The same axiom is being used: "Senses are trustworthy."
Raymond is suggesting that we can use our senses to observe that sources are trustworthy, and then based on that conclude those sources are likely telling the truth when they agree George Washington was the first president. We can do the exact same thing if we establish sources are trustworthy using our senses, and then based on that conclude those sources are likely correct when they agree that killing is wrong.
I don't agree that all of that is possible from just the one axiom, but if it IS possible in the way being suggested, it works for moral beliefs in the same way it does for "factual" beliefs.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, I'm not sure what the original argument actually was. One can (and people have) derived moral frameworks from the "my senses are reasonably accurate and reality is consistent" axiom.
My point was that "my senses are reasonably accurate and reality is consistent" is a far more universally accepted axiom than "my interpretation of God exists and his word is moral law."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: what other axiom might be required? Can you give a specific step in the process that another axiom would be required at?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Raymond, My original argument was in response to KoM who said: "I have been quite careful to distinguish moral and factual beliefs. Moral beliefs at some point boil down to primate instinct, or axiom, or something else un-provable." He said "factual" beliefs don't rely on unprovable axioms. I argued that they do, and that moral beliefs are simply a type of factual belief. So the argument is really about whether moral beliefs are fundamentally different in the way they are justified than other "factual" beliefs.
Fugu, Let's say I have a bunch of bills signed by George Washington that could serve as evidence. My senses, if I trust them, can tell me that those bills exist and have a George Washington signature on them. However, I can't infer anything about history from those bills without another axiom (or more) - my senses cannot even say whether or not they all simply popped into existence at this particular moment. In order to take the step from "I have a bunch of bills that have a George Washington signature in front of me" to "George Washington signed these bills in the late 1700s" I'd need a premise my senses can't provide.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: In order to take the step from "I have a bunch of bills that have a George Washington signature in front of me" to "George Washington signed these bills in the late 1700s" I'd need a premise my senses can't provide.
You can account for any uncertainty that you have by assigning a probability to your belief. Ex: I'm 70% sure that "George Washington signed these bills in the late 1700s". Practically speaking we can't calculate these probabilities but they're there implicitly (normally we speak in terms of "how sure" we are rather than using actual numbers).
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Don't "factual beliefs" and "moral beliefs" differ in type- independent of why or how I come to believe that George Washington was president, he either was president or not i.e. there is an underlying fact of the matter. On the other hand, moral beliefs, to the extent that they are decoupled from one's culture/environment/religion, tend to be centered on some premise (e.g. a moral action is one that maximizes happiness). However, unlike in the "factual" case, I don't think such premises can be meaningfully assigned a truth value.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Raymond, My original argument was in response to KoM who said: "I have been quite careful to distinguish moral and factual beliefs. Moral beliefs at some point boil down to primate instinct, or axiom, or something else un-provable." He said "factual" beliefs don't rely on unprovable axioms. I argued that they do, and that moral beliefs are simply a type of factual belief. So the argument is really about whether moral beliefs are fundamentally different in the way they are justified than other "factual" beliefs.
Fugu, Let's say I have a bunch of bills signed by George Washington that could serve as evidence. My senses, if I trust them, can tell me that those bills exist and have a George Washington signature on them. However, I can't infer anything about history from those bills without another axiom (or more) - my senses cannot even say whether or not they all simply popped into existence at this particular moment. In order to take the step from "I have a bunch of bills that have a George Washington signature in front of me" to "George Washington signed these bills in the late 1700s" I'd need a premise my senses can't provide.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: I have seen bills before, and they have existed over a period of time (per my senses, which I can axiomatically trust). Per reality being consistent, these bills have also existed over a period of time. No other axioms needed.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
All I know is that I like the idea of being able to smell tigers.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You can account for any uncertainty that you have by assigning a probability to your belief. Ex: I'm 70% sure that "George Washington signed these bills in the late 1700s". Practically speaking we can't calculate these probabilities but they're there implicitly (normally we speak in terms of "how sure" we are rather than using actual numbers).
How would you logically deduce such a probability without an axiom stating that you can do so?
quote:Tres: I have seen bills before, and they have existed over a period of time (per my senses, which I can axiomatically trust). Per reality being consistent, these bills have also existed over a period of time. No other axioms needed.
Firstly, you'd need an assumption saying you can trust your memory as well as your senses, in order to say you've seen bills before (unless we are counting memory as part of our senses, which is questionable, given memory is often less trustworthy). Secondly, if we accept "reality being consistent" and "I've seen bills before existing over a period of time", I don't think that by itself allows us to logically deduce that the George Washington bills existed 200 years ago. For instance, we don't know that the bills we saw before have the same properties as the George Washington bills, unless we assume similar things have similar properties, or something along those lines. I've also seen faked documents, raising the question of how we can assume these particular bills are real and not faked.
That's how even simple "factual" beliefs end up requiring a complicated array of assumptions.
quote:Don't "factual beliefs" and "moral beliefs" differ in type- independent of why or how I come to believe that George Washington was president, he either was president or not i.e. there is an underlying fact of the matter. On the other hand, moral beliefs, to the extent that they are decoupled from one's culture/environment/religion, tend to be centered on some premise (e.g. a moral action is one that maximizes happiness). However, unlike in the "factual" case, I don't think such premises can be meaningfully assigned a truth value.
Why not? I think the 9/11 attacks were wrong; I believe I understand the meaning when I assign a truth value to that statement.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not at all. I have current experiences of my memory via some sort of sense, so that's handled by my senses being trustworthy (as I already mentioned).
And I merely dealt with the specific issue you brought up. Do you have another issue that would be brought up? I should think it would be quite obvious at this point how to first deduce the likely existence of things 200 years ago, then start filling in the details. For instance, sensing the existence of written records, then testing various sorts against more direct uses of the senses, et cetera.
None of that "similar things have similar properties" silliness is needed; it is completely handled by noticing via the senses (which are trustworthy) that similar things have similar properties, then extending it to other things via the consistency axiom.
Where is another axiom needed?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I wasn't clear about something; A+B=B+A, in abstract, is no more an axiom than anything else.
A+B=B+A in abstract is really just cloying swedish pop.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:You can account for any uncertainty that you have by assigning a probability to your belief. Ex: I'm 70% sure that "George Washington signed these bills in the late 1700s". Practically speaking we can't calculate these probabilities but they're there implicitly (normally we speak in terms of "how sure" we are rather than using actual numbers).
How would you logically deduce such a probability without an axiom stating that you can do so?
Of course you need an axiom for that. However, the axiom doesn't have to be remotely related to George Washington.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Don't "factual beliefs" and "moral beliefs" differ in type- independent of why or how I come to believe that George Washington was president, he either was president or not i.e. there is an underlying fact of the matter. On the other hand, moral beliefs, to the extent that they are decoupled from one's culture/environment/religion, tend to be centered on some premise (e.g. a moral action is one that maximizes happiness). However, unlike in the "factual" case, I don't think such premises can be meaningfully assigned a truth value.
Why not? I think the 9/11 attacks were wrong; I believe I understand the meaning when I assign a truth value to that statement.
That the 9/11 attacks occurred is "factual belief". That these attacks were wrong is an a posteriori value judgment based on some moral theory. It is the underpinnings of this moral theory that I was speaking of.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There's an obvious difference between
"I think X is wrong" - a statement of fact about my own mind, to be believed or not on grounds such as "my senses are reliable" and "this person has rarely lied about beliefs to my knowledge"
and
"X is wrong" - a statement about morality, to be derived or not from axioms such as "Pain is bad" or "God commands A, B and C".
Clearly the first implies that you believe the second, and hence they are often used interchangeably, but for discussing the is-ought question, that sort of sloppiness will not do; precision is needed.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)